HomeMy WebLinkAbout070220 SR CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: February 20, 2007
CASE NO: ZOA 07-01
REQUEST: Recommendation of approval to the City Council of an amendment to
Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Chapter 25.86
Public Hearings.
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of December 14, 2006 the City Council discussed possible changes to the
HPR zone. Key issues related to public hearing noticing requirements, building size and
lot coverage and ridge-top development. The City Council directed staff to initiate the
zoning ordinance amendment for the HPR zone.
CURRENT PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE (25.86 PUBLIC HEARINGS):
The current code requires that notice of hearing be given not less than ten days nor more
than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city, and mailing notices to all persons whose names appear on the latest
adopted tax roll of Riverside County as owning property within three hundred feet of the
exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing.
CURRENT BUILDING SIZE AND LOT COVERAGE:
The current HPR zone allows the following development standards:
Density: One (1) unit per five (5) acres.
Grading: Building Pad Area-maximum of 10,000 square feet. Access Road/Driveway-
maximum of 3,000 square feet.
Maximum Total dwelling unit with garage and accessory building shall not exceed
Dwelling 4,000 square feet.
Size:
Exceptions: Standards of Section 25.15.030 A, B, and C may be modified by the precise
plan of design, taking into consideration any and all circumstances,
including, but not limited to, viewshed, topography, color, texture, and profile
of any structure that the Planning Commission or City Council may approve.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 07-01
FEBRUARY, 20 2007
CURRENT RIDGE-TOP DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS:
At this time the NPR ordinance has no specific language relating to ridge-top
development.
11. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
Public Notices (Chapter 25.86):
The existing public notice procedure involves publishing a notice in the Desert Sun and
mailing notices to property owners within 300-feet of the project perimeter. Hillside homes
often have great distances between properties that they have a direct line of sight with.
For that reason it is suggested that the public hearing noticing be amended to add a
section specific to the hillside area which will change the 300-foot requirement to 1,000
feet beyond the first developed residence within the line of sight of the property and
noticing all homeowners associations south of Haystack Road.
Building Size Limitation:
The hillside lots within the Canyons at Bighorn were approved and graded pursuant to the
pre-2004 hillside amendment that allowed pads of 30,000 square feet and more in areas
of moderate slopes. There were no specific house size limitations other than constraints
of pad size and architectural review. The current HPR zone as amended in 2004 allows a
maximum of 4,000 square feet of living space based on 40% coverage of the maximum
disturbed pad area of 10,000 square feet.
The proposed amendment would restore the relationship between pad and house size for
existing lots approved and graded under the old code. These lots would be subject to the
standard R-1 coverage limitation of 35% up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission
approval. The City Council can call these cases up for review as necessary. These
homes would not need to apply for size exceptions pursuant to the current section
25.15.030D. Any request to enlarge an existing pad would trigger the exception provision
and associated public hearing process (Planning Commission & City Council).
Ridge-Top Development:
Most of the City's remaining hillside areas involve ridges or steep canyons. To protect
ridges from development it is recommended that we add the following specific language to
25.15.010.
(D) Development on or across prominent ridges is prohibited. Pad elevations
and architectural design shall be set so that rooflines are not visible above
existing ridgelines.
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 07-01
FEBRUARY, 20 2007
III. ANALYSIS:
The City Council direction from its December 14, 2006 meeting was to prepare an
ordinance that provided better public hearing notice for hillside homes, restored the
relationship between pad and house size for existing lots and prohibit developing on top of
mountain ridges.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of said amendments to
the City Council.
IV. CEQA REVIEW AND AB 2292 COMPLIANCE:
Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist Form and Initial Study responses. Based
on this review, staff concludes that the proposed code amendment as recommended will
not have a significant impact on the environment and certification of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
That Case No. ZOA 07-01, be recommended to the City Council for approval.
