Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 07-01 HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL 2007 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings. SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner MEETING DATE 1 f__J� APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert ❑/CONTINUED TO L� AASSED TO 2ND READINCASE NO: ZOA 07-01 DATE: April 12, 2007 CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Background and Discussion C. Ordinance No. 1136 D. Planning Commission Minutes E. Planning Commission Resolution 2439 F. Ordinance 1046A Current HPR Ord. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the findings to approve Case No. ZOA 07-01 and pass Ordinance No. 1136 on to second reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval of the staff recommendation will prohibit construction of homes on ridges in the hillside planned residential (HPR) zone, will increase requirements for public noticing and will restore the relationship between pad size and house size for previously approved pads within the HPR zone. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: At its meeting of December 14, 2006 the City Council discussed possible changes to the Hillside Planned Residential (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 a zoning ordinance amendment for the HPR zone. Current Public Hearing Ordinance (25.86 Public Hearings): For projects being proposed within the HPR zone, 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 ,4 Staff Report ZOA 07-01 Page 2 April 12, 2007 the city. Notices must be mailed 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 contains 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 Dwelling not exceed 4,000 square feet. Size: Exceptions: The above standards 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. Current Ridge-Top Development Requirements: At this time the HPR ordinance has no specific language relating to ridge-top development. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Public Notices (Chapter 25.86): Staff proposes to revise the ordinance to require mailing legal notices to property owners within 4,000 feet of the property being developed. Staff arrived at this number by taking the highest property in the hillside and giving a reasonable distance that would notify property owners east of Highway 74 (see attached exhibit). Building Size Limitation: 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 hillside lots within the Canyons at Bighorn were Staff Report ZOA 07-01 Page 3 April 12, 2007 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. The only house size limitation in place at that time was standard lot coverage of 35% and up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval. 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 with Planning Commission and City Council. Ridge-Top Development: Most of the City's remaining undeveloped hillside areas involve ridges or steep canyons. To protect ridges from development it is recommended that we add the following specific language to 25.15.030 (development standards). F. Development on or across ridges is prohibited. G. Building pads and architecture shall be designed to eliminate or minimize any visual impact on the City to the maximum extent feasible. Staff has also expanded on the idea of defining a hillside ridge by developing a map that identifies all ridges throughout the HPR zone. This map was developed with City mapping technicians using contour and topographic data that is available to the City. Staff feels this map will be a valuable tool in developing within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. (See attached map) PLANNING COMMISSION: At its meeting of February 20th, 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed this matter and directed staff to adjust the draft ordinance in several areas including public noticing requirements, line of sight and the definitions of a hillside ridge. The matter was continued to the March 20`h meeting. At the March 20'h meeting the Planning Commission reviewed this matter for the second time. The Commission was pleased with the visual representation of the hillside ridges within the HPR zone. The Commission also endorsed the proposed distance notifying method, along with notifying homeowners Staff Report ZOA 07-01 Page 4 April 12, 2007 associations south of Haystack Road of proposed projects. With minor changes, the Commission approved the recommendation to Council by a unanimous vote. 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 prohibited developing on top of mountain ridges. The proposed amendments accomplish those goals. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: 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. Submitted By: Department Head: Ryan Stendell Lauri Aylaian Assistant Planner Director of Community Development Approval: CITY COUNCIL TION: APPROVE DENIED Ave �3 d�OTHERA074F NtEETI T City Manager ell AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ri �- ABSTAINJr - /�A M for Development Services (VERIFIED BY: U "Ariginal on File wi h City Clerk' s OfficE ORDINANCE NO. 1136 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 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 City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12th day of April, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amending Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapters 25.15, Hillside Planned Residential District and 25.86 Public Hearings; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2439 has recommended approval of the proposed amendments as described in exhibit `B' of this document; 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its actions 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 City Council in this case. 2. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached, is hereby certified. 3. That ZOA 07-01, as delineated in the attached Exhibit B, is hereby ordained. ORDINANCE NO. 1136 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1136 EXHIBIT "B" Chapter 25.86 PUBLIC HEARINGS That the following provision be added to Section 25.86.010 (Hearing time and notice) D. All development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone shall require 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 by mailing notices via United States Postal Service to people whose name appear on the latest adopted tax rolls of Riverside County as owning property within 4,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing; and by notification to 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- A ridgeline that is formed by the juncture of two (2) or more sloping planes that project outward from a mountain range and descend towards the valley floor more particularly identified on attached exhibit labeled Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridges. That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.030 (Development Standards) E. Previously approved existing building pads shall be subject to the standard coverage limitations of 35%, which may be increased up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval. Any change to an existing approved building pad shall require a new public hearing subject to the provisions of this chapter. F. Development on or across ridges is prohibited. G. Building pads and architecture shall be designed to eliminate or minimize any visual impact on the City to the maximum extent feasible. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 1136 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 DESCRIPTIONILOCATION: 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. LAURI AYLAIAN DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 C11Y 01 P(nIM 01 1 P I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6n FAx: 76o 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: March 22, 2007 City of Palm Desert Re: ZOA 07-01 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its regular meeting of March 20, 2007: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Please call if you have any questions regarding this action. Case No. ZOA 07-01 is tentatively scheduled for City Council public hearing on April 12, 2007. CA� Stephen R. Smith, Acting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 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 Cit of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of March, 2007, continued from the 20 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 Planning 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 NO. 2439 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of March, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: LIMONT, TANNER, TSCHOPP, SCHMIDT, CAMPBELL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE /SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: STEPHEN R. SMITH, Acting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 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. ST PHEN R. SMITH DATE ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 EXHIBIT B Chapter 25.86 PUBLIC HEARINGS That the following provision be added to Section 25.86.010 (Hearing time and notice) D. All development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone shall require 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 via United States Postal Service to people whose name appear on the latest adopted tax rolls of Riverside County as owning property within 4,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing and notification to 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-A ridgeline that is formed by the juncture of two (2) or more sloping planes that project outward from a mountain range and descend towards the valley floor more particularly identifled on attached exhibit labeled Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridges. That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.010 (Purpose) D. 1. Development on or across ridges is prohibited. 2. Building pad elevations and architectural design shall be set so that rooflines do not create a negative visual impact on the city. That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.030 (Development Standards) E. Previously approved existing building pads shall be subject to the standard coverage limitations of 35% and may be increased up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval. Any change to an 4 r ; 49220 Quercus Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 March 17, 2007 Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert RECEIVED 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 MIaR 19 zool RE: Staff Report Dated March 20, 2007 Case No: ZOA 07-01 :OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Dear Planning Commission: I am writing this letter on behalf of the 1050 homes in the Ironwood Community. For the past year and more, we in Ironwood (along with representatives from The Reserve, The Summit, and Monterra) have worked with members of the City Council and Mr Hagadone to mitigate the impact of the Hagadone development on Palm Desert residents and have been pleased with the response of both Mr. Hagadone and the City Council In that regard. We also appreciate being asked to comment on the proposed amendments being recommended in the Staff Report dated March 20, 2007: • PUBLIC NOTICES— Mailing legal notices to property owners within 4000 feet of the property to be developed is a reasonable and clear approach. We support this recommendation strongly. Had this been in place several years ago, much of the recent controversy over ridge line development could have been avoided. • BUILDING SIZE LIMITATION— No objection. • RIDGE-TOP DEVELOPMENT—We earlier suggested, as perhaps did others, the use of the word "prohibited" recommended for 25.15.010 as it is clear in meaning and intent: "(D) Development on or across prominent ridges is prohibited." Also, we find the next sentence acceptable: "Building pad elevations and architectural design shall beset that rootlines do not create a negative visual impact on the City" Overall, we would prefer that the wording say that rooflines should not be visible, but recognize the difficulty inherent in this wording. Therefore, in the context of the other recommended changes, we feel this version would be effective. Recently, Ryan Stendell was kind enough to share with me the ridgeline map that was prepared as a aid in enforcing these changes, and we feel it would be very effective. We respectfully and strongly recommend you approve these amendments as proposed. Sincerely, A Lawrence T. Sutter President, Ironwood Master Association 1I�5 70 �� 97 / ip��/C Ong iLG�irJ ids.c,V ,✓7Tia[. PLr9, Xa RECEIVED i>'A;t 2 0 2007 Name: Richard Fromme Valley resident since 1965 :OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 48-625 Paisano Rd. CITY OF PALM DESERT Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Political: I believe that these proposed restriction being placed on the property owners of the Palm Desert Cahuilla Hills properties are nothing but a response to the uproar from the Hagadone project in The Canyons at Big Horn. It seems very unfair for these property owners to be restricted like this for this reason. The responsibility for the Hagadone project belongs to the city that issued the permit to build the house, not the rest of the property owners who happen to have property on hillsides. Property Values: The restrictions being placed on the hillside properties by Palm Desert will have a significant affect on their value. A property on Upper Way West was listed for$1,295,000.00 on a 4/28/06 CMS report that I have in my possession. It sold for $276,500.00 in December of 2006. The assessed value of the property was $882,300.00 at that time. I understand the reason for the low price was restrictions placed on the property by the seller to insure his privacy. These restrictions are similar to the ones proposed by this ordinance. Cahuilla Hills property owners should be paid for this decrease in value and the owners of ridgeline lots that are unbuildable should be paid the entire value of the property. I understand the city is purchasing property in the hills and it seems to me that this ordinance would be a good way to purchase the property that the city wants at a devalued price. I hope this is not the case. Notification: Notifying everyone within 4000 Feet by mail is expensive and unnecessary. If this is the new criterion, then it should be the same for everyone, even the properties in the flat parcels. It was much prettier for Cahuilla Hills residents when we could see the wildflowers instead of houses. Shouldn't we be allowed the same courtesy? Would publishing the project in the newspaper, as the city does,be better? City Council: I think that there are some conflicts on the city council concerning the hillside plans. Voting on this should not be allowed for those council people involved. Homestead Act: The Federal Government allowed the hills to be homesteaded so people would build and settle on the property they homesteaded. I realize that now the Federal Government defers to the local government to administer development, and rightfully so, but don't you feel the original intent of the act should be considered. 3� ML'S CMA Report(216) Page 1 of 2 CMA Report Listings as of 04/28/06 at 4:30pm Page 1 RESIDENTIAL ACTIVE Prooergea Address City Map 8d Bth SaFt Lolz Year WA• Date >i1BOFtGDDMOrig PricaLlet Price j4 9< Palm DesenM—#931,G F50 2000U08 W L1980GPS 0 Date 6 647.60 113 1 Z95,0001295.D00 48725 Ve is Rd Palm DesertPage#818.D 3 2 2317 2AOOac 1990G 02/22/06 661.07 '10 i,300.0001,30D,000 71450 Painted CanyonPahn DesertPage#848.B 4 4 5000 87656sf 1950GPS 11/23W 5W.00 156 3,90Q0002,900,000 Listing Count 3 Averages 3106 598.19 111 2,165,0001,831.667 High 2,900,000 Low 1295,000 Median 1.300,000 SOLD Properties Address City Map Bd Bth SOFt LotSz Yeer WA• Date i/BaFtCDOMOrig P,=List PrtceSele PrloaSP' 71825 Cholla Way Palm Desert ft#S48,B 2 0 1071103872sf 1963G 0 24f03 276.44 20 309,000 309,000 295 0 £ 71-750 Cholia WayPelm DesertPage#848,B 32.50 1960 1.110ac 1991 GP 03105/04 227.04 172 489,000 449,500 445,W £ 71395 Oasis Trail Palm Desertpage#848,B 4 4 33DO tsf 2001 GPS 03129f02 187.88 379 675.000 675,000 6 D,MD £ 48725 Verbena Rd Palm DesertPage#848,B 3 -2 2317 7230gsf 19900 02117M 269.75 14 649,500 649-500 8226,000 £ 71440 Oasis Td Palm DasertPage#848.B 11.50 2970 87120sf 2001 G 12/23104 267.68 349 826AOD 795,000 795.000 1C 71550 Guall Td Palm DesertPage#848.B 4 4 3200108900sf 1983GPS 1011304 28126 277 975,000 925.000 9W,000 £ 719W Jaguar Way Palm DesertPage#848,C 3250 4421 1200ao 1985GPS O4120106 245.65 427 1250,0001,195,000 1-.086A00 £ 71450 Cholla Palm DesertPage#848,G 3325 4268217MM 1993G 02/09/04 303.42 422 100,0001,350,000 1.295,000 6 71295 Mesa Tri Palm DesertPage#"S.A 44.50 43692178" 2WOGPS 08f12/05 583.66 446 2,950,0002,950,000 2,650,000 8 L sung Count 9 Averages 3097 293.53 278 1,085,8331,033,11, 956,778 £ High 2,550,000 Low 295.000 Median 795,000 Address CRY Lisp BdBth SaFt LotBz Year WA' Date f/SgF1CDOMOrIgPAceLietPrice 71560 Quail Td Palm Desert Page#a48,B 4 4 340010MWW 2005GPS O4/05/06 4a9.12 136 1,695,0001,585,000 Listing Count 1 Averages 3400 46" 135 1,695,0001,595,OW High 1495,000 Low 1,595,000 Median 1,595,000 n F, . rroperty profile a� ownership Infomation F7�KIP OwW : MARK a:S7FP ong GREGH WOOD rlttio. ddnae 1 72260 LWO WAY 1V PAtjq OtSNIT 9E2&d.Mj ddetal s 72M pp M WAY W PALM DESERT,CA MM gbaa t w illia, : 62a-13O.Oa7 Toad : 0451-ml (irrd r WA New tap CrW WA Lt=d Daerip M: MACRU rN M sec 367Ys R6e Property Details Urt COde : SMOLS FAMMYRESZOMM zodog : RE43 Rmd»Ooaa f 2 NarberatUdb , t #pima.. : U Yttrxdtt = IND .lye r amp-1 L@gNO : n1OM$0/6.V70ACM Vbn = N/A 94ua Feet : 1216 tod a Yee TOW ROOM : WA rhOU a : N/A Q h = 0 IM : NIA Tax Information Anuud Talrl : SU2.106 ;r. Tars Aswat = t9,y6926 Land l = tl06.969 Thu sArss : Ctataas Lrpraednove�i : 537;3a: Tow Daligagt : VA % _ 42% TartRe%Am : 18003 Sale Information Lor8abDaa : De:EOW14ZNt > t NIA 00009n000 3elLOUANoM : MA "Art : s276JOO(FVM* ftM Laa 7yipa WA LaatT"MWIOs : WA 2ad Loft Aeom : N/A ""Dw W/O s : CUM/86ana Far : 227 �MO��ON�lM17 DarQMdcf.•74abmtady�IsaLoae�d 60o psbliedxanear rod 4o>e:pruNosd V7*M 10:63MAN ComwSrnir a*,. KOF bony TON a 62,76E DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIONAiCH 211 2007E Action: Commissioner Tanner made a motion that they accept the building with the conditions and that the building owners work with the Fire Department to get those two issues worked out. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification that the motion included approving the building. Commissioner Tanner said yes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tschopp. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voting no. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2438 recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 07-03, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voting no. Mr. Smith stated that the meeting between the applicants/owners and the Fire Department would take place prior to City Council public hearing and those two issues would be resolved. C. Case No. ZOA 07-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report, pointing out the additions and changes that had been made since the last meeting. He said there was correspondence on the matter and copies received within the last few days had also been distributed to Commission. Some letters were in favor and some felt it would devalue their properties. Mr. Stendell explained that development standards weren't being changed; owners were still entitled to a 10,000 square foot pad, 3,000 square feet of access road and a 4,000 square foot house. They were just insuring now that no more ridge-top developments were being created. Commissioner Schmidt asked for the definition of "that roof lines do not create a negative visual impact on the city'; she asked what that meant to staff. Mr. Smith replied that it means that the goal is that rooflines will not be visible above ridge lines and if from some vantage points they happen to be visible, they are not at a point where they become an adverse impact on that view. Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Stendell the same question. He replied that his definition was very similar. As Mr. Tschopp pointed out to him at the last meeting, it was very hard to say it wouldn't be seen depending on 12 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 the vantage point. He noted that this was the purpose section of the code where they are stating their goals and policies. Even discussing it with legal counsel, it became very difficult to state what they had in the last draft. If the Commission wished, it could be massaged a little bit to possibly get more of the intent of the relationship between the roof of a home and the ridge of a mountain. They didn't want to create something in the ordinance that was impossible. Commissioner Schmidt read the information three or four times and the impression she was left with was that they can't have a roof above the ridgeline, but if they do, it shouldn't create a negative impact. That was how she was interpreting that sentence. So it was contradictory and too vague for her. The whole purpose in reviewing this is to tighten it up and it seemed they were floundering. That was the impression. Mr. Stendell said he could work on that statement with legal counsel if it was too vague. Commissioner Limont said there are slopes, and a good example is going down Highway 74; in one spot it will be seen and in another it won't. She said maybe they could take into consideration the elevations, because it would be difficult even if they go below the ridge lines and on three sides it can't be seen, but maybe from one spot it could. If it said no ridge lines, it would render it impossible to build because a person could argue depending on where they were standing. Mr. Stendell said that was correct; their intent was to leave the negative visual impact determination on the city up to the Commissions and Council. Commissioner Tanner said included in the city are the neighbors who were also involved. He thought this provided a good guideline to them and Architectural Review. It added teeth to the prior one and protected visual impact to the city and surrounding neighbors. They were talking about increasing the notification and this is what is going to appear. If there is any kind of a negative impact on the city, and they were talking about all of the city, not just Palm Desert; it was all involved. For him it added teeth and he was comfortable with the wording. It gave them an opportunity to say it will give a negative impact on the city and its inhabitants, whether they are next door neighbors or on Interstate 10. Commissioner Schmidt thought perhaps the way to address this would be to not have the sentences all in one paragraph. The first sentence was very strong and clearly states our intent; don't do it. Then they were giving some sort of out depending on who objects and then it was very subjective from that point on. She suggested labeling the two sentences D-1 and D-2. She thought that might help. But she would love to know a clearer definition of 13 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 what negative impact is because to her it might mean one thing and to someone else quite another. Commissioner Tanner agreed. Commissioner Tschopp thought setting up the D-1 and D-2 was a good idea. With the topography and view angles which are impossible to define and the D-2 statement giving a lot of discretion, it also gives the applicant/builder a lot of warning that they better design something that isn't going to have a negative impact on the city and better not be sitting above the ridgeling for the most part. It gives them some discretion and is a good statement. He thought separating them was a good idea. Commissioner Tschopp brought up the issue of the 4,000 square foot notice. He liked what Mr. Stendell had done; it gave some reasoning and thought behind doing it, but he thought of the old adage that if you are standing next to something you can't design it, you have to stand back to really see it, Because they were dealing with something that is seen by the rest of the city, he asked if it would be a big problem to have it also noticed in the paper, not as a legal notice, but as a general notice so that other citizens who might not be within the noticed area might get an idea of what's going on in the hillside. Mr. Stendell said right now it goes into the newspaper as a legal notice. He didn't know how to notice it in the paper any other way. He asked Mr. Smith if any other noticing had been done historically. Mr. Smith replied not on an individual property application basis. When the general plan went through, display ads and the like were placed. He was talking about the General Plan Update, not individual general plan amendments. Mr. Hargreaves explained that State law establishes certain minimums, but the City could require whatever it thought was appropriate, as long as it was reasonably legal. Mr. Smith said if they wanted to say a display ad was needed, they could. Commissioner Tschopp didn't think that would be necessary. He thought with the way they were clarifying it now, the new code would take care of the problems of seeing something from Interstate 10. He was comfortable with what had been done and thought staff gave it a lot of thought and it appeared they didn't think it was necessary. Commissioner Tannerfelt there could be representation with the Desert Sun. The original plan would go through Architectural Review and if there's any indication there's an issue, it would get printed in the paper and maybe that, along with U.S. mail would be enough of a notification to get people to the meeting to tell them if something is or isn't satisfactory. Mr. Stendell stated that he was very comfortable with the 4,000 square feet and the homeowner's association notification. He thought that would get the word out to a massive number of people. He noted that Palm Desert is a small town 14 ®RAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2nm and word usually spreads like wildfire. That was the intent of the noticing. He was comfortable with the level of noticing proposed. Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Stendell to show them how far 4,000 feet was on the map. Mr. Stendell explained that there are two areas of Hillside Planned Residential zone; one being the Canyons of Bighorn and the other being west of the storm channel. Commissioner Schmidt asked to see the distance that would still notify Ironwood. Mr. Stendell pointed it out. There were no other questions for staff and Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this application. Referring to the Request to Speak cards that had been submitted, she invited Mr. David Nelson to address the Commission. MR. DAVID NELSON, 72595 Beavertail in Palm Desert, informed Commission that he has five acres on Upper Way West up in the hills that he bought and struggled through with the general plan update process. He wanted to build a house up there and had started the plans. Now he was struggling through another zone change around him. He said his property is basically all ridge line, but he was trying to work something out with the City where they could build a little more into the canyon. When talking about ridge lines and not being above a ridge line, he noted that the ridge line is not a horizontal line, it's at an angle. So if he is below it or next to it, he would be above it further down the hill a little bit. So it had to open up to the city somewhere, some way, some place. It was not in a bowl. By doing this, they were saying he has to build in a bowl which was impossible because there were no bowls up there. He bought his property to build a home for he and his wife and it just seemed like they kept getting down zoned and down zoned. He thought the Hagadone house was ridiculous and thought the City might have a knee-jerk reaction, but after such a big house was built that the City didn't have to approve, they had been telling him that they don't want big houses up there and at the same time approved that. But he hated to see it being micro managed. They couldn't have it below the ridge line because the ridge line goes all the way to the floor, so that didn't make sense to him. But he said he was trying to work with the City and was working on a property swap with a piece 15 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20. 2007 of property the City might have where he could build down more in a canyon, but it would open up to somebody somewhere. He liked the fact that it was changed so it couldn't be above the ridge line, but there is some common sense to it. That was all he asked. He got worried when they kept trying to make zoning so tight on something in the hillside that is next to impossible to do because every lot is so different up there. Those were his comments and he said he appreciated their time. MR. RICHARD FROMME, 48625 Paisano Road in Palm Desert, said he lives in the County, but owns two five-acre pieces down by the water tank. He has been a valley resident since 1965. He believed these proposed restrictions being placed on the property owners of the Palm Desert Cahuilla Hills properties was nothing but a response to the uproar from the Hagadone project in the Canyons at Bighorn. It seemed very unfair for these property owners to be restricted by this for this reason. The responsibility for the Hagadone property belongs to the City that issued the permit to build the house, not the rest of the property owners who happen to have property on the hillside. He thought the restrictions being placed on hillside properties by Palm Desert would have significant effect on their value. The property on Upper Way West was listed for$1,295,000 on a 04/28/06 CMS report he had in his possession that he thought he furnished a copy to the Planning Department that morning. It was sold for $276,500 in December of 2006. The assessed value of the property was$882,300 at that time. He understood the reason for the low price with restrictions placed on the property by the seller, to insure privacy. These restrictions were similar to the ones proposed by this ordinance. He stated that Cahuilla Hills property owners should be paid for this decrease in value and the owners of ridge line lots that are unbuildable should be paid the entire value of their property. Mr. Fromme understood that the City is purchasing property in the hills and it seemed to him that this ordinance would be a good way to purchase the property that the City wants at a devalued price. He hoped this was not the case. Notifying everyone within 4,000 feet by mail is expensive and he thought unnecessary. If this is the new criterion, then it should be same for everyone, even the properties on the flat parcels below. It was much prettier for the Cahuilla Hills residents when they could see 16 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20. 2007 the wild flowers and sand dunes instead of houses. Shouldn't they be allowed the same courtesy with publishing the project in the newspaper? Mr. Fromme also thought there were some conflicts on the City Council concerning the hillside plan and voting on this should not be allowed by those Council people involved. The federal government allowed the hills to be homesteaded so people would build and settle on the property they homesteaded. He realized now that the federal government defers to the local government to administer development, and rightfully so, but he felt that intent should be considered also. He asked when they considered a building abandoned. He asked what constituted abandonment. It was also stated that this plan serves the public health and safety of the community and he didn't understand how it had anything to do with the health and safety of the community. He commended Mr. Stendell; he said he has a real grasp of the problems in developing the Cahuilla Hills. He said he spoke with Mr. Stendell at length the day before and he thought he was a good man to have doing this job. He believed that he would be fair if allowed to do things and make decisions that would be fair to everyone around. He thanked them. MR. LAWRENCE SUTTER, 49220 Quercus Lane, said he is the President of the Ironwood Master Association that represents 1,050 homes. They followed this process over the last year and he filed a letter yesterday, which he assumed they had before them so he wouldn't repeat what he said except to say that he thought the wording choices recognized in the line-of-sight issue, in fact all the changes recommended by the Planning staff, they really supported. They thought it made a lot of sense. The big issue for them in the past with Hagadone was not being notified. They learned about it when they got up one morning to see a crane on the hill. He really liked the line-of-sight plus 1,000-foot idea, but as he thought about it, it got complicated and he thought Mr. Stendell's recommendation of 4,000 feet was fine. They were also comfortable with the wording talked about earlier. In terms of prohibiting development and saying absolutely nothing could be built, that wouldn't make sense either, so they support the 17 J DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20. 2007 wording as it stands. They were appreciative of the Planning Commission and Council working hard to improve this ordinance. He also thanked Ryan Stendell. He thought the map was a great tool and if they had the map before or this kind of tool with the noticing, then they wouldn't have experienced what they had gone through in the past year. He encouraged the Commission to vote yes and supported it strongly. MRS. GIGI MCCORMICK, 29220 Via Las Palmas in Thousand Palms, said that she and her husband have owned a piece of property in the hillside for 21 years. She said they wer2 working class people who had a dream to build a home. She said they weren't rich people, just working class people, and she understood the ridge line; they have the highest peak up there. Their property, like some of the other properties, is mostly ridge line. She said she could live with the map being proposed, but her question was on development on or across ridges being prohibited. If they looked at their parcel, access to their parcel has to be across a ridge line. Coachella Valley Water has an access road to their property and she was wondering if that meant they couldn't cross a ridge line to get to their property. Is the road no longer accessible to them? Or to Coachella Valley Water? She had a letter from the water district showing that a meter has been there since 1986 and they have been paying their water bill. That was all she had to say. There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Stendell had any other comments. Regarding Mrs. McCormick's questions, Mr. Stendell said it was uncertain at this point; the access road is there and they have talked about it. He thought it wasn't visually seen from the city because it was behind an existing ridge which blocks it. He said there were no guarantees in this ordinance, but the wording allowed staff, the Commissions and Council to make the determination of a negative impact. If there is no negative impact or it was very minimal and they didn't see it and they have a very responsibly done hillside home, staff would recommend approval and it would hopefully gain approval from the Commissions and Council as well. They were looking at responsibly done, well-designed architecture that does not happen on the ridge lines. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Stendell would comment on Mr. Nelson's comments when they have a parcel that is primarily ridge lines. Mr. Stendell said Mr. Nelson's lot is extremely difficult to develop. He said it was 18 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2nm a good example of an interesting lot to develop to say the least. Mr. Nelson has a major canyon running through his property and it is completely ridges. It was an example where they have an extremely difficult case, if ever, of being developed. To Mr. Nelson's benefit, the City owns some property and if they can flip a property line, that could create a nice place to put a home with the least amount of visual impact. That could work out to everyone's advantage; however, if that was to never happen, he'd be stuck with the very hard task of developing an extremely steep ridge lot. So any development that could occur would have to be very creatively and well thought out. That was par for the course when dealing with hillside lots. Commissioner Tanner asked for and received clarification that Mr. Fromme has two five-acre pieces of property and their location. He noted that he would also have some valleys and peaks to deal with. Mr. Fromme said he already has an approved pad. Mr. Stendell noted that there was also an old concrete pad from a homestead home with an existing access road. He had been out to that site and it is fairly low and he thought spots on those properties could be found for development. Commissioner Tschopp asked how they would balance the needs of the property owners. They obviously have property owners who have been holding land for a long time with dreams of building homes up there and to leave it so vague; he didn't like that. Mr. Stendell said that the existing exceptions section is still intact. They can always ask. Whether it would be approved or not was another story. Second, at the first discussion relative to this proposed amendment at City Council, it was kind of the impression that if development was going to be restricted to the point where it couldn't be developed, the City should consider taking on those properties. Their intent wasn't to do that; they are still allowing them their 10,000 square foot pad, their 4,000 square foot house. Their intention is to increase the noticing and to insure that nothing gets stuck on top of a ridge line. He didn't think that killed anyone's chances of developing their dream home. He noted there are many creative hillside developers in this town that could create something almost anywhere. If they were ever to restrict someone to the point where they couldn't ever develop it, they would have to see what would happen with our legal counsel. Mr. Hargreaves said that if it was restricted to the extent that it couldn't feasibly be built on, then the City would have to buy it. Commissioner Schmidt asked for discussion on the testimony regarding the access road. She asked Mr. Hargreaves if access could be denied to a property/property owner. Mr. Hargreaves said no; if a property has access and the City somehow messes it up, then the City has a certain liability there. That didn't mean that the City had to guarantee access to every piece of 19 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 property; some properties are inherently difficult to access. There was kind of a give and take there. His understanding is that when those lots were homesteaded, there were access easements along the boundaries. If they tried to put a road on those boundaries, there would be some extremely difficult access issues. Commissioner Schmidt said it was truly a case by case situation. Mr. Hargreaves concurred and said the City has a policy to work with every property owner to find out some way to make it feasible. But if a piece of property is inherently undevelopable because of access issues or other issues, they didn't have an obligation to make it developable. Commissioner Tanner noted that Mr. Stendell mentioned an exceptions section. Mr. Stendell clarified that in the existing Hillside Planned Residential zone there is an exceptions section. He explained that is says that the standards of the Hillside Planned Residential zone can be modified based on several criteria as listed on page five of the current Hillside Planned Residential zone. The standards shall be required unless modified by a precise plan of design, taking into consideration 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 25.16.010. He said that would leave the ability to take a lot that may have something like a road that crosses a ridge that they have identified as being prohibited, if it is responsibly done and the Commission and Council feel it is acceptable, an exception could be granted and they have granted some in the past. It is there if it is needed. Commissioner Schmidt said it would never be her intent to deny someone access to their property. She didn't want them to misunderstand that and was glad they cleared that up a bit. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Tanner thought there had been some great discussion on this hillside exhibit in front of them. He liked the suggested change to the Draft Resolution Exhibit B under Section 25.15.010 (Purpose) separating the two sentences as D-1 and D-2 and there was an understanding that there are exceptions to these provisions. They would go before Architectural Review and then to Planning Commission. They were trying to learn from what has been done in the past and they didn't want to create any more of an eyesore nuisance than what they have right now. He liked what was presented by Mr. Stendell, but it needed a little bit of work. He was in favor of approval at what they were looking at with those couple of exceptions.. 20 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2nm Commissioner Limont agreed with Commissioner Tanner. She thought it was a great start. She thought a couple of things needed adjustment and the reality is that no matter what they do, they will get challenged at some point. The nice thing about it is that it's a step in the right direction about being very clear on what they are looking for and that will save residents, architects, and a lot of time for staff. She agreed with the approval, subject to a couple of adjustments as mentioned. Commissioner Schmidt added that Riverside County is also wrestling with their hillside ordinances and her feeling is that they are sort of looking this direction to see what Palm Desert is doing. The County has a larger area to deal with and worry about. She thought it was interesting to see them wanting to put some sort of language together that eliminates some of the intense building that has gone on some beautiful ridge lines in Riverside County--all over the county. She agreed that as long as they try to find a definition for negative visual impact, she too would be in favor of what was before them. Commissioner Tschopp complimented Mr. Stendell for doing a good job. He noted that it wasn't easy and there was no way to put into words to bring it all together to be any clearer than it is now. It was incumbent upon future Commissions and the Council to make sure the intent is kept, but he felt it was a good hillside ordinance and he was sad it wasn't in place a little bit sooner. Chairperson Campbell was also in favor and said that Mr. Stendell had done a very good job. The Planning Commission would be reviewing all proposals as well as Architectural Review; if someone wasn't happy, it would go to Council anyway. But it was a great beginning and she was in favor of proceeding with it. Commissioner Tanner clarified that the intent wasn't to prohibit anyone from building, the intent is to protect the integrity of Palm Desert. People would still be coming before the Planning Commission with their proposals. With proper plans, hopefully it would be accepted. But it would be within the guidelines being set forth. This would also go to Council with their changes. They weren't trying to eliminate building, they were just trying to make sure that it doesn't infringe on anyone's sight lines and helped keep the hills beautiful. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the radius map and exhibits were referenced in the ordinance anywhere. Mr. Stendell said the radius map with the bulls eye was for demonstration purposes only; the more important map with the 21 MINUTES DRAFT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 identified ridges was attached and labeled Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridges and it was an exhibit tied to the ordinance. Commissioner Schmidt said that if someone wanted to see what 4,000 feet would be, they would ask staff. Mr. Stendell concurred that staff had the ability to provide that information for each individual parcel. Each application would be different and an applicant at the time of submittal would provide the 4,000 square foot radius as prepared by a title company. There were no other questions and Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2439 recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 07-01 with the changes as identified to D-1 and D-2. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Chairperson Campbell indicated that the next meeting would be March 21, 2007. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont reported that the next meeting would be March 21, 2007. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont reviewed the issues discussed. 22 MINUTES t` C PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION in favor of this to see the project move forward and give the developer some flexibility in that direction, although he liked the original project. Mr. Smith asked for clarification if it was their intention to approve a project with 20 fewer units or only put the height restriction at 42 feet on the development and if they could come back with a project that has maybe 10 fewer units, then they could live with that within the overall total. Chairperson Campbell said that was her question earlier. They don't want to eliminate all of those units, but if they do have a restriction on the height, they could still come out and have additional units. Commissioner Schmidt said that was fine with her as long as it was within the same footprints as proposed. Commissioner Tanner agreed that it gave them some flexibility. With that clarification, Chairperson Campbell called for a vote to that amended condition. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont voting no. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2435, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. DA 06-03, PP/CUP 06- 17 and TT 35426, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont voting no. C. Case No. ZOA 07-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council for approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and draft resolution. He asked for questions. Commissioner Tanner said he was in favor, but his concern was if there are any current projects that would be negatively affected if this amendment was approved right now. He asked if there were plans in place that this would alter from the ridge line. Mr. Stendell replied no. He said there was one application before them that was eventually withdrawn. He didn't believe this would directly affect anybody. For previous entitlements in Bighorn, none would be effected. Most of those homes would have fallen into the section about house size and pad size and restoring that relationship; 35%. Most he takes through were 20-25%. He confirmed that they wouldn't have to go before the Planning Commission, just Architectural Review Commission for approval of anything over 35% lot coverage. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 2007 Chairperson Campbell noted that if the proposed amendment was approved this evening, it would go to City Council for approval. If they approved it, she asked when it would become effective. Mr. Smith indicated it would become effective after second reading and a 30-day posting. Regarding grading and percolation, things like that, Commissioner Limont asked for confirmation that they would still have to get a permit and this pertains to that as well and people couldn't sneak in through the back door. Mr. Stendell said absolutely they would still get permits and there were no back doors here. They were adding to what was already a pretty restrictive ordinance. The only leeway would be to allow some of the Bighorn homes that were asking for entitlements for hillside homes in excess of 4,000 square feet. It allowed them to escape the public hearing process for something they were entitled to at the beginning, but it didn't allow them any back doors for grading or percolation. Commissioner Tschopp thought everyone would agree that the intent is good. He complimented Mr. Stendell in trying to come up with a definition for ridge lines. That was his only concern; some of the definitions on some of the words like "prominent ridges." His understanding of what a prominent ridge and that of a home owner could be completely different. He thought the way Mr. Stendell wrote ridge line is basically to the valley floor, and he didn't know if that was right, but to him valley floor would be Highway 111 or Highway 74 and he didn't think that was the right definition either. He thought they might need a geologist to help them out and an attorney to help us figure out exactly what we're trying to say there. He thought they all had the same idea in their minds, but the person who wants to build might have a different definition. He just wanted staff to clean up that terminology a little better. Mr. Stendell said that was also his intent and the City's legal counsel was currently reviewing it. The first read was it could work with some tweaking. He knew the word prominent was going to become an issue and this language could be cleaned up in any way, shape or form. There was still a fair amount of review in front of them, so staff would definitely take a look at it and firm it up. He said it could be brought back to the Commission if they would like to see it firmed up. Commissioner Tschopp thought they were all in agreement as to the intent. Commissioner Tschopp also noted that it said that "rooflines are not visible above existing ridge lines"and asked who that referred to. Most development they were concerned about would occur on the west side of Highway 74 and there are people that are going to be looking down on homes and the way it is written they could use that as a reason to oppose a development because they would be looking down at the rooftop. He thought they had the 15 MINUTES P LM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 2007 right intent, but didn't think they had the verbiage down right yet. Mr. Stendell concurred. Regarding the noticing, Commissioner Tschopp asked if the City pays that with the fees from the developer or the individual pays the City. Mr. Stendell explained that the applicant provides the City with an affidavit from a title company certifying certain standards that we set forth. In this case they now send us a letter with a 300-foot radius ring and all the labels. They give us all the labels and then we take care of the mailing costs and publish it in the newspaper. In this case, it would create quite a few more mailings, but from what he gathered, there were only 25-30 hillside lots in the western portion of the city and some he didn't think were developable. So they would come up occasionally. It would be the developer's obligation to provide them. They would have to agree on some way of coming up with the analysis of line-of- sight and it would have to be something between the engineer and staff. Then if staff feels more comfortable adding an additional amount of noticing, we can do that. Commissioner Tschopp said that was his next question. How do they determine the line-of-sight? Mr. Stendell said that in initial talks when this was first formulated, they talked about having the engineer of the project submit a line-of-sight. If they didn't agree with that, staff would add to the list. Staff has done that in the past. In the case with the grading and percolation, he added 500-600 feet of noticing just to make sure they got more. They always have the ability to add, which is a good thing. Commissioner Schmidt agreed that this was a good first attempt. She asked if they had any definition of what these hillside ridges are and what we're concerned about. She asked if there was a way to overlay on a map the area being discussed. Mr. Stendell said yes. Mr. Smith explained that we're only impacting the properties that are currently zoned HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) and that is a defined area on the zoning map. The area in question most specifically is the area west of the channel with that zoning. Mr. Stendell said there are also about a dozen lots within the Canyons of Bighorn that also fall within that zone. So they were talking about the area west of the storm channel and a few scattered lots within the Canyons of Bighorn. Commissioner Schmidt asked what was left around the Hagadone property. Mr. Stendell indicated that there are three or four more lots on that road, all of which are lower than the Hagadone property. He thought there was one higher up the road, but it was on the western side of that street, which falls on the lower side of the mountain, so they wouldn't have another ridge top there. 16 C C MINUTES ' PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FFRRI ARV 20 22a Commissioner Schmidt asked if the Hagadone property had been allowed under "D Exceptions." Mr. Stendell said yes, the entire project was an exception. After carefully reading the proposed resolution, Commissioner Schmidt had a couple of suggestions. She asked that "D" in the first paragraph of Exhibit B start with "All." She also wanted to better define the mailing of notices. She thought it was vague as to who does the mailing and it seemed to refer to "C" above it. The "not less than 10 nor more than 30 days" seemed boiler plate in publication. Then when they add "and mailing notices to people whose names appear"she thought they should really define it as United States mail to all people whose names appear; pin it down. That would be her suggestion because this is what gets them in trouble, the vagueness of some of these definitions. Also, the word "provide" where it states development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential zone shall "provide" notice should be shall "require" notice to all. She would also add with "D", that all hillside development sites shall conform to all regulations or requirements of this chapter. Further down under the second "D" she recommended starting the second sentence with the word "Building"to read, "Building pad elevations..." She asked for clarification for the real purpose of section "E." She also suggested adding in the word "building" before pads. Mr. Stendell said the purpose of "E" relates to what probably started out as 25-30 lots within the Canyons of Bighorn that were approved under a pre-2004 ordinance and those homes have been subject to a lengthy review process. One of the reasons staff was inclined to use the review process is that through the approval process the City was able to get the energy efficiency standards on these larger homes; however, since then the citywide Energy Ordinance has been enacted so now they don't need the discretionary approval to add those as conditions. So in essence, to hold those larger lots that were approved previously that were under a certain expectation of a house size, then in 2004 we said they were no longer entitled to that house size, only 4,000 square feet of house, then every one of those homes started coming through as an exception. Now the energy efficiency standards are in place and kind of preempted the discussion at Council as.to whether we really need to see each one. He thought the intent, since they were developed and approved under an older ordinance, had certain expectations. Now with the ordinance in place they didn't need the lengthy review, so let's allow them to get them going quicker. Commissioner Schmidt asked if someone wanted to step outside that prior approval, if a review would be required. Mr. Stendell said yes and they had 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 2007 a case in the past where a lot with prior approval wanted to increase the pad size with some extra land they were going to acquire from the golf course owner and in an instance like that, it would trigger a new exceptions section through the hillside zone and would require full public hearings. Commissioner Schmidt asked if that was articulated in this ordinance. Mr. Stendell said the pads are existing and approved. Any expansion is therefore considered an exception. Since the lots were already approved under an old tract map under an old ordinance, any change thereto would be an exception. It's implied in his opinion, but he would double check with the attorneys. Commissioner Schmidt would rather see it clearly stated rather than implied. She thought it was the biggest headache and if they could resolve it without much trouble she thought they should. She said it was a good start, though. Chairperson Campbell asked if the Commission felt comfortable approving the resolution with the changes or if they wanted staff to come back with the new verbiage. Mr. Smith recommended a continuance to March 20. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, by minute motion continuing Case No. ZOA 07-01 to March 20, 2007. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Potential Trip and Attendees Mr. Smith explained that the Agenda on March 6, 2007 would have a request for a proposed 782-unit two- and three-story apartment project at the northwest corner of Portola and Dinah Shore. The developer requested that staff try to arrange a tour for Planning Commissioners and City Council members. The proposed trip was tentatively scheduled for Monday and Tuesday next week, the 26th and 27th. Brown Act issues limit attendance to two members of each body in any one group. If there were more than two people from the Commission interested in the trip, then a second one would be scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, the 28th and the 1 st. He asked if people wanted to indicate now or check their calenders and let Tony Bagato know in the next day, then staff could make the arrangements. He indicated that the developer has four or five projects of a similar nature in 18 J RESOLUTION NO. 04.43 l pry 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 Y RESOLUTION NO. 04-43 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 gradin ' shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. g 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 131 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 ' 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. 