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
C. Comments from city departments and other agencies
D. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by:
i
Ryan ender St e Smith
Assistant Planner Acting Director of Community
Development
Review and Appr ed:
4 L
Homer Cro
ACM Developm Services
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERS 25.15 HILLSIDE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (HPR) AND 25.86 PUBLIC
HEARINGS AS THEY RELATE TO PUBLIC HEARING
REQUIREMENTS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
RIDGE-TOP DEVELOPMENT.
CASE NO. ZOA 07-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 20th day of February, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapters 25.15 and 25.86 as
described above; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 06-78," in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its
recommendation as described below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected specific plans.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public
health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1 That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the Commission in this case.
2. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached,
be recommended for certification to the City Council.
3. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in
the attached Exhibit "B" to amend Municipal Code Chapters 25.15 and
25.86.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of February, 2007, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SONIA CAMPBELL, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Steve Smith, Acting Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER
EXHIBIT "A"
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: ZOA 07-01
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Approve an amendment to Chapters 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) and
25.86 Public Hearings as they relate to public hearing requirements, development
standards and ridge-top development.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in
support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
STEVE SMITH DATE
ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER
EXHIBIT B
Chapter 25.86
PUBLIC HEARINGS
That the following provision be added to Section 25.86.010 (Hearing time and notice)
D. Development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone shall
provide notice of a public hearing not less than 10 days nor more than 30
days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in the newspaper of
general circulation in the City, and mailing notices to people whose name
appear on the latest adopted tax rolls of Riverside County as owning
property within 1,000 ft. of the nearest developed residence within line of
site of the subject property and notification of all homeowners associations
within the City south of Haystack Road.
Chapter 25.15
HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
That the following section be added to chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential
District.
25.15.015 Definitions.
Hillside Ridge-Line- A ridge-line that is formed by the juncture of two (2) or
more sloping planes that projects outward from a mountain range and
descends to the valley floor.
That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.010 (Purpose)
D. Development on or across prominent ridges is prohibited. Pad elevations
and architectural design shall be set so that rooflines are not visible above
existing ridgelines.
That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.030 (Development Standards)
E. Previously approved existing pads shall be subject to the standard
coverage limitations of 35% and may be increased up to 50% with
Architectural Review Commission approval.
4
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO.ZOA 07-01
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance chapter 25.15(Hillside Planned
Residential) and 25.86 (Public Hearings) as they relate to ridge-top development, noticing
requirements, exemptions section and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it
relates thereto.
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 20"',at 6:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber
at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which
time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments
concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the
hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for
review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in
court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at,or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun Steve Smith, Acting Secretary
February 10, 2007 Palm Desert Planning Commission
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor And City Council
FROM: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
DATE: December 14, 2006
REQUEST: Initiation of Amendment to Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.16 Hillside
Planned Residential District.
I. RECOMMENDATION:
By minute motion initiate amendments to Chapter 25.15 relating to public hearing
notification, building size and lot coverage, and ridge top development as proposed in the
following discussion.
if. DISCUSSION:
The review of recent hillside home cases revealed the need to amend the current
ordinance in the areas of public notice, home size limitation for lots approved prior to the
2004 code amendment and the regulation of development on ridge tops.
7. Public Notices:
The existing citywide public notice procedure involves publishing in the Desert Sun
and mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the project perimeter. in the
Hagadone case, notices were not sent to Ironwood residents since they were
1,400 feet from the project. While the 300-foot standard is adequate in most
cases, line of sight characteristics of hillside homes require a unique formula.
The proposed amendment would require a detailed graphic line of sight analysis in
all directions. The noticing area would extend a specified distance(i.e. 500-1,000,
etc.) beyond the first developed residence within the line of sight area. HOA's
would automatically get noticed. The attached aerial photo of the
Bighorn/Ironwood area illustrates which residents would have been notified forthe
Hagadone house depending on varying distances. Since notifying everyone within
the line of sight could involve the entire city, it is recommended that the 1,000-foot
distance plus associated HOA's be adopted as a reasonable compromise.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO.
December 14, 2006
2. Building Size Limitation:
The hillside lots within the Canyons at Bighorn were approved and graded
pursuant to the pre-2004 Hillside Ordinance that allowed for larger pads in excess
of 30,000 square feet in areas with moderate slopes. There were no specific
house size limitations other than the constraints of pad size and architectural
review. The current code limits total building area including garages and
accessory structures to 4,000 square feet based on 40% coverage of the
maximum disturbed pad area of 10,000 square feet. The 4,000 square foot
limitation is consistent with the R-1 coverage standards that range from 30% to
50%. g
The proposed amendment would restore the relationship between pad and house
size for existing lots approved and graded under the old code. These lots would
be subject to the standard R-1 coverage limitation of 35% up to 50% with
Architectural Review Commission approval. The City Council could call up cases
as necessary. These homes would not need to apply for size exceptions pursuant
to the current section 25.25.030D. Any request to enlarge an existing pad would
trigger the exception provision and associated public hearing process.
3. Ridge Top Development:
Most of the City's hillside areas involve ridge tops or steep canyons. It would be
difficult to prohibit all ridge development without encouraging extensive grading of
steep slopes. Obtrusive ridge top development can be discouraged by adding the
following specific language to 25.25.010.
Purpose: Development on or across prominent ridges shall be
discouraged. To the greatest practical extent, grading shall preserve
existing ridgelines. Pad elevations and architectural design shall be set so
that rooflines are not visible above ridgelines.
"ITY COUNCIL ACTION:
AP
Prepared by: PROVED ✓ DENIED.
RECEIVED OTHER
Q Q_� MEETI G DATE
Philip Dre c= AYES:
Director of Community Development ABSENT:
Reviewe nd Appr d by: VERIFIED BY•. [
OriABSginal on File th City Clerk's's Office
omer Croy Carlos Ortega
ACM for Dev ment Services City Manager
G§%amm��.r,,,r�+ ;�;v,�oc.uamwe-a�oren sR o 1201 d« Page of
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006
MR. SNIJDERS said it was difficult to do because the height of the backyard
was three feet higher than the street, and leveling it would create a trench in
their back yard.
Mayor Kelly countered the motor home needed to be parked,and sometimes
other concessions are needed to make a place for it.
MR. SNIJDERS stated they felt they had a legitimate place on the side of
their home. He suggested that Council look around the neighborhood and
find that people park in different places, but they wanted to do it right.
Mayor Pro Tern Benson felt it was an age-old issue and Council always tried
to accommodate but sometimes it couldn't. She believed the ARC followed
due diligence in their decision.
Mayor Pro Tern Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, reaffirm the action of the
Architectural Review Commission to deny Case No. RV 06-04.
Councilmember Finerty concurred. She said the size of the motor home was
her main concern because it was almost as big as the house; she might have
been more amenable to the Applicant's request if it was smaller.
Motion was seconded by Councilmember Finerty.
Councilman Ferguson agreed. He said millions of dollars had been spent
trying to spruce up Palm Desert Country Club, and this request impacted two
streets because the motor home would be located on an outward corner lot.
It would be counterintuitive to all of the efforts already made.
Councilman Spiegel agreed.
Mayor Kelly called for the vote, and it carried by a 5-0 vote.
E. CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 25.15 - HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Mr. Drell recalled that one of the first times he appeared before Council was
to discuss the revision to the Hillside Ordinance in 1981.
Mayor Kelly offered that his first assignment as Councilmember was to sit on
the committee to write the Hillside Ordinance.