25.15.060 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 firebreaks 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. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit (unless otherwise provided), or land subdivision, a Hillside Development Plan shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council. This may include, as determined by the Director of Community Development, the following information as set out in Sections 25.15.110 through 25.15.130. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983) 6 • r l RESOLUTION NO. O 43 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 and/or 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, 1 5. Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage patterns, structures 1 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 orgeologists based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capabilities, including soil types, soil openings, hydrologic groups, slopes, runoff potential, percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns; 7 RESOLUTION NO. 0443 D. Archeological studies in areas where existing evidence seems to indicate that significant artifacts of historic sites are likelyto be encountered in order to insure that these artifacts and/or sites are not inadvertently destroyed; E. Additional information to include: 1. Average natural slope of land, 2. Acreage and square footage calculations, I 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 applicants 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 I O' { a, 9 1 � �12 . a • iie N< g' v 4N/ue! �in a Rnt ^wti ' tin y F 1# aid,. Ci �_¢•� j ,�- '6 xf � 'yg�"4� iCy9Y5d�'S:,�yyieF ,k.��w S f`.FFirre��r'. Y 4y?a16.f1bbRsv}n. Y at °sm _r ..fX�clA9i341'F.�-Pp i�' fvr�,,Pv�"tr`N r��,. .�.. �FiCF! IFMPI ul Y M�14Te"rwss.IONIO N. �tPiilR MEiF.30q . 4'�'_: �FG�'��1 bsYrl�i i1E�EWinN82tF'��l +PJR�kilYF1C;R h�fdti3'B41R/17UNE. W516x5!lJM/ �etMl'C$Tt1F�/!�C.. r�+h!!f►L�6l+iPiaF. M4aTrme��i_A�r moo; _ �y��e¢Ic�carb ��€�'Pk'�dilY�ilif if w IN Fill V 1 ^.. AI4FE'4tif'.A4'v�wT`Yk.•SamY *01100 r E\4 iR•rp.T . R9,NINE Legend distance ti f ,may e i•,Ilaly� 4a'�v S`} AII`i' 111 1 1 100 A .R.-.. u4Z`UFl;mn M�v Itlyp:ftY 69f sIPT�I�.2f744+ .A!"4\1�i owl, PS. RR4/tiNS G@�6RI^tRSrbRc3'v f:?.lila>Yrk4''..euao-ee�511�wexWplrltlY/t eaP\vsyr si�• e+i+et yj,a6Fi4L 3i71''A'Ar:kdSFC`7lS��Gk7f1— ..,F>APF. PiIPQAlIfY4PY�� '�e 'd r t r rl��G4+�''aLs+RR'ltCi+MM�'YeS'� lQYNrri��lY�lYe& �, ®Peec�afPr��MvlBlfsy _=y ;. f Ji�ENP SIseFcl:St,i;4_�Y�PeNxl+���;r'S�1EnA59Fs�' SF�7CMeRSi�"ri'2t` %� _gun,.. etve.si?w9 etc\b �. �6 __MIST}^�ISfl;�f'Yi ,C�' Yt1RWl tlfitvp'� .�, ra`.nil nff'Serl:,t`� \stm m 7 wow, "viel[R0 r:e js;jvp% .�e:b � t� �m r �dNMR �` �°E Ata. t�11'+7Ct lwi,'/t�� +R' RIldtiJX�SY F �• Mt,RI'�a* T 1b L •^a �t�V'Qy ttRl� B �7>rr.a !'{�B87tiiQfZrt#►V1�.s�V tr �r r" :f'�° °a tr �u� a �•7.+i�v94f,}}sax �� art {IIqJ' �L' 7! �, ,., x3 'V.RIFlIINWfti�R :unou°4ur3 7 �t�kPe�t�g�tr,Srt�a���'aa 4W s.•'X 1 �^� 6tva y^►�tre��.,¢dAi€RKRdtM'7}5 � het` Lei t ,ry e2 Vr4� ty�.4twrt s� 'f'. @ J,�� p, ,. K'���1Y$'illsK ckllltYl yet lT t 3. main li�a4� i y�tRt1N?p� ax w`R�r•n> t[.m.��or ,`z' r afi � , •'ro `' 'if-1 sl T `I hY � s.1 NPIs�c-�r+tC fi +� it/, v •aP! 'R ,t S. v , ,/ " 'dS'.+c..'.4�� .\+"mlt'?.'h ff r.z n� wu.a t � ♦. .a/ f a�� �` �' t . !Yl,p t {(s"S to rx.�y�.o t�f�MFtn FS�h�:m s,•r � r .,re•RC ���,'+ is fin. �i'�C,rc�+i ly` 3`R`{y -•g ticw F n, �$t14 ,wt ` �.♦rCq: +i�t �S-+i e� � "'�.!? J t3m e• n' 1 it r C_a 6 "t'Jf_6. �� i��••11� • �h'.m-i H �' �J 7• a y1 im t.9 � �?fla i:�, atll\rC Legend distance t /11 Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: NLHaase@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:15 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: (no subject) City Council -- I am a homeowner in Ironwood Country Club. As it relates to the Hagadone property and proposed amendments to the Palm Desert hillside ordninance, I want to express my support for changes. This has been a nightmare for homeowners and is due to a large extent to the lack of attention by the Palm Desert City Council. Now that the Hagaone property is nearly complete (or may be complete), when the house has the lights on, the project looms like a space ship. I cannot express my extreme displeasure in strong enough words. appreciate any and all efforts by the City Council to strengthen the hillside ordinance. The Hagadone atrocity must never be repeated. I'm sure that many, many hours of work have gone into the effort to assure that no further development or or near the prominent ridges ever happens again. Thank you for all of everyone's efforts in this regard. Nancy L. Haase 73-203 Ribbonwood Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 See what's free at AOL.com. N 0 o 'V� a >< =OW � rr*t Omo N rnmrrl t+x— m i m Gov rV n� o n0 � m 4/12/2007 Klassen, Rachelle From: Beverlee Human [bevhuman@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:56 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: Hillside Ordinance We're grateful to the City Council for being responsive to the concerns expressed by Ironwood Country Club homeowners and other Palm Desert residents about the obtrusive private residential development taking place on Palm Desert's ridgelines. As you know, many living south of Highway Ill have been very distressed and frustrated to see our beautiful wild ridges permanently scarred in this sad way. We strongly support passage of the Hillside Ordinance and urge its - strict enforcement. Lee E. Human M. D. Beverlee Human y< r omn �v (n;K— N7C— ?7 _ -400 N CI 11 CD D n Crl M I Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: Davidson, Janet T. [anetdavidson@paulhastings.coml Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:40 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: April 12 vote on Hillside Ordinance Amendments Please accept the attached letter in support of the above referenced amendments. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: As required by U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice, you are hereby advised that any written tax advice contained herein was not written or intended to be used (and cannot be used) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. For additional information, please visit our website at www.paulhastings.com. ry f) V MOM r-M om o N MyJM NX— rn _ p<nm n N CST CD D n rn 4/12/2007 I JANET DAVIDSON PLAT 73-724 Jasmine Palm Desert, California 92660 April 11, 2007 Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert, CA 92660 Dear Members of the City Council: I am a resident of Palm Desert, living in the Ironwood Country Club community. I am writing to express my enthusiastic support of the proposed amendments to the Hillside Ordinance which will be considered at your meeting tomorrow. Like many others, I was very concerned when I first noticed the construction above our property as it appeared to be breaking the ridgeline. Our mountains are such an important part of the beauty of our city and we need to assure that they are protected from development, specifically at the ridgeline. I am very appreciative of your efforts to work toward that end. Sincerely, Janet Davidson Plat N n G tl-i O D,{ y+ r n r a rn To: Mayor Richard Kelley and the Palm Desert City Council. m From: Richard Fromme Valley resident since 1965 48-625 Paisano Rd. Z"A Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 i m Subject: ZOA Case No. 07-01-City of Palm Desert, Applicant/April 12 2007 public hearing. Political: I believe that these proposed restriction being placed on the property owners of the Palm Desert Cahuilla Hills properties are nothing but a response to the uproar from the Hagadone project in The Canyons at Big Horn. It seems very unfair for these property owners to be restricted for this reason. The responsibility for the Hagadone project belongs to the City that issued the permit to build the house, not the rest of the property owners who happen to have property on hillsides. These properties should retain the beautiful views of the valley and mountains. The owners should be allowed to build so they can retain the view. Property Values: The restrictions being placed on the hillside properties by Palm Desert will have a significant affect on their value. A property on Upper Way West was listed for$1,295,000.00 on a 4/28/06 according to the CMA report, a copy of which is included with this letter. It sold for$276,500.00 in December of 2006. The assessed value of the property was $882,300.00 at that time. I understand the reason for the low price was restrictions placed on the property by the seller to insure his privacy. These restrictions are similar to the ones proposed by this ordinance. Cahuilla Hills property owners should be paid for this decrease in value and the owners of ridgeline lots that are not buildable should be paid the entire value of the property. I understand the city is purchasing property in the hills and it seems to me that this ordinance would be a good way to purchase the property that the city wants at a devalued price. I hope this is not the case. The Planning Commission attorney at the hearing on March 20 said that the city would be obligated to purchase any property the city rendered not buildable. Notification: Notifying everyone within 4000 Feet by mail is expensive and unnecessary. If this is the new criterion, then it should be the same for everyone, even the properties in the flat parcels. It was much prettier for Cahuilla Hills residents when we could see the wildflowers instead of houses. Shouldn't we be allowed the same courtesy to be notified when someone wants to build within 4000 feet of our properties? Would publishing the project in the newspaper, as the city does, be better? This new regulation is a divisive Action for the City to take as it pits one group of citizens against another. All of the residential properties should have to abide by the same rules. City Council: I think that there are some conflicts on the city council concerning the hillside plans. Voting on this should not be allowed for those council people involved. Homestead Act: The Federal Government arranged for the hills to be homesteaded so people would build and settle on that property. I realize that now the Federal Government defers to the local government to administer development, and rightfully so, but don't you feel the original intent of the act should be considered? Most of the property owners purchased in the Cahuilla Hills so they could have a view. I understand that building on the ridgelines would not be good,but the ridgelines are already protected. These restrictions are being put on the foothill portion and not the ridgeline of the mountains. The Cities ridgeline map considers ridgelines to be extended all of the way down to the flat areas. This kind of changes the definition of a ridge to anything that can be seen from the valley floor. I can see the Hagadone house from my house and I feel that he should be able to build, within the rules, whatever he desires on his property. I also don't understand why residents of the Big Horn Country Clubs can build large houses that can be seen from below, but the Cabuilla Hills residents cannot. I believe they also should be able to build whatever they want, within the rules,but those same rules should apply to all of the hillside properties. Most of the structures on the hillsides were there when the developments on the flat were built. Those people did not have to build there if they did not like to look at their surroundings. Questions: What do you consider an abandoned building and how many years can it remain under construction and not occupied? How does this plan serve the"public health and safety"? When will there be a reductio in property tax to reflect these devaluations? Re e t Ily, Richard H. Fromme Report(216) Page 1 of 2 CMA Report Lisungs as of 04/28/06 at 4:30pm Page 1 RESVEHTIAL ACM Properties Address city Map Bd Sth SgFt LotSz Year WA• Date $1SgFtCDOMOrlg Price List Price 72240 Uo er Palm DesertPage#931,G 22.50 2000220849sf 1960GPS 01/03/06 647,50 113 1,295,0001 295,00 48725 Ve enia Rd Palm Desert Page#818,D 3 2 2317 2.500ac 1990G 02/22/OB 561.07 1,3 ,000 , 00,000 71450 Painted Canyon Palm Desert Pape#848.8 4 4 6000 87556sf 19WGPS 11/23/05 680.00 156 3,900,D002,900,000 Listing Count 3 Averages 3106 598.19 111 2,165,0001.831.687 High 2,900.000 Low 1.295.000 Median 1,300.000 SAD Properties Address City Map Sd Sth SgFt LotSz Year WA! Date $/SgFtCDOMOrig Price List PriesSele PriceSP 71825 Cholla Way Palm DesertPage#848,B 2 0 1071103672sf 1963G 01/24/03 275.44 20 309,000 309000 295 000 £ 71-750 Cholls WayPalm DesertPage#848,B 3250 1960 1.110ac 1991 GP 03/05/04 227.04 172 489,000 449:500 3Z,}�Q00 £ 71395 0asls Trail Palm DesertPage#848,B 4 4 3300 1sf 2001 GPS 03/29f02 187.88 379 675,000 675,000 6 O'F,000 £ 48725 Verbena Rd Palm DesertPage#848.B 3-2 2317 72309sf 1990 G 02/17/08 269.75 14 649,500 649.00 825,000 £ - 71440 Oasis Td Palm DesertPage#848,B 11.50 2970 87120sf 2001 G 12/23/04 267.68 349 825,000 795,000 795.000 1C 71550 Quail Td Palm DesertPage#848,B 4 4 320D108900sf 1983GPS 10/13/04 28125 277 975,000 925,00D 900,000 £ 71900 Jaguar Way Palm DesertPage#848,C 32.50 4421 1.200ac 1985GPS 04/20/06 246.65 427 1,250.0001.195,000 1;086.= £ 71450 Cholla Palm DesertPage#848,G 3325 42682178DDsf 1993G 02/09/04 303.42 422 1.470,0001,350,000 1,295,000 £ 71295 Mesa Tri Palm DesertPage#648,A 44.60 4369217800sf 2000GPS 08/12/06 583.66 446 2,950,0002,950,DD0 2,550,000 E Listing Count 9 Averages 3097 293.53 278 1.065.8331.033.111 956.778 £ High 2.550,000 Low 296.000 Median 795,000 VMDRAVWN Address city Map BdBth SgFt LotSz Year WA* Data tBgFtCDOMOrIg PriceLiat Price 71660 Quail Td Palm DesertPaae#848,B 4 4 34001089DOsf 2005GPS 04/05/06 469.12 135 1,695.0001,595,000 Listing Count 1 Averages 3400 469.12 135 1,695,0001,595,000 High 1,595,000 Low 1.595.000 Median 1.595,000 Presented By:Keith Markowitz/Coldweil Banker Res Brokerage Phone:310-777-6200 Featured properties may not be listed by the offios/agem presenting this brochure. fRpPO4-01 All information herein has not bean verified and Is not guaranteed. 3srtxrythrper : ►�rA111casTSeltANlca��yooa ftAtl:bM s rAW UPM WAY W PAIN WNW O22 O ml A "I M r 7JZq rl�'Sl. WAY W PALM DUMT,CA rAW ie t Az�c7sFe7erlX's s 62F170p7 - caa=TM414 r 0431-0t1 E&P NPO 0 = WA Kwo r ,-zGru VA LQdD=t:!=r SA7ACRKS1NP(MSSC39TssW R�"-t'�ti1e:4 r a I?rop*rty Dowuh Dra Code : SNOW rAWLYRESCOKS Ze=!= ° RE43 1 moext f 3 Ntcbwd vc!o s t G S=mers r 0.7 Yavz= s 1960 .s t 0=:h—t let On : 2MOSOISSMAaa VfW : NSA 14=017ad : 1216 Pad s Ya Teti nooas : NIA VlrWt= : WA s 0 less TVA T= Informmaftnn AC_sd[Mml : S6t%M T=Aa7ezt : 3%9w9u Lo0Tmd : 1 k%9 1l aaftrsr : Caren Dopmemme : Sf"I Ycwpkmt�,� : VA Y' = s 42% T=r4 tAm3 : jUo3 t riA SM12 Informctba Ld1ia*s3Tate : »eaWZbW142906 14a6er t N4A l!r"tG'�Otlrs, 0""0. I?M InL ➢Ate r WA ttibA t : 3276409(Flo ftM Lt=Tno : TVA LctTra:$W/O$ : NIA 7d&A=At3w= : MA lexnxarof : cad/ Dct : 227 cg+�N6i1Gt3 t>ez .T!t s+artraSrsi..r0tota,�..daeamntis�is prep msrn se:er�oAte ra.r�3�r �� Tom 33h 43,706 Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: Bob and Carolyn McAlister[rmcalister@dc.rr.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 1:56 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: Hillside Ord. I live at Ironwood CC and support the new restrictions on hillside development and thank you for your efforts....Bob McAlister rN A � A< 3�7n rn arnn �G M10M N-A— rn � 70Nffl z -+ov r 0-nn ut v j; G rn 4/9/2007 Klassen, Rachelle Page 1 of 1 From: Samuel Goldstein [sam.pam@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, April 08. 2007 5:09 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: Hillside/Ridgeline Ordinance Dear Councilperson Klassen, On April 12th, 2007 please adopt the new Hillside/Ridgeline Development Ordinance. This ordinance revision is way past due and because of not having a very tough Ridgeline Ordinance in the past, 1100 homeowners of Ironwood County Club, the City of Palm Desert and three or four more master communities will have visual blight from the Big Horn/Hegadon property lasting forever. Hopefully this revised ordinance will stop this kind of environmental blight from ever happening again anywhere in Palm Desert. Samuel & Pamela Goldstein Samuel Goldstein 73311 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA. or 49 Lagunita Drive Laguna Beach, CA. 92651 949-497-7411 fax 949-497-8146 Cell - 949-230-4800 email: sam.Pam@verizon.net o � e v� b �j 'Tf �n 7C1 vmn mmm m 3 MNM :i00 GD nM CCD PI D A m 4/9/2007 Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: Chuck Henderson [chuckh0791 @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 4:25 PM To: Masser, Rachelle Subject: Ridgline Ordinance I am a resident at 48-884 Mariposa Drive, Palm Desert, 92260. 1 have been following the development of the ridgeline ordinance. First I would like to thank both the Council and Staff for the time and effort to work reasonable solutions to this troubling issue. Second I support passing the ordinance in the form submitted to council with no changes. Thank you, Charles L. Henderson Henderson Companies 48-884 Mariposa Drive Palm Desest, CA 92260 Tel: (425)401-0791 Fax: (866)255-0795 Cell: (206) 550-6852 N � bD< r � 3'OW rRl MM m Rl'JK A`"m -4pp Co A� O D n Cn M 4/9/2007 Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: Meline Pickus [pickline@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 1:32 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: Proposed amendments to Hillside Ordinance Dear City Council I would personally like to thank you for the proposed amendments to the Hillside Ordinance. This action will not only benefit those of us who live nearby but the entire community of Palm Desert. By enhancing our environment and refusing to bow to development pressures I commend the city council for acting on behalf of the residents of Palm Desert. Thank you for the time and effort you have expended in working on strengthening the ordinance. Meline Pickus 48-955 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 o 0 n r n �O r*1Am ii m�c_ 7O u m 00 7400 �o n 0 m 4/9/2007 Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: GernNagler@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:55 AM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: Hillside Ordinance I am a homeowner in Ironwood Country Club. I certainly hope that the new amendments to the Hillside Ordinance is approved. There has been a lot of work done not only by members of Ironwood, but also by the city to hopefully prevent what has recently taken place with the Hagadon residence. I want to personally thank all of you for supporting this change. R. Gem Nagler See what's free at AOL.com. q _A arm. w mMr m"_' zz MCA c�T y DA m 4/9/2007 Page 1 of i Klassen, Rachelle From: RutheK@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 09. 