17
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006
Mr. Drell agreed and stated they were both still working on it. He identified
three issues: First being public notice, especially in cases were impacted
properties might be a 1,000 feet, far beyond the normal 300-foot noticing
radius. He proposed in those cases to measure the noticing distance from
the first developed residential parcels. He pointed out on the map displayed
the various levels of distance and how it would have applied to the Hagadone
project. He identified the first row in every direction of any developed
residence within line-of-sight of the project. Every row on the map reflected
an additional 500 feet. He felt 1,000 feet was a reasonable standard to
pursue and was staffs recommendation. He reminded Council this was a
process that would go through hearing, Planning Commission, and City
Council. The initial recommendation will be 1,000 feet beyond the first
developed residential property. Secondly was the issue of building size
limitation. Prior to 2004, there was no limit, with everything reviewed on a
case-by-case basis and with a 4,000 square-foot limitation based on 40%
coverage on a maximum 10,000 square-foot lot. The problem was that under
the Hillside Ordinance, many larger lots particularly in Bighorn were in excess
of 30,000 square feet. It didn't make sense to hold them to the same 4,000
square-foot limitation. Staff proposed for those previously approved lots in
excess of 10,000 square feet be subject to the standard coverage review
process, which would allow about 30-50% with ARC approval and Council
opportunity to review on a call-up basis. The last issue was the ridge top
development. He displayed a map and pointed out which portions of the
City pertained to the hillside development. He outlined how everything south
of the water tank near the bridge was all City property, the area to the west
is BLM or State property; the upper ridge line east of the Stone Eagle golf
course belonged to the City through a conservation easement. He explained
that most of the mountain that can be seen to the west was public land, and
the remaining area was subject to some development. Most of the City's
hillside areas involved ridges, steep slopes, and canyon bottoms. Pointing
to the color coded aerial photo on the display, he described in detail what
each color represented: the red lines were the ridge tops, the blue were the
stream beds, and the places in between are sloped 40-50%. The City has
absolute discretion on any particular parcel to find the very most appropriate
10,000 square foot location for a house, but staff felt uncomfortable in
absolutely prohibiting any development on a ridge, since that's all that's left
to be developed. Instead, staff is suggesting finding the best location for a
house with the ridges avoided. In addition, homes below ridges should not
have roof tops exposed above the ridge and to be considered on a case-by-
case basis. An alternative was to do a study and decide which ridges
specifically the City didn't want to be developed and then identify them on the
map. If in certain instances any development is precluded on any particular
parcel, the City should be prepared to purchase it. He's advocated
purchasing them, believing it was the ultimate solution to hillside protection.
He said areas of the hill which are relatively pristine and still in private
18
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006
ownership, the City should pursue owning. He pointed out that only three
homes had been built in the hillside area in 33 years of regulation; two are
visible, and one is in the Canyon.
Councilmember Finerty asked for clarification to statements made in Item 2
on page 2 of the staff report regarding the R-1 coverage.
Mr. Drell replied the maximum R-1 coverage under the code is 35%, and on
some large lots, it's 30%; there are different categories in the R-1, some are
25%, 30%, and 35%. Because of the growing desire to have larger homes,
the amendment included a discretionary approval up to 50%, which has
become very common in the more prestigious areas of the City. Applications
are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and forwarded to the ARC. The City's
goal in those cases is that they not be too imposing on the neighborhood and
make sure there is adequate yard.
Councilmember Finerty commented regarding the public notice that the folks
across Highway 74 were equally concerned about the Hagadone home, but
under the proposed 1,000 feet notification, it would eliminate those residents
from being notified.
Mr. Drell agreed, but noted that the Hagadone house was a unique project,
in that it can be seen from Interstate 10. Typically, in flat land development,
notification can be 500 feet away and visual impact is none. In the Hagadone
home, the visual impact is almost citywide. The notification can be whatever
number the Council deems appropriate; it can be 2,000 or 3,000 feet.
Councilmember Finerty stated that 1,000 feet may make sense, but the way
the map read, it was 1,000 feet to the north and ignoring everything to the
west. She felt consideration needed to be given to the residents to the west.
Further, she asked why staff considered an HOA more important than an
individual homeowner.
Mr. Drell replied that notifying the HOA would provide the ability to notify all
their members beyond the determined notification distance. He said the City
would not be able to notify everyone within the line of sight unless staff
notified everyone in the City. Noticing residents has always been an issue,
even when it's 300 feet, because someone living 1,000 feet away will claim
they were not notified. He felt notifying both the neighborhood and
advertising to the general public through the newspaper will still result in
someone claiming they weren't notified but are at the meeting. In this case,
if the notification was 2,000 feet to the west, it would not reach Highway 74
residents. He said he was hesitant to leaving it too discretionary to a
decision on staff judgement. It would need to be a uniform standard the City
can follow. He reminded Council this was not an election but a gathering of
19
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006
sufficient input from residents on potential problems. The City can notify as
many or few people as Council desired.
Mayor Pro Tern Benson stated that from her patio, she was looking straight
up at the Hagadone house and was waiting to see what the night lights will
look like. She felt there needed to be something on notification for direct line
of sight because that would cover anyone along the area of Indian Springs,
but someone out on Country Club would not be direct line of sight but yet
considered to be in the vicinity of it.
Mr. Drell reminded Council this was just a draft ordinance initiating the
process, the actual hearing would come later.
Mayor Pro Tem Benson stated that regarding the ridge top development, as
Mr. Drell stated, there have only been three houses developed in 33 years.
She felt any grading should go through Council and that the wording
"Development on or across prominent ridges shall be discouraged"was not
strong enough language. She didn't want ridge top development allowed
unless Council approved it.
Councilmember Finerty concurred. She also noted a letter received from
Larry Sutter from Ironwood, who echoed the same concern over the word
"discouraged." She was concerned about the public notices and would like
a greater area notified with emphasis directed to the west and to residents
in south Palm Desert that live in an individual home and not necessarily in an
HOA so they're not left out.
Mayor Pro Tern Kelly suggested individual notification with a certain distance
and homeowner association notification without further distance, so that the
City didn't get overwhelmed with the mailing process.
Councilmember Finerty stated she didn't object to that idea but was not in
agreement with the 1,000-foot notification. She suggested a 2,000-foot
notification, plus HOA's within south Palm Desert.
Councilman Ferguson stated that when the language was drafted for the
hillside ordinance in the General Plan, there were two areas in the City with
hillside,the Canyons at Bighorn and a little bit at Ironwood,which was master
planned and approved. It was the five-acre Homestead Article
parcels west of Highway 74 that residents want to subdivide and get five
pads, one per acre instead of one pad per five acres. The 4,000 square-foot
limitation on pads not graded made sense, but it was difficult to retroactively
go back and apply that standard to Bighorn after they have already been
approved and their pads already graded. He said he and Councilmember
Finerty spent three hours looking at the homes being considered for approval
20
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006
this evening and realized that Bighorn built 360 homes and only had a
problem with the 361s` home. He didn't want to overreact to the Hagadone
home but rather find a solution that addressed the investment back and
expectations of Bighorn for which they purchased land for mitigation; they
reduced homes and contributed to the City's environment. He reiterated it's
the homeowners west of Highway 74 that will want to subdivide at some
point, and he didn't want homes going up on those ridgelines. He thanked
Councilman Spiegel for requesting a rough draft of the Hillside Ordinance
and Mr. Drell for providing it. He also thanked Mr. Drell for recognizing the
difference between an approved gated community already graded and
parcels that have no disturbance or permits on file. He acknowledged that
it was not a final draft and would like for people from Bighorn, Ironwood, and
other stakeholders that have an investment in it, to be given an opportunity
to review it. He thought it was a good first rough draft. With regard to the
notification distance, he wasn't sure a mailing list the size of a phone book
was what Council wanted, but it could be figured out.
Councilman Spiegel noted the draft ordinance was shared with
representatives from Ironwood, and their only objection was that ridge top
development should not be allowed. He had no objection to the notification
distance or the building size limitations recommended by staff. The only area
he totally disagreed with was with the ridge top development. He felt the City
needed to be explicit to those who want to build houses on ridgelines. The
wording should state that it's not allowed. Mayor Kelly agreed.