2007 8:46 AM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: Hillside Development Dear Sir: We very much support the changes to the hillside development law. We appreciate your work on this matter. We are strongly against any projects breaking the ridge line. Thank You for your consideration. Ruthe and David Shatz 73-674 Agave Lane See what's free at AOL.com. o � o v� �p Mmpn rn CA a rn s morn Q nT r m 4/9/2007 Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: Gene Grant[ggrant@dc.rr.comj Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 9:53 AM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: Hillside Ordinance Case No ZOA 07-01 Dear Councilmembers; Thank you for following through on your promise made last year to substantially revise and improve the existing Hillside Development Ordinance. It is refreshing to see a political body that lives up to its word. I was part of a small group who met with you last summer regarding the Haggadone property and appreciated your candor and straight forward approach on the subject. It seems as though you are approaching the revised Hillside Ordinance with the same clear and objective thinking. I am certain you are hearing from numbers of people who have self serving interests lobbying to modify or eliminate the ordinance. That is a bad idea. I trust you will stay the course with the same resolve you have displayed in the past. We appreciate your efforts a great deal. Thank you. Gene Grant Gene H. Grant Principal, Insight Edge 73126 Mirasol Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 760-341-9854 cell 760-567-1555 email: 99rant@1c.rr.com N � a D-c mom en � omn �O maps N�— m — nm Dn m 4/9/2007 Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: PAUL A MUELLER JR [pauljane65@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, April 09. 2007 10:26 AM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: Proposed Amendments to Hillside Planned Residential District Ordinance Dear Council Members: My wife and I write to let you know that we strongly support the proposed amendments to Chapter 25.15. The additions to Section 25.15.030 are well thought out. We particularly are in favor of the addition of Paragraph F which will provide if the amendments are approved that development on or across ridges "is prohibited". We want to express our appreciation for your concern and efforts to strengthen the Hillside Planned Residential District Ordinance. Very truly yours, Jane and Paul Mueller o t) SnM m or" t0 �A,n'7 _ rVI Ono Dn m 4/9/2007 0/1 �GENnA PACKET r SECTIMaff e=i D< r 1 MEETING DATE 'y�a d rri To: Mayor Richard Kelley and the Palm Desert City Council. - (P% D , v f"u'r*� From: Richard Fromme Valley resident since 1965 adCJ 48-625 Paisano Rd. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 i D m Subject: ZOA Case No. 07-01-City of Palm Desert, Applicant/April 12 2007 public hearing. Political: I believe that these proposed restriction being placed on the property owners of the Palm Desert Cahuilla Hills properties are nothing but a response to the uproar from the Hagadone project in The Canyons at Big Horn. It seems very unfair for these property owners to be restricted for this reason. The responsibility for the Hagadone project belongs to the City that issued the permit to build the house, not the rest of the property owners who happen to have property on hillsides. These properties should retain the beautiful views of the valley and mountains. The owners should be allowed to build so they can retain the view. Property Values: The restrictions being placed on the hillside properties by Palm Desert will have a significant affect on their value. A property on Upper Way West was listed for$1,295,000.00 on a 4/28/06 according to the CMA report, a copy of which is included with this letter. It sold for$276,500.00 in December of 2006. The assessed value of the property was $882,300.00 at that time. I understand the reason for the low price was restrictions placed on the property by the seller to insure his privacy. These restrictions are similar to the ones proposed by this ordinance. Cahuilla Hills property owners should be paid for this decrease in value and the owners of ridgeline lots that are not buildable should be paid the entire value of the property. I understand the city is purchasing property in the hills and it seems to me that this ordinance would be a good way to purchase the property that the city wants at a devalued price. I hope this is not the case. The Planning Commission.attorney at the hearing on March 20 said that the city would be obligated to purchase any property the city rendered not buildable. Notification: Notifying everyone within 4000 Feet by mail is expensive and unnecessary. If this is the new criterion, then it should be the same for everyone, even the properties in the flat parcels. It was much prettier for Cahuilla Hills residents when we could see the wildflowers instead of houses. Shouldn't we be allowed the same courtesy to be notified when someone wants to build within 4000 feet of our properties? Would publishing the project in the newspaper, as the city does,be better? This new regulation is a divisive Action for the City to take as it pits one group of citizens against another. All of the residential properties should have to abide by the same rules. City Council: I think that there are some conflicts on the city council concerning the hillside plans. Voting on this should not be allowed for those council people involved. Homestead Act: The Federal Government arranged for the hills to be homesteaded so people would build and settle on that property. I realize that now the Federal • r Government defers to the local government to administer development, and rightfully so, but don't you feel the original intent of the act should be considered? Most of the property owners purchased in the Cahuilla Hills so they could have a view. I understand that building on the ridgelines would not be good, but the ridgelines are already - protected. These restrictions are being put on the foothill portion and not the ridgeline of the mountains. The Cities ridgeline map considers ridgelines to be extended all of the way down to the flat areas. This kind of changes the definition of a ridge to anything that can be seen from the valley floor. I can see the Hagadone house from my house and I feel that he should be able to build, within the rules, whatever he desires on his property. I also don't understand why residents of the Big Horn Country Clubs can build large houses that can be seen from below, but the Cahuilla Hills residents cannot. I believe they also should be able to build whatever they want, within the rules,but those same rules should apply to all of the hillside properties. Most of the structures on the hillsides were there when the developments on the flat were built. Those people did not have to build there if they did not like to look at their surroundings. Questions: What do you consider an abandoned building and how many years can it remain under construction and not occupied? How does this plan serve the"public health and safety"? When will there be a reductio in property tax to reflect these devaluations? Re e t lly, Richard H. Fromme Report(216) Page 1 of 2 CMA Report 7wisfingsof 04/ 2870628706 at 4:30pm. Page 1 RESIDENTIAL I&CTIVE Properties Address City Map Bd Sth SaFt LotSz Year WA* Date $/SgFtCDOMOAg PriceLlst Price 224Q�pper Palm DesertPage#931.G 22.50 2000220849sf 1960GPS 01103106 647.50 113 1 295,0001 295 0� 48725 e1�6r n a Rd Palm DesertPage#818,D 3 2 2317 2.500ac 199OG 02/22/06 561.07 1300100010 ,000 71450 Painted Canyon Palm DesertPage#848,B 4 4 5000 8755W 1950GPS 11/23/05 580.00 156 3.900,0002.900.000 Listing Count 3 Averages 3106 696.19 Ill 2,105,0001,831,667 High 2.900,000 Low 1,295.000 Median 1,300.000 SOLD-Propertles Address city Map Bd Bth SqR LofSz Year WA` Date MFtCDOMOrin PriceUst PrfcaSale PriceSP 71825 Choda Way Palm DesertPage#848,B 2 0 1071103672sf 1983G 01/24/03 275.44 20 309,000 309,000 295 0 £ 71-750 Cholla WayPalm DesertPage#848,B 32.50 1960 1.110ac 1991 GP 03/05/04 227.04 172 489,000 449.500 � .QC1O S 71395 Oasis Trell Palm DesertPage#848,B 4 4 3300 1af 2001 GPS 03/29/02 187.88 379 675,000 675.000 pzgg49 £ 48725 Verbena Rd Palm DesertPage#848,B 3-2 2317 72309sf 199OG 02/17/06 269.75 14 649,500 649,500 625,000 £ 71440 Oasis Trl Palm DesertPage#848.B 11.50 2970 87120sf 2001 G 12/23/04 267.68 349 825,000 795.000 795,000 10 71550 Quail Td Palm DesertPage#848.B 4 4 3200108900sf 1983GPS 10/13W 28125 277 975,000 925.000 900,000 £ 71900Jaguar Way Palm DesertPage#848,C 32.60 4421 1200ac 1985GPS 04/20/08 245.65 427 1,250,0001,195,000 T,086= £ 71450 Cholla Palm DesertPage#848,G 33.25 4288217800sf 1993G 02109/04 303A2 422 1.470,0001,350,000 1.295,000 S 71295 Mesa Trl Palm DesertPage#848,A 44.50 4369217800sf 2000OPS 08/12/06 583.66 446 2,950,0002,950.000 2,650.000 3 LlstingCount 9 Averages 3097 293.53 2781,066.8331.033,111 956,778 E High 2.650.000 Low 296.000 Median 795,000 WITHDRAWN Properties Address city Mao BdSth SOFt LotSz Year WA* Date $1SaFtCDOMOrfgPrlceLlstPrice 71550 Quail TrI Palm DesertPage#848,B 4 4 3400108900sf 2005GPS 04/05/08 489.12 135 1,695:0001,595,000 Listing Count 1 Averages 3400 469.12 135 1,695,0001,595,000 High 1,595,000 LOW 1,595.000 Median 1.595,000 Presented By:Kefth Markevhz/Coklwe8 Banker Rea Brokerage Phone:310-777-6200 Featured properties may not be listed by the office/agent presenting this brochure. MAC-0) Afi Infommtion herein has not been verified and Is not guaranteed. r;7 tr :.. "Onerty if -ofile ! Ownership hdo madon PARWYOSIW MARXR578lHµl11paR11111rVOW Saa•iarYow.ar S(MAY/sss s 72210 UPl6R WAY 1V PAIN DE1 KrMMWS) FMIftAdkft . 7ZW UPM WAY W lALMD6Wr CA Wo T41g0rtw : AsnaasTbralTla, : 62a•t74•ts7 CaaarrTnlst : a461a41 KP hv a = WA Nar l4a45et61tA IAsdb !MAMUINFMSECt0TnRas L7YMt : 0. Ieaasai DNCs6s : SfMQUTAW'rR Later : RM SWWO a F 2 Nwisrotvda 1 1 Mitsaea : a7 YMrawo t 1660 ty _ offaw.150 1 L'4XW : 72 WS*lSfMA1sss VkW 1 WA lRts�740 : 1216 !ad 1 Tss TOW Room : N/A YUdlan : TWA aaQ = 0 tat : WA Tax ImArmadon 3u2ta Tm^mnm 1 f1p9607i Lad TOW I SSMso TAc6ea m aa=& 9G Myurss 00 1 42% TMRSW AM : IS00) SURINVIlill s YJA Sale Imbrmoftn LreSdaDm : Vommbr142106 t4a6sr s wA D6c.ta6.11" Omml70s0 19 Lou Ataow : TVA "Aaswi : R1TMOD MM.;,; 1<h1 Lmii T}ps TVA LMI TMM WMS : IWA 2d tau AnNan : TWA LutDW WM3 : Caat/SPusr YM : 227 Gp/s�hm=slitNJ orrQMdcs.n=�w6fsRuS6a.1t6ru..60sow0Yweose�oure icw=tmu.6es6. �rssol iP.6iStAt6 CsttsawSltsltalpt,: lrlrr TOlic R01436M Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: Bob and Carolyn McAlister[rmcalister@dc.rr.com] AGENDA PACKET rr /� e Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 1:56 PM NON— To:To: Klassen, Rachelle MEETING DATE—_T,� —07,_,,,, Subject: Hillside Ord. I live at Ironwood CC and support the new restrictions on hillside development and thank you for your efforts....Bob McAlister N C-) b r n xJ � tam n rn � �Nm Cn v C m 4/9/2007 Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle / From: Meline Pickus [pickline@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 1:32 PM /'I/] AGENDA PACKET (� To: Klassen, Rachelle (, IiSECTIONSubject: Proposed amendments to Hillside Ordinance MEETING DATE Dear City Council I would personally like to thank you for the proposed amendments to the Hillside Ordinance. This action will not only benefit those of us who live nearby but the entire community of Palm Desert. By enhancing our environment and refusing to bow to development pressures I commend the city council for acting on behalf of the residents of Palm Desert. Thank you for the time and effort you have expended in working on strengthening the ordinance. Meline Pickus 48-955 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 m v� S C-J S r m a rn -4 O t7 co n� © Dn m 4/9/2007 Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: Chuck Henderson [chuckh0791@comcast.net] /Y AGENDA PACKET Sent: Sunday, April 08, 20074:25 PM cl-cf?b C. f' SECT To: Klassen, Rachelle �7 Subject: Ridgline Ordinance MF�TIN�DATE �c2 ' �/ I am a resident at 48-884 Mariposa Drive, Palm Desert, 92260. 1 have been following the development of the ridgeline ordinance. First I would like to thank both the Council and Staff for the time and effort to work reasonable solutions to this troubling issue. Second I support passing the ordinance in the form submitted to council with no changes. Thank you, Charles L. Henderson Henderson Companies 48-884 Mariposa Drive Palm Desest, CA 92260 Tel: (425)401-0791 Fax: (866)255-0795 Cell: (206) 550-6852 N (' .v mmm enx m X NM op ()T N aA rn 4/9/2007 Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: Samuel Goldstein Isam.pam@verizon.net] n Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 5:09 PM / n AGENDA PACKET To: Klassen, Rachelle SECTION Subject: Hillside/Ridgeline Ordinance MEETING DATE Dear Councilperson Klassen, On April 12th, 2007 please adopt the new Hillside/Ridgeline Development Ordinance. This ordinance revision is way past due and because of not having a very tough Ridgeline Ordinance in the past, 1100 homeowners of Ironwood County Club, the City of Palm Desert and three or four more master communities will have visual blight from the Big Horn/Hegadon property lasting forever. Hopefully this revised ordinance will stop this kind of environmental blight from ever happening again anywhere in Palm Desert. Samuel & Pamela Goldstein Samuel Goldstein 73311 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA. or 49 Lagunita Drive Laguna Beach, CA. 92651 949-497-7411 fax 949-497-8146 Cell - 949-230-4800 email: sam.pam.@verizon.net N (] � rho � vrnf-j rn AyM --i Ov CID nT >b En m 4/9/2007 _ Page 1 of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: GemNagler@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:55 AM EM To: Klassen, RachelleSubject: Hillside Ordinance I am a homeowner in Ironwood Country Club. I certainly hope that the new amendments to the Hillside Ordinance is approved. There has been a lot of work done not only by members of Ironwood, but also by the city to hopefully prevent what has recently taken place with the Hagadon residence. I want to personally thank all of you for supporting this change. R. Gern Nagler See what's free at AOL.com. o n b D� 'o roX, m- _ AT V Dn m 4/9/2007 Page I of I Klassen, Rachelle From: RutheK@aol.com AGENDA PACKET Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8.46 AM q 7� SECTION To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: Hillside Development MEETING DATE �7 Dear Sir: We very much support the changes to the hillside development law. We appreciate your work on this matter. We are strongly against any projects breaking the ridge line. Thank You for your consideration. Ruthe and David Shatz 73-674 Agave Lane _ ----- -- ----------------- See what's free at AOL.com. N () O �J D O�C-J a `^ n� v m 4/9/2007 Page I of 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: Gene Grant[ggrant@dc.rr.comj Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 9:53 AM /y/r AGENDA PACKET To: Klassen, Rachelle SECTION Subject:Subject: Hillside Ordinance Case No ZOA 07-01 MEETING DATE/ d Dear Councilmembers; Thank you for following through on your promise made last year to substantially revise and improve the existing Hillside Development Ordinance. It is refreshing to see a political body that lives up to its word. I was part of a small group who met with you last summer regarding the Haggadone property and appreciated your candor and straight forward approach on the subject. It seems as though you are approaching the revised Hillside Ordinance with the same clear and objective thinking. I am certain you are hearing from numbers of people who have self serving interests lobbying to modify or eliminate the ordinance. That is a bad idea. I trust you will stay the course with the same resolve you have displayed in the past. We appreciate your efforts a great deal. Thank you. Gene Grant Gene H. Grant Principal, Insight Edge 73126 Mirasol Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 760-341-9854 cell 760-567-1555 email: ggrant dc.rr.com N v _ V >-C z c-j m r vmn m Cn AT Cn Dn m 4/9/2007 Page 1 of 1 Masson, Rachelle From: • PAUL A MUELLER JR [pauljane65@verizon.net] 'Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:26 AM �/y AGENDA PACKET To: Klassen, Rachelle 4 sI�TLI Subject: Proposed Amendments to Hillside Planned Residential District rdinance MEETING DATE _10.-69_ Dear Council Members: My wife and I write to let you know that we strongly support the proposed amendments to Chapter 25.15. The additions to Section 25.15.030 are well thought out. We particularly are in favor of the addition of Paragraph F which will provide if the amendments are approved that development on or across ridges "is prohibited". We want to express our appreciation for your concern and efforts to strengthen the Hillside Planned Residential District Ordinance. Very truly yours, Jane and Paul Mueller o n A ,�rn �o rnxs tA .rn Zr �ov� nA m 4/9/2007 CIIY 01 Ph, IM DESERT f 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 76o 346—o6n FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-de ert.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: March 22, 2007 City of Palm Desert Re: ZOA 07-01 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its regular meeting of March 20, 2007: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Please call if you have any questions regarding this action. Case No. ZOA 07-01 is tentatively scheduled for City Council public hearing on April 12, 2007. CAS e--t� Stephen R. Smith, Acting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal ���R110q MYIIINI PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 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 March, 2007, continued from the 20 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 Planning 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 NO. 2439 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of March, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: LIMONT, TANNER, TSCHOPP, SCHMIDT, CAMPBELL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: STEPH R. SMITH, Acting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 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. ST PHEN R. SMITH DATE ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 EXHIBIT B Chapter 25.86 PUBLIC HEARINGS That the following provision be added to Section 25.86.010 (Hearing time and notice) D. All development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone shall require 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 via United States Postal Service to people whose name appear on the latest adopted tax rolls of Riverside County as owning property within 4,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing and notification to 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- A ridgeline that is formed by the juncture of two (2) or more sloping planes that project outward from a mountain range and descend towards the valley floor more particularly identified on attached exhibit labeled Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridges. That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.010 (Purpose) D. 1. Development on or across ridges is prohibited. 