In response to Councilmember Finerty's question, Mr. Drell stated approval
of this item would only initiate the amendment to the ordinance, which was
required to go through the normal hearing process at Planning Commission
and City Council.
Mayor Pro Tern Kelly stated it was clear that the wording on ridge top
development needed to state "ridge line development was not allowed"and
that Council needed to deal with the notification issue covering the locations
mentioned.
Councilman Ferguson suggested having projects go through ARC, because
in looking at the homes considered this evening, he thought the architects
were extremely talented and knew how to design a home into a hillside and
not be visible. Mayor Pro Tern Kelly agreed.
Mr. Drell stated that if the wording was changed, the ridgeline would need to
be defined and wondered how Council would like it defined. He suggested
those specific areas be graphically outlined by Council.
21
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006
Councilman Ferguson remarked that architects who knew how to build on
ridgelines, knew what would be acceptable, and could provide input. Council
didn't necessarily have to agree with them. Councilman Spiegel agreed.
Mr. Erwin stated that approval of this item would be to initiate the process of
amending the Hillside Ordinance.
Councilmember Finerty moved to, by Minute Motion, initiate amendments to
P.D.M.C. Chapter 25.15, relative to public hearing notification, building size and lot
coverage, and ridge-top development, as proposed. Motion was seconded by Ferguson
and carried by a 5-0 vote.
F. REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION REGARDING DESIGN OFTHE PROPOSED
MONTEREY AVENUE SIDEWALK FROM COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE TO
FRANK SINATRA DRIVE.
Mr. Greenwood stated that at the request of Council, staff looked into the
construction of a sidewalk on the east side of Monterey Avenue, between
Country Club Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive, in conjunction with Rancho
Mirage's widening of the street. A survey of the area was taken, and a rough
cost estimate was prepared. Most of the area is easy construction with one
compromise of a retaining wall that needs to remain in place for the vast
majority of the area. The sidewalk would be relatively narrow, four to five
feet wide directly adjacent to the curb. The most difficult area is a 200-foot
section where a retaining wall is protected by a concrete slope. The retaining
wall needs to be completely removed and rebuilt at a significant cost of
$200,000+. The combined cost of all the engineering and contingencies are
estimated at $625,000. Staff recommended approval to proceed.
Councilman Spiegel said he noticed on Monterey Avenue between Country
Club Drive and Fred Waring Drive was a sidewalk on Palm Desert's side,
past the College, but there was nothing on Ranch Mirage's side.
Mr. Greenwood agreed.
Councilman Spiegel asked if Rancho Mirage was going to put a sidewalk on
their side of the street with the widening of Monterey Avenue from Country
Club Drive to Frank Sinatra Drive, if it was necessary to have a sidewalk on
both sides with the stop lights at that location.
Mr. Greenwood replied that it was not absolutely necessary, and it would be
an expensive sidewalk for Palm Desert. He offered to confirm with Rancho
Mirage if they were definitely including a sidewalk on their side of the street.
If that is the case, Council can direct staff to drop the request for a sidewalk
on Palm Desert's side.
22
RESOLUTION NO. 04-43
EXHIBIT "B"
HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
25.15.010 Purpose.
25.15.020 Permitted uses.
25.15.023 Principal uses and structures permitted.
25.15.025 Large family day care homes.
25.15.030 Development standards.
25.15.040 Abandoned uses.
25.15.050 Lighting.
25.15.060 Architectural and landscape design.
25.15.070 Fire protection.
25.15.080 Erosion control.
25.15.090 Preservation of open space.
25.15.100 Submittal requirements for development plan.
25.15.110 Environmental assessment.
25.15.120 Required information.
25.15.130 Optional preliminary approval procedure.
25.15.140 Approval or rejection of precise plan in the Hillside Planned Residential
District
25.15.010 Purpose.
The intent and purpose of the hillside planned residential district is:
A. To encourage only minimal grading in hillside areas that relates to the natural
contours of the land avoiding extensive cut and fill slopes that result in a padding or
staircase effect within the development;
B. Encourage architecture and landscape design which blends with the natural terrain
to the greatest practical extent;
C. Retain and protect undisturbed viewsheds, natural landmarks, and features,
including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements in development proposals in
hillside areas. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.020 Permitted uses.
Uses and activities permitted by approved precise plan shall be as follows:
A. Grading;
B. Single-family attached or detached dwellings;
C. Land subdivisions;
D. Remodels and additions only require department of community development
approval. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
4
RESOLUTION NO. 04-43
i
25.15.023 Principal uses and structures permitted.
The following are permitted uses within any hillside planned residential district and do
not require pre-approval pursuant to a development plan:
A. Small family day care homes. (Ord. 742 § 5, 1994)
25.15.025 Large family day care homes.
Large family day care homes are permitted subject to a use permit pursuant to Chapter
25.72A of this code. (Ord. 742 § 6, 1994)
25.15.030 Development standards.
Development standards shall be as approved by the Planning Commission and City
Council in a public hearing and shall be based on the topographic conditions. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient data supporting their request.
Topographic data must be prepared by a registered civil engineer.
A. Density.
Each lot shall be limited to a maximum of one unit per five acres. All lots will be
entitled to at least one unit.
B. Grading.
Location of building pads and access roads shall be evaluated, approved, or
adjusted based on consistency with the goals set forth in Section 25.15.010.
1. Building Pad Area. The maximum area permanently disturbed by grading
shall not exceed 10,000 square feet.
2. Access Road/Driveway. Maximum permanent grading disturbance of natural
terrain for development of access to the approved building pad shall be 3,000 square feet.
Roads shall be located and designed to blend with the natural terrain to the greatest
practical extent consistent with the goals of 25.15.010.
3. Renaturalization. All cuts, fills, or other areas temporarily disturbed by
grading shall be re-naturalized, colored, and landscaped to blend with the adjacent
undisturbed natural terrain to the satisfaction of the City Council. Renaturalized areas may,
in the discretion of the Council, not be considered disturbed for purposes of
Subsection Bi and 2 so long as the re-naturalization is approved as blending with the
natural terrain.
C. Maximum Dwelling Unit Size.
Total dwelling unit, garage and accessory building size on any one lot shall not
exceed 4,000 square feet.
D. Exception.
The standards of Section 25.15.030 A, B, and C shall be required unless modified
by the precise plan of design, taking into consideration any and all circumstances,
including, but not limited to, viewshed, topography, color, texture, and profile of any
structure that the Planning Commission or City Council may determine to be in conformity
with the purposes set forth in Section 25.15.010.
5
lY
RESOLUTION NO, 04-43
25.15.040 Abandoned uses.
If, pursuant to this chapter, an existing building and/or building site is to be abandoned,
the abandoned building shall be removed from the site and properly disposed of and the
site re-naturalized pursuant to Section 25.15.030 B3 prior to occupancy of any new
building(s) constructed on the site.
25.15.050 Lighting.
Exterior lighting shall be limited to that which is absolutely necessary for safety and
security and shall be in compliance with Chapter 24.16 of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 322
(part), 1983)
25.15.060 Architectural and Landscape Design.
Site plan review in accord with Chapter 25.70 is required for all development. Structure
height and setbacks shall be flexible in order to achieve the purposes of this section. (Ord.
322 (part), 1983).
25.15.070 Fire protection.
In areas where there will be a fire hazard, in the opinion of the fire agency, the following
shall apply:
A. Clearance of brush or vegetative growth from structures and roadways shall be in
accordance with the uniform fire code and approved by the fire agency.
B. Roof shall be of incombustible material approved by the fire agency.
C. All easements for fire breaks shall be dedicated to this purpose through recordation.
D. All buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression automatic sprinkler systems
approved by the fire marshal. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.080 Erosion control.
All manufactured slopes shall be planted or otherwise protected from the effects of
storm runoff and erosion within thirty days after completion of grading. Planting shall be
designed to blend with the surrounding terrain and the characterof development. (Ord. 322
(part), 1983)
25.15.090 Preservation of open space.
In order to insure permanent retention of the natural terrain as required in Section
25.15.040, a covenant approved by the city attorney shall be recorded dedicating all
building rights to the city and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on the
plans approved by the city. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.100 Submittal requirements for development plan.
land subdivision, a Hillside Development Plan shall be reviewed by the
Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit (unless otherwise provided)s , or
Architectura!
Review Commission, Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council. Thi mayng
include, as determined by the Director of Community Development, the followi information as set out in Sections 25.15.110 through 25.15.130. (Ord. 322 (part), lowi
} )
6
RESOLUTION NO. O -43
i
25.15.110 Environmental assessment.
All applications shall comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.120 Required information.
The Directorof Community Development andlor Planning Commission may require any
of the following information:
A. Accurate topographic maps indicating the following:
1. Natural topographic features with an overlay of the proposed contours of the
land after completion of the proposed grading.
2. Slope analysis with at least five-foot contour intervals and a slope analysis
showing the following slope categories:
10% - 15% 26% - 30%
16% - 20% 31% - 35%
21% 25% 36% and over,
3. Elevations of existing topographic features and the elevations of any
proposed building pads, street centerlines, and property comers,
4. Locations and dimensions of all proposed cut and fill operations,
5. Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage patterns, structures
and retaining walls,
6. Locations of disposal sites for excess or excavated material,
7. Locations of existing trees, other significant vegetation and biological
features,
8. Locations of all significant geological features, including bluffs, ridgelines,
cliffs, canyons, rock outcroppings, fault lines and waterfalls,
9. Locations and sizes of proposed building areas and lot patterns,
10. Any other information required by the Planning Commission;
B. Site plans and architectural drawings illustrating the following:
1. Architectural characteristics of proposed buildings,
2. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns, including street widths and
grades and other easements of public rights-of-way,
3. Utility lines and other service facilities, including water, gas, electricity and
sewage lines,
4. Landscaping, irrigation and exterior lighting plans,
5. Locations and design of proposed fences, screens, enclosures and
structures, including drainage facilities,
6. Any other information required by the Planning Commission;
C. Reports and surveys with recommendations from foundation engineers or geologists
based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capabilities, including soil
types, sail openings, hydrologic groups, slopes, runoff potential, percolation data, soil
depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns;
7
RESOLUTION NO. 04-43
D. Archeological studies in areas where existing evidence seems to indicate that
significant artifacts of historic sites are likely to be encountered in order to insure that these
artifacts and/or sites are not inadvertently destroyed;
E. Additional information to include:
I. Average natural slope of land,
2. Acreage and square footage calculations,
3. Area of impermeable surfaces,
4. Ratio of parking area to total land area,
5. Ratio of open space to total land area,
6. Description of maintenance program for proposed developments involving
joint or common ownership,
7. Any other specific information determined to be of special interest relevant
to the applicant's proposal. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.130 Optional preliminary approval procedure.
The applicant may choose to submit information and request a preliminary approval
from the Planning Commission which will assign the appropriate development standard
option, determine density, identify building sites, access roads and locations. No permits
shall be issued until final approval is obtained. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.140 Approval or rejection of precise plan in the Hillside Planned Residential
District:
Any such precise plan of design in the Hillside Planned Residential District may be
rejected, approved, modified and approved, or approved subject to conditions. Any such
precise plan of design after approval may be amended in the same manner as a precise
plan of design is first approved under this chapter. (Ord. 299 (part), 1982)
8