2. Building pad elevations and architectural design shall be set so that rooflines do not create a negative visual impact on the city. That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.030 (Development Standards) E. Previously approved existing building pads shall be subject to the standard coverage limitations of 35% and may be increased up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval. Any change to an 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 existing approved building pad shall require a new public hearing subject to the provisions of this chapter. 5 W MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2007 Action: Commissioner Tanner made a motion that they accept the building with the conditions and that the building owners work with the Fire Department to get those two issues worked out. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification that the motion included approving the building. Commissioner Tanner said yes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tschopp. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voting no. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2438 recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 07-03, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voting no. Mr. Smith stated that the meeting between the applicants/owners and the Fire Department would take place prior to City Council public hearing and those two issues would be resolved. C. Case No. ZOA 07-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report, pointing out the additions and changes that had been made since the last meeting. He said there was correspondence on the matter and copies received within the last few days had also been distributed to Commission. Some letters were in favor and some felt it would devalue their properties. Mr. Stendell explained that development standards weren't being changed; owners were still entitled to a 10,000 square foot pad, 3,000 square feet of access road and a 4,000 square foot house. They were just insuring now that no more ridge-top developments were being created. Commissioner Schmidt asked for the definition of "that roof lines do not create a negative visual impact on the city'; she asked what that meant to staff. Mr. Smith replied that it means that the goal is that rooflines will not be visible above ridge lines and if from some vantage points they happen to be visible, they are not at a point where they become an adverse impact on that view. Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Stendell the same question. He replied that his definition was very similar. As Mr. Tschopp pointed out to him at the last meeting, it was very hard to say it wouldn't be seen depending on 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20. 2007 the vantage point. He noted that this was the purpose section of the code where they are stating their goals and policies. Even discussing it with legal counsel, it became very difficult to state what they had in the last draft. If the Commission wished, it could be massaged a little bit to possibly get more of the intent of the relationship between the roof of a home and the ridge of a mountain. They didn't want to create something in the ordinance that was impossible. Commissioner Schmidt read the information three or four times and the impression she was left with was that they can't have a roof above the ridgeline, but if they do, it shouldn't create a negative impact. That was how she was interpreting that sentence. So it was contradictory and too vague for her. The whole purpose in reviewing this is to tighten it up and it seemed they were floundering. That was the impression. Mr. Stendell said he could work on that statement with legal counsel if it was too vague. Commissioner Limont said there are slopes, and a good example is going down Highway 74; in one spot it will be seen and in another it won't. She said maybe they could take into consideration the elevations, because it would be difficult even if they go below the ridge lines and on three sides it can't be seen, but maybe from one spot it could. If it said no ridge lines, it would render it impossible to build because a person could argue depending on where they were standing. Mr. Stendell said that was correct; their intent was to leave the negative visual impact determination on the city up to the Commissions and Council. Commissioner Tanner said included in the city are the neighbors who were also involved. He thought this provided a good guideline to them and Architectural Review. It added teeth to the prior one and protected visual impact to the city and surrounding neighbors. They were talking about increasing the notification and this is what is going to appear. If there is any kind of a negative impact on the city, and they were talking about all of the city, not just Palm Desert; it was all involved. For him it added teeth and he was comfortable with the wording. It gave them an opportunity to say it will give a negative impact on the city and its inhabitants, whether they are next door neighbors or on Interstate 10. Commissioner Schmidt thought perhaps the way to address this would be to not have the sentences all in one paragraph. The first sentence was very strong and clearly states our intent; don't do it. Then they were giving some sort of out depending on who objects and then it was very subjective from that point on. She suggested labeling the two sentences D-1 and D-2. She thought that might help. But she would love to know a clearer definition of 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20. 2007 what negative impact is because to her it might mean one thing and to someone else quite another. Commissioner Tanner agreed. Commissioner Tschopp thought setting up the D-1 and D-2 was a good idea. With the topography and view angles which are impossible to define and the D-2 statement giving a lot of discretion, it also gives the applicant/builder a lot of warning that they better design something that isn't going to have a negative impact on the city and better not be sitting above the ridgeling for the most part. It gives them some discretion and is a good statement. He thought separating them was a good idea. Commissioner Tschopp brought up the issue of the 4,000 square foot notice. He liked what Mr. Stendell had done; it gave some reasoning and thought behind doing it, but he thought of the old adage that if you are standing next to something you can't design it, you have to stand back to really see it. Because they were dealing with something that is seen by the rest of the city, he asked if it would be a big problem to have it also noticed in the paper, not as a legal notice, but as a general notice so that other citizens who might not be within the noticed area might get an idea of what's going on in the hillside. Mr. Stendell said right now it goes into the newspaper as a legal notice. He didn't know how to notice it in the paper any other way. He asked Mr. Smith if any other noticing had been done historically. Mr. Smith replied not on an individual property application basis. When the general plan went through, display ads and the like were placed. He was talking about the General Plan Update, not individual general plan amendments. Mr. Hargreaves explained that State law establishes certain minimums, but the City could require whatever it thought was appropriate, as long as it was reasonably legal. Mr. Smith said if they wanted to say a display ad was needed, they could. Commissioner Tschopp didn't think that would be necessary. He thought with the way they were clarifying it now, the new code would take care of the problems of seeing something from Interstate 10. He was comfortable with what had been done and thought staff gave it a lot of thought and it appeared they didn't think it was necessary. Commissioner Tanner felt there could be representation with the Desert Sun. The original plan would go through Architectural Review and if there's any indication there's an issue, it would get printed in the paper and maybe that, along with U.S. mail would be enough of a notification to get people to the meeting to tell them if something is or isn't satisfactory. Mr. Stendell stated that he was very comfortable with the 4,000 square feet and the homeowner's association notification. He thought that would get the word out to a massive number of people. He noted that Palm Desert is a small town 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20. 2007 and word usually spreads like wildfire. That was the intent of the noticing. He was comfortable with the level of noticing proposed. Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Stendell to show them how far 4,000 feet was on the map. Mr. Stendell explained that there are two areas of Hillside Planned Residential zone; one being the Canyons of Bighorn and the other being west of the storm channel. Commissioner Schmidt asked to see the distance that would still notify Ironwood. Mr. Stendell pointed it out. There were no other questions for staff and Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this application. Referring to the Request to Speak cards that had been submitted, she invited Mr. David Nelson to address the Commission. MR. DAVID NELSON, 72595 Beavertail in Palm Desert, informed Commission that he has five acres on Upper Way West up in the hills that he bought and struggled through with the general plan update process. He wanted to build a house up there and had started the plans. Now he was struggling through another zone change around him. He said his property is basically all ridge line, but he was trying to work something out with the City where they could build a little more into the canyon. When talking about ridge lines and not being above a ridge line, he noted that the ridge line is not a horizontal line, it's at an angle. So if he is below it or next to it, he would be above it further down the hill a little bit. So it had to open up to the city somewhere, some way, some place. It was not in a bowl. By doing this, they were saying he has to build in a bowl which was impossible because there were no bowls up there. He bought his property to build a home for he and his wife and it just seemed like they kept getting down zoned and down zoned. He thought the Hagadone house was ridiculous and thought the City might have a knee-jerk reaction, but after such a big house was built that the City didn't have to approve, they had been telling him that they don't want big houses up there and at the same time approved that. But he hated to see it being micro managed. They couldn't have it below the ridge line because the ridge line goes all the way to the floor, so that didn't make sense to him. But he said he was trying to work with the City and was working on a property swap with a piece 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2007 of property the City might have where he could build down more in a canyon, but it would open up to somebody somewhere. He liked the fact that it was changed so it couldn't be above the ridge line, but there is some common sense to it. That was all he asked. He got worried when they kept trying to make zoning so tight on something in the hillside that is next to impossible to do because every lot is so different up there. Those were his comments and he said he appreciated their time. MR. RICHARD FROMME, 48625 Paisano Road in Palm Desert, said he lives in the County, but owns two five-acre pieces down by the water tank. He has been a valley resident since 1965. He believed these proposed restrictions being placed on the property owners of the Palm Desert Cahuilla Hills properties was nothing but a response to the uproar from the Hagadone project in the Canyons at Bighorn. It seemed very unfair for these property owners to be restricted by this for this reason. The responsibility for the Hagadone property belongs to the City that issued the permit to build the house, not the rest of the property owners who happen to have property on the hillside. He thought the restrictions being placed on hillside properties by Palm Desert would have significant effect on their value. The property on Upper Way West was listed for$1,295,000 on a 04/28/06 CMS report he had in his possession that he thought he furnished a copy to the Planning Department that morning. It was sold for $276,500 in December of 2006. The assessed value of the property was $882,300 at that time. He understood the reason for the low price with restrictions placed on the property by the seller to insure privacy. These restrictions were similar to the ones proposed by this ordinance. He stated that Cahuilla Hills property owners should be paid for this decrease in value and the owners of ridge line lots that are unbuildable should be paid the entire value of their property. Mr. Fromme understood that the City is purchasing property in the hills and it seemed to him that this ordinance would be a good way to purchase the property that the City wants at a devalued price. He hoped this was not the case. Notifying everyone within 4,000 feet by mail is expensive and he thought unnecessary. If this is the new criterion, then it should be same for everyone, even the properties on the flat parcels below. It was much prettier for the Cahuilla Hills residents when they could see 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 the wild flowers and sand dunes instead of houses. Shouldn't they be allowed the same courtesy with publishing the project in the newspaper? Mr. Fromme also thought there were some conflicts on the City Council concerning the hillside plan and voting on this should not be allowed by those Council people involved. The federal government allowed the hills to be homesteaded so people would build and settle on the property they homesteaded. He realized now that the federal government defers to the local government to administer development, and rightfully so, but he felt that intent should be considered also. He asked when they considered a building abandoned. He asked what constituted abandonment. It was also stated that this plan serves the public health and safety of the community and he didn't understand how it had anything to do with the health and safety of the community. He commended Mr. Stendell; he said he has a real grasp of the problems in developing the Cahuilla Hills. He said he spoke with Mr. Stendell at length the day before and he thought he was a good man to have doing this job. He believed that he would be fair if allowed to do things and make decisions that would be fair to everyone around. He thanked them. MR. LAWRENCE SUTTER, 49220 Quercus Lane, said he is the President of the Ironwood Master Association that represents 1,050 homes. They followed this process over the last year and he filed a letter yesterday, which he assumed they had before them so he wouldn't repeat what he said except to say that he thought the wording choices recognized in the line-of-sight issue, in fact all the changes recommended by the Planning staff, they really supported. They thought it made a lot of sense. The big issue for them in the past with Hagadone was not being notified. They learned about it when they got up one morning to see a crane on the hill. He really liked the line-of-sight plus 1,000-foot idea, but as he thought about it, it got complicated and he thought Mr. Stendell's recommendation of 4,000 feet was fine. They were also comfortable with the wording talked about earlier. In terms of prohibiting development and saying absolutely nothing could be built, that wouldn't make sense either, so they support the 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2007 wording as it stands. They were appreciative of the Planning Commission and Council working hard to improve this ordinance. He also thanked Ryan Stendell. He thought the map was a great tool and if they had the map before or this kind of tool with the noticing, then they wouldn't have experienced what they had gone through in the past year. He encouraged the Commission to vote yes and supported it strongly. MRS. GIGI MCCORMICK, 29220 Via Las Palmas in Thousand Palms, said that she and her husband have owned a piece of property in the hillside for 21 years. She said they were working class people who had a dream to build a home. She said they weren't rich people, just working class people, and she understood the ridge line; they have the highest peak up there. Their property, like some of the other properties, is mostly ridge line. She said she could live with the map being proposed, but her question was on development on or across ridges being prohibited. If they looked at their parcel, access to their parcel has to be across a ridge line. Coachella Valley Water has an access road to their property and she was wondering if that meant they couldn't cross a ridge line to get to their property. Is the road no longer accessible to them? Or to Coachella Valley Water? She had a letter from the water district showing that a meter has been there since 1986 and they have been paying their water bill. That was all she had to say. There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Stendell had any other comments. Regarding Mrs. McCormick's questions, Mr. Stendell said it was uncertain at this point; the access road is there and they have talked about it. He thought it wasn't visually seen from the city because it was behind an existing ridge which blocks it. He said there were no guarantees in this ordinance, but the wording allowed staff, the Commissions and Council to make the determination of a negative impact. If there is no negative impact or it was very minimal and they didn't see it and they have a very responsibly done hillside home, staff would recommend approval and it would hopefully gain approval from the Commissions and Council as well. They were looking at responsibly done, well-designed architecture that does not happen on the ridge lines. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Stendell would comment on Mr. Nelson's comments when they have a parcel that is primarily ridge lines. Mr. Stendell said Mr. Nelson's lot is extremely difficult to develop. He said it was 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2007 a good example of an interesting lot to develop to say the least. Mr. Nelson has a major canyon running through his property and it is completely ridges. It was an example where they have an extremely difficult case, if ever, of being developed. To Mr. Nelson's benefit, the City owns some property and if they can flip a property line, that could create a nice place to put a home with the least amount of visual impact. That could work out to everyone's advantage; however, if that was to never happen, he'd be stuck with the very hard task of developing an extremely steep ridge lot. So any development that could occur would have to be very creatively and well thought out. That was par for the course when dealing with hillside lots. Commissioner Tanner asked for and received clarification that Mr. Fromme has two five-acre pieces of property and their location. He noted that he would also have some valleys and peaks to deal with. Mr. Fromme said he already has an approved pad. Mr. Stendell noted that there was also an old concrete pad from a homestead home with an existing access road. He had been out to that site and it is fairly low and he thought spots on those properties could be found for development. Commissioner Tschopp asked how they would balance the needs of the property owners. They obviously have property owners who have been holding land for a long time with dreams of building homes up there and to leave it so vague; he didn't like that. Mr. Stendell said that the existing exceptions section is still intact. They can always ask. Whether it would be approved or not was another story. Second, at the first discussion relative to this proposed amendment at City Council, it was kind of the impression that if development was going to be restricted to the point where it couldn't be developed, the City should consider taking on those properties. Their intent wasn't to do that; they are still allowing them their 10,000 square foot pad, their 4,000 square foot house. Their intention is to increase the noticing and to insure that nothing gets stuck on top of a ridge line. He didn't think that killed anyone's chances of developing their dream home. He noted there are many creative hillside developers in this town that could create something almost anywhere. If they were ever to restrict someone to the point where they couldn't ever develop it,they would have to see what would happen with our legal counsel. Mr. Hargreaves said that if it was restricted to the extent that it couldn't feasibly be built on, then the City would have to buy it. Commissioner Schmidt asked for discussion on the testimony regarding the access road. She asked Mr. Hargreaves if access could be denied to a property/property owner. Mr. Hargreaves said no; if a property has access and the City somehow messes it up, then the City has a certain liability there. That didn't mean that the City had to guarantee access to every piece of 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2007 property; some properties are inherently difficult to access. There was kind of a give and take there. His understanding is that when those lots were homesteaded, there were access easements along the boundaries. If they tried to put a road on those boundaries, there would be some extremely difficult access issues. Commissioner Schmidt said it was truly a case by case situation. Mr. Hargreaves concurred and said the City has a policy to work with every property owner to find out some way to make it feasible. But if a piece of property is inherently undevelopable because of access issues or other issues, they didn't have an obligation to make it developable. Commissioner Tanner noted that Mr. Stendell mentioned an exceptions section. Mr. Stendell clarified that in the existing Hillside Planned Residential zone there is an exceptions section. He explained that it says that the standards of the Hillside Planned Residential zone can be modified based on several criteria as listed on page five of the current Hillside Planned Residential zone. The standards shall be required unless modified by a precise plan of design, taking into consideration 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. He said that would leave the ability to take a lot that may have something like a road that crosses a ridge that they have identified as being prohibited, if it is responsibly done and the Commission and Council feel it is acceptable, an exception could be granted and they have granted some in the past. It is there if it is needed. Commissioner Schmidt said it would never be her intent to deny someone access to their property. She didn't want them to misunderstand that and was glad they cleared that up a bit. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Tanner thought there had been some great discussion on this hillside exhibit in front of them. He liked the suggested change to the Draft Resolution Exhibit B under Section 25.15.010 (Purpose) separating the two .sentences as D-1 and D-2 and there was an understanding that there are exceptions to these provisions. They would go before Architectural Review and then to Planning Commission. They were trying to learn from what has been done in the past and they didn't want to create any more of an eyesore nuisance than what they have right now. He liked what was presented by Mr. Stendell, but it needed a little bit of work. He was in favor of approval at what they were looking at with those couple of exceptions. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2007 Commissioner Limont agreed with Commissioner Tanner. She thought it was a great start. She thought a couple of things needed adjustment and the reality is that no matter what they do, they will get challenged at some point. The nice thing about it is that it's a step in the right direction about being very clear on what they are looking for and that will save residents, architects, and a lot of time for staff. She agreed with the approval, subject to a couple of adjustments as mentioned. Commissioner Schmidt added that Riverside County is also wrestling with their hillside ordinances and her feeling is that they are sort of looking this direction to see what Palm Desert is doing. The County has a larger area to deal with and wont' about. She thought it was interesting to see them wanting to put some sort of language together that eliminates some of the intense building that has gone on some beautiful ridge lines in Riverside County--all over the county. She agreed that as long as they try to find a definition for negative visual impact, she too would be in favor of what was before them. Commissioner Tschopp complimented Mr. Stendell for doing a good job. He noted that it wasn't easy and there was no way to put into words to bring it all together to be any clearer than it is now. It was incumbent upon future Commissions and the Council to make sure the intent is kept, but he felt it was a good hillside ordinance and he was sad it wasn't in place a little bit sooner. Chairperson Campbell was also in favor and said that Mr. Stendell had done a very good job. The Planning Commission would be reviewing all proposals as well as Architectural Review; if someone wasn't happy, it would go to Council anyway. But it was a great beginning and she was in favor of proceeding with it. Commissioner Tanner clarified that the intent wasn't to prohibit anyone from building, the intent is to protect the integrity of Palm Desert. People would still be coming before the Planning Commission with their proposals. With proper plans, hopefully it would be accepted. But it would be within the guidelines being set forth. This would also go to Council with their changes. They weren't trying to eliminate building, they were just trying to make sure that it doesn't infringe on anyone's sight lines and helped keep the hills beautiful. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the radius map and exhibits were referenced in the ordinance anywhere. Mr. Stendell said the radius map with the bulls eye was for demonstration purposes only; the more important map with the 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20. 2007 identified ridges was attached and labeled Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridges and it was an exhibit tied to the ordinance. Commissioner Schmidt said that if someone wanted to see what 4,000 feet would be, they would ask staff. Mr. Stendell concurred that staff had the ability to provide that information for each individual parcel. Each application would be different and an applicant at the time of submittal would provide the 4,000 square foot radius as prepared by a title company. There were no other questions and Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2439 recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 07-01 with the changes as identified to D-1 and D-2. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Chairperson Campbell indicated that the next meeting would be March 21, 2007. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont reported that the next meeting would be March 21, 2007. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont reviewed the issues discussed. 22 '+} City of Paesert rl SpeakerWCard Meeting Date: -7 �xrnitinnY' If you are attending a City Council, Redevelopment Agency, or Planning Commission meeting and would like to address the Board, please complete the following information and give it to the City Clerk and/or Secretary in advance of tie meeting. Thank you. Name: �Alli0 N s/5a Address: -72,.S91' j$�Av4iv I would like to speak under. I. m O1a Comunications Section about: , 2. Regular Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing Item No. !; In Favor Of In Opposition to Completion of this card is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose Is to aid staff in compiling complete and accurate records. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. rT City of Pal Desert F Speaker%Card Meeting Date: 3 ?-d a7 If you are attending a City Council, Redevelopment Agency, or Planning Commission meeting and would like to address the Board, please complete the following information and give it to the City Clerk and/or/Secretary in advance of the meeting. Thank you. Name: Address: ` `� C�LlL1TUP�5 L �4��� r,q/ H ✓LSE'na l would like to speak under. 1. Oral Communications Section about: 2. Regular Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing Item No. ^ C,�t�'G 7.0,4r 07-01 In Favor Of x _ In Opposition to Completion of this card is vo/untar.K You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of whether or not you complete this document Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and accurate records. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. .Y' City of Palrevesert Speaker's Card Meeting Date: 2� If you are attending a City Council, Redevelopment Agency, or Plan Ong Commission meeting and would like to address the Board, please complete the following information and give it to the City Clerk and/o7S ,,,ta,y in advance of the meeting. Thank you. Name: Address: l would like to speak under. 1. Oral Communications Section about: 2. Regular Agenda Item No. �l 3. Public Hearing Item No. 2�4A Ql In Favor Of In Opposition to Completion of this card is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and accurate records. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. 49220 Quercus Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 March 17, 2007 Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert RECEIVED 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 MAR 19 2007 RE: Staff Report Dated March 20, 2007 ;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Case No: ZOA 07-01 CITY OF PALM DESERT Dear Planning Commission: I am writing this letter on behalf of the 1050 homes in the Ironwood Community. For the past year and more, we in Ironwood (along with representatives from The Reserve, The Summit, and Monterra) have worked with members of the City Council and Mr Hagadone to mitigate the impact of the Hagadone development on Palm Desert residents and have been pleased with the response of both Mr. Hagadone and the City Council In that regard. We also appreciate being asked to comment on the proposed amendments being recommended in the Staff Report dated March 20, 2007: • PUBLIC NOTICES— Mailing legal notices to property owners within 4000 feet of the property to be developed is a reasonable and clear approach. We support this recommendation strongly. Had this been in place several years ago, much of the recent controversy over ridge line development could have been avoided. • BUILDING SIZE LIMITATION — No objection. • RIDGE-TOP DEVELOPMENT—We earlier suggested, as perhaps did others, the use of the word "prohibited" recommended for 25.15.010 as it is clear in meaning and intent: "(D) Development on or across prominent ridges is prohibited." Also, we find the next sentence acceptable: "Building pad elevations and architectural design shall be set that rooflines do not create a negative visual impact on the City" Overall, we would prefer that the wording say that rooflines should not be visible, but recognize the difficulty inherent in this wording. Therefore, in the context of the other recommended changes, we feel this version would be effective. Recently, Ryan Stendell was kind enough to share with me the ridgeline map that was prepared as a aid in enforcing these changes, and we feel it would be very effective. We respectfully and strongly recommend you approve these amendments as proposed. Sincerely, Lawrence T. Sutter President, Ironwood Master Association s 7v 1/ 77 WY6 9AJ ) iu—cJ✓A5- 69X/67,riL�77*.c, eLt9� e�ixe RECEIVED Es:Ai 2 0 2007 Name: Richard Fromme Valley resident since 1965 'OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 48-625 Paisano Rd. CITY OF PALM DESERT Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Political: I believe that these proposed restriction being placed on the property owners of the Palm Desert Cahuilla Hills properties are nothing but a response to the uproar from the Hagadone project in The Canyons at Big Horn. It seems very unfair for these property owners to be restricted like this for this reason. The responsibility for the Hagadone project belongs to the city that issued the permit to build the house, not the rest of the property owners who happen to have property on hillsides. Property Values: The restrictions being placed on the hillside properties by Palm Desert will have a significant affect on their value. A property on Upper Way West was listed for$1,295,000.00 on a 4/28/06 CMS report that I have in my possession. It sold for $276,500.00 in December of 2006. The assessed value of the property was $882,300.00 at that time. I understand the reason for the low price was restrictions placed on the property by the seller to insure his privacy. These restrictions are similar to the ones proposed by this ordinance. Cahuilla Hills property owners should be paid for this decrease in value and the owners of ridgeline lots that are unbuildable should be paid the entire value of the property. I understand the city is purchasing property in the hills and it seems to me that this ordinance would be a good way to purchase the property that the city wants at a devalued price. I hope this is not the case. Notification: Notifying everyone within 4000 Feet by mail is expensive and unnecessary. If this is the new criterion, then it should be the same for everyone, even the properties in the flat parcels. It was much prettier for Cahuilla Hills residents when we could see the wildflowers instead of houses. Shouldn't we be allowed the same courtesy? Would publishing the project in the newspaper, as the city does,be better? City Council: I think that there are some conflicts on the city council concerning the hillside plans. Voting on this should not be allowed for those council people involved. Homestead Act: The Federal Government allowed the hills to be homesteaded so people would build and settle on the property they homesteaded. I realize that now the Federal Government defers to the local government to administer development, and rightfully so, but don't you feel the original intent of the act should be considered. t �0 lid" �G ) 1 ,/ S uMA Report(216) Page 1 of 2 CMA Report Page 1 Listings as of 04128/06 at 4:30pm RESIDENTIAL AGTIVE PropeAles Address C Ma Bd Bth S Ft LOM Year WA' Date $13 FtCDOMOri Price List Price - 24 er Palm DesertPege#931,G 22.50 2000220849s1 1960GPS 01l03/06 647.50 113 1,295 0001 295 00�1 48725 Verbenia Rd Palm Desert Page#618,D 3 2 2317 2.500ac 199OG o2/22/o6 561.07 "b5 1,300,W01.300,000 71450 Painted Canyon Palm DesertPage#848.B 4 4 5000 87556Sf 1950GPS 11/23/05 580.00 156 3,g00,0o02,900,000 Listing Count 3 Averages 3108 596.19 111 2,165,0001,831,667 High 2,900,000 LOW 1295,000 Median 1.300,000 SOLD Properties Addross C Me Bd BM Ft LotSz Year WA' Date FtCDOMOrI price a w'uv le Price c 71825 Cholla Way Palm Desert Page#848,B 2 0 1071103672sf 1963G 01124l03 275.44 20 309,000 309,000 ...2,,.9,5���,0rrr00 71-750 Cholla Way Palm Desert Page#848,B 32.50 1960 1.110ac 1991 GP 03/05M 227.04 172 489,000 448,500 0 71395 Oasis Trail Palm DesertPage#848,S 4 4 3300 1sf 2001 GPS 03129/02 187.88 379 675,000 675,000 6 0,0� 48725 Verbana Rd Palm DesertPage If 848,B 3—2 2317 72309sf 199OG 02w/06 269.75 14 649,500 649,500 625,000 £ 71440 Oasis TrI Palm P 11.50 71550 Quail Td Palm DesertPage#848.B 4 4 332200108900sf 1gS3GPS 10/13/04 281.26 277 825.0()o 6,000 925,0000 99DO-000 1£ 71900 Jaguar Way Palm DesertPage#848,C 32.50 4421 1200ac 1985GPS O412OMS 245.65 427 1,250,0001,195,000 1;066;o00 £ 71450 Cholla Palm DeseriPage#848,G 33.25 42682178" 1993G 02109104 303.42 422 1,470,0001.350.000 1,295.000 £ 71295 Mesa TrI Palm Desert Page#848,A 44.50 43692178ODsf 2000GPS 08/12l05 583.66 � 1,065,8331, , , 9o33ODO 2,550000 £ Listing Count 9 Av High 2,5,0000 Low 295.000 Median 795,000 WITHDRAWN Properties Address C Ma Bd8th Ft LotSz Year WA' Date S!S FtCDOMOri PAeeUstPrice 71550 Quail Trt Palm Deser%;#848,B 4 4 3400108900sf 2005GPS 04/05/OB 489.12 135 1,895,0001,595,000 Listing Count 1 Averages 3400 469.12 135 1,695,0001,595,000 High 1,595,000 Low 1,595,ODO Median 1.595,000 is; rroperty rof�e Ownersbip Information _ 7meft Omer : MARK A STU%4xiB aREWkWWC Onaer ddPM : 72240 UPPER WAY W PALM DESERT 92260"3 Adis+ : 7D A L7M WAY W PALM DESERT,CA 9M TeleN0ue s Aluenaa Parcel Na : as-1wow Centm Trail : 001.041 K19 PW Grid j WA Nar Yap Grid N.',A UO Dna"on: '.07ACRE4 M PAR SFC 30 TSS ReE EiealfatTt+art a Property Details Un"it : S,svu FAMILYMwimC6 Zoning : RF43 Bud $oos 2 NumberotVaiq : t BaSuvoals : 0.7 YarSWR : 1960 ftgkft s Gmw-1 Speee(y) Lot Sirs : 220M sqR/SWM ACM VIM' : WA SquemFeet : 1216 Part : Yes Tout Room : N/A RMPLre : WA 6*00w* . 0 10 : WA Tax Information Aenwed Total : S19;3004` Ty,Amount s s%%9.26 Lead Total : Se09.%e TINZ IC aaM , Cnaees IlaI VICU eat : SS72.311 YtnrDalYgant : 1JA %lOgMVVOWM : 42% Tool Rate Ara : 18003 Sale Information last Sale Date : VCMM esie2006 1406W s ruA Oatumemtiva : 0000917M let Loam Ameamt ; WA "Amman : 3276.300(Pule Pint Lore Type WA Let Tract W/o 3 : IWA zad last Amount : N/A Ltlabw wl03 : Cost I Sg IN IPM : 227 11110 CaP3tIBhrDs9r6.2M3CassQWdcRTlesBavefn0�mteebeWsiee6 oft public dwMem mdisocgvaMresd .. 2l7M07 10 02 33AD! CetMM Swim RM Kft Barry TOW 6 M, 44765 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 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. At its meeting of February 20'", 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed this matter and directed staff to adjust the draft ordinance in several areas including, public noticing requirements, line of sight and the definitions of a hillside ridge. The matter was continued to the March 20`" meeting. 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. a STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 MARCH, 20 2007 CURRENT RIDGE-TOP DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: At this time the HPR ordinance has no specific language relating to ridge-top development. ll. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Public Notices (Chapter 25.86): The Planning Commission has expressed a concern over how a line of site analysis would work with hillside lots. Staff has revised the proposed amendment to mail legal notices to property owners within 4,000 feet of the property being developed. Staff arrived at this number by taking the highest property in the hillside and gave a reasonable distance that would notify property owners east of Highway 74 (see attached exhibit). 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. Building pad elevations and architectural design shall be set that rooflines do not create a negative visual impact on the City. Staff has also expanded on the idea of defining a hillside ridge by developing a map that identifies all ridges throughout the HPR zone. This map was developed with City mapping technicians using contour and topographic data that is available to the City. Staff feels this map will be a valuable tool in developing within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 MARCH, 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. CEOA REVIEW: 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 Reviewed and Approved by: T yan Stendell S—te Smith Assistant Planner Acting Director of Community Development Review and App d: Homer Croy ACM Dever rent 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 Cit of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of March, 2007, continued from the 20 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 March, 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. All development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone shall require 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 via United States Postal Service to people whose name appear on the latest adopted tax rolls of Riverside County as owning property within 4,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing and notification to 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- A ridgeline that is formed by the juncture of two (2) or more sloping planes that project outward from a mountain range and descend towards the valley floor more particularly identified on attached exhibit labeled Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridges. That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.010 (Purpose) D. Development on or across ridges is prohibited. Building pad elevations and architectural design shall be set so that rooflines do not create a negative visual impact on the City That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.030 (Development Standards) E. Previously approved existing building pads shall be subject to the standard coverage limitations of 35% and may be increased up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval. Any change to an existing approved building pad shall require a new public hearing subject to the provisions of this chapter. 4 T RESOLUTION NO. 0A 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) 26.15.020 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 r r � RESOLUTION NO. 04-43 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 ishall not exceed 10,000 square feet. 2. AccessRoad/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 B1 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 T^ 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 firebreaks 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. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit (unless otherwise provided), or land subdivision, a Hillside Development Plan shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council. This may include, as determined by the Director of Community Development, the following information as set out in Sections 25.15.110 through 25.15.130. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983) 6 RESOLUTION NO. 04-43 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 and/or 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, 1 5. Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage pattems, 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 engineersorgeologists based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capabilities, including soil types, soil openings, hydrologic groups, slopes, runoff potential, percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns; 7 J` 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: 1. 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, B. Description of maintenance program for proposed developments involving joint or common ownership, 7. Any other speck information determined to be of special interest relevant to the applicants 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 permit s 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 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2007 in favor of this to see the project move forward and give the developer some flexibility in that direction, although he liked the original project. Mr. Smith asked for clarification if it was their intention to approve a project with 20 fewer units or only put the height restriction at 42 feet on the development and if they could come back with a project that has maybe 10 fewer units, then they could live with that within the overall total. Chairperson Campbell said that was her question earlier. They don't want to eliminate all of those units, but if they do have a restriction on the height, they could still come out and have additional units. Commissioner Schmidt said that was fine with her as long as it was within the same footprints as proposed. Commissioner Tanner agreed that it gave them some flexibility. With that clarification, Chairperson Campbell called for a vote to that amended condition. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont voting no. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2435, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. DA 06-03, PP/CUP 06- 17 and TT 35426, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont voting no. C. Case No. ZOA 07-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council for approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and draft resolution. He asked for questions. Commissioner Tanner said he was in favor, but his concern was if there are any current projects that would be negatively affected if this amendment was approved right now. He asked if there were plans in place that this would alter from the ridge line. Mr. Stendell replied no. He said there was one application before them that was eventually withdrawn. He didn't believe this would directly affect anybody. For previous entitlements in Bighorn, none would be effected. Most of those homes would have fallen into the section about house size and pad size and restoring that relationship; 35%. Most he takes through were 20-25%. He confirmed that they wouldn't have to go before the Planning Commission, just Architectural Review Commission for approval of anything over 35% lot coverage. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 2007 Chairperson Campbell noted that if the proposed amendment was approved this evening, it would go to City Council for approval. If they approved it, she asked when it would become effective. Mr. Smith indicated it would become effective after second reading and a 30-day posting. Regarding grading and percolation, things like that, Commissioner Limont asked for confirmation that they would still have to get a permit and this pertains to that as well and people couldn't sneak in through the back door. Mr. Stendell said absolutely they would still get permits and there were no back doors here. They were adding to what was already a pretty restrictive ordinance. The only leeway would be to allow some of the Bighorn homes that were asking for entitlements for hillside homes in excess of 4,000 square feet. It allowed them to escape the public hearing process for something they were entitled to at the beginning, but it didn't allow them any back doors for grading or percolation. Commissioner Tschopp thought everyone would agree that the intent is good. He complimented Mr. Stendell in trying to come up with a definition for ridge lines. That was his only concern; some of the definitions on some of the words like "prominent ridges." His understanding of what a prominent ridge and that of a home owner could be completely different. He thought the way Mr. Stendell wrote ridge line is basically to the valley floor, and he didn't know if that was right, but to him valley floor would be Highway 111 or Highway 74 and he didn't think that was the right definition either. He thought they might need a geologist to help them out and an attorney to help us figure out exactly what we're trying to say there. He thought they all had the same idea in their minds, but the person who wants to build might have a different definition. He just wanted staff to clean up that terminology a little better. Mr. Stendell said that was also his intent and the City's legal counsel was currently reviewing it. The first read was it could work with some tweaking. He knew the word prominent was going to become an issue and this language could be cleaned up in anyway, shape or form. There was still a fair amount of review in front of them, so staff would definitely take a look at it and firm it up. He said it could be brought back to the Commission if they would like to see it firmed up. Commissioner Tschopp thought they were all in agreement as to the intent. Commissioner Tschopp also noted that it said that "rooflines are not visible above existing ridge lines"and asked who that referred to. Most development they were concerned about would occur on the west side of Highway 74 and there are people that are going to be looking down on homes and the way it is written they could use that as a reason to oppose a development because they would be looking down at the rooftop. He thought they had the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 2007 right intent, but didn't think they had the verbiage down right yet. Mr. Stendell concurred. Regarding the noticing, Commissioner Tschopp asked if the City pays that with the fees from the developer or the individual pays the City. Mr. Stendell explained that the applicant provides the City with an affidavit from a title company certifying certain standards that we set forth. In this case they now send us a letter with a 300-foot radius ring and all the labels. They give us all the labels and then we take care of the mailing costs and publish it in the newspaper. In this case, it would create quite a few more mailings, but from what he gathered, there were only 25-30 hillside lots in the western portion of the city and some he didn't think were developable. So they would come up occasionally. It would be the developer's obligation to provide them. They would have to agree on some way of coming up with the analysis of tine-of- sight and it would have to be something between the engineer and staff. Then if staff feels more comfortable adding an additional amount of noticing, we can do that. Commissioner Tschopp said that was his next question. How do they determine the line-of-sight? Mr. Stendell said that in initial talks when this was first formulated, they talked about having the engineer of the project submit a line-of-sight. If they didn't agree with that, staff would add to the list. Staff has done that in the past. In the case with the grading and percolation, he added 500-600 feet of noticing just to make sure they got more. They always have the ability to add, which is a good thing. Commissioner Schmidt agreed that this was a good first attempt. She asked if they had any definition of what these hillside ridges are and what we're concerned about. She asked if there was a way to overlay on a map the area being discussed. Mr. Stendell said yes. Mr. Smith explained that we're only impacting the properties that are currently zoned HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) and that is a defined area on the zoning map. The area in question most specifically is the area west of the channel with that zoning. Mr. Stendell said there are also about a dozen lots within the Canyons of Bighorn that also fall within that zone. So they were talking about the area west of the storm channel and a few scattered lots within the Canyons of Bighorn. Commissioner Schmidt asked what was left around the Hagadone property. Mr. Stendell indicated that there are three or four more lots on that road, all of which are lower than the Hagadone property. He thought there was one higher up the road, but it was on the western side of that street, which falls on the lower side of the mountain, so they wouldn't have another ridge top there. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 = Commissioner Schmidt asked if the Hagadone property had been allowed under "D Exceptions." Mr. Stendell said yes, the entire project was an exception. After carefully reading the proposed resolution, Commissioner Schmidt had a couple of suggestions. She asked that "D" in the first paragraph of Exhibit B start with "All." She also wanted to better define the mailing of notices. She thought it was vague as to who does the mailing and it seemed to refer to "C" above it. The "not less than 10 nor more than 30 days" seemed boiler plate in publication. Then when they add "and mailing notices to people whose names appear' she thought they should really define it as United States mail • to all people whose names appear; pin it down. That would be her suggestion because this is what gets them in trouble, the vagueness of some of these definitions. Also, the word "provide" where it states development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential zone shall "provide" notice should be shall "require" notice to all. She would also add with "D" that all hillside development sites shall conform to all regulations or requirements of this chapter. Further down under the second "D" she recommended starting the second sentence with the word "Building" to read, "Building pad elevations..." She asked for clarification for the real purpose of section "E." She also suggested adding in the word "building" before pads. Mr. Stendell said the purpose of "E" relates to what probably started out as 25-30 lots within the Canyons of Bighorn that were approved under a pre-2004 ordinance and those homes have been subject to a lengthy review process. One of the reasons staff was inclined to use the review process is that through the approval process the City was able to get the energy efficiency standards on these larger homes; however, since then the citywide Energy Ordinance has been enacted so now they don't need the discretionary approval to add those as conditions. So in essence, to hold those larger lots that were approved previously that were under a certain expectation of a house size, then in 2004 we said they were no longer entitled to that house size, only 4,000 square feet of house, then every one of those homes started coming through as an exception. Now the energy efficiency standards are in place and kind of preempted the discussion at Council as to whether we really need to see each one. He thought the intent, since they were developed and approved under an older ordinance, had certain expectations. Now with the ordinance in place they didn't need the lengthy review, so let's allow them to get them going quicker. Commissioner Schmidt asked if someone wanted to step outside that prior approval, if a review would be required. Mr. Stendell said yes and they had 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 2007 a case in the past where a lot with prior approval wanted to increase the pad size with some extra land they were going to acquire from the golf course owner and in an instance like that, it would trigger a new exceptions section through the hillside zone and would require full public hearings. Commissioner Schmidt asked if that was articulated in this ordinance. Mr. Stendell said the pads are existing and approved. Any expansion is therefore considered an exception. Since the lots were already approved under an old tract map under an old ordinance, any change thereto would be an exception. It's implied in his opinion, but he would double check with the attorneys. Commissioner Schmidt would rather see it clearly stated rather than implied. She thought it was the biggest headache and if they could resolve it without much trouble she thought they should. She said it was a good start, though. Chairperson Campbell asked if the Commission felt comfortable approving the resolution with the changes or if they wanted staff to come back with the new verbiage. Mr. Smith recommended a continuance to March 20. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, by minute motion continuing Case No. ZOA 07-01 to March 20, 2007. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Potential Trip and Attendees Mr. Smith explained that the Agenda on March 6, 2007 would have a request for a proposed 782-unit two- and three-story apartment project at the northwest comer of Portola and Dinah Shore. The developer requested that staff try to arrange a tour for Planning Commissioners and City Council members. The proposed trip was tentatively scheduled for Monday and Tuesday next week, the 26th and 27th. Brown Act issues limit attendance to two members of each body in any one group. If there were more than two people from the Commission interested in the trip, then a second one would be scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, the 28th and the 1st. He asked if people wanted to indicate now or check their calenders and let Tony Bagato know in the next day, then staff could make the arrangements. He indicated that the developer has four or five projects of a similar nature in 18 CITY Of P N I M DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 76o 346—o6n FAX: 760 341-7098 info@pal m-desert.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: February 21 , 2007 CITY OF PALM DESERT .Re: ZOA 07-01 o The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its regular meeting of February 20, 2007: PLANNING COMMISSION, BY MINUTE MOTION, CONTINUED CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 TO MARCH 20, 2007. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Stephen R. Smith, Acting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission AM cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal CITY Of P n I M DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6n FAX: 760 341-7098 info@pal m-desert-org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: February 21 , 2007 CITY OF PALM DESERT Re: ZOA 07-01 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its regular meeting of February 20, 2007: PLANNING COMMISSION, BY MINUTE MOTION, CONTINUED CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 TO MARCH 20, 2007. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Stephen R. Smith, Acting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission AM cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal C'M mob Irmonm MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20. 2007 in favor of this to see the project move forward and give the developer some flexibility in that direction, although he liked the original project. Mr. Smith asked for clarification if it was their intention to approve a project with 20 fewer units or only put the height restriction at 42 feet on the development and if they could come back with a project that has maybe 10 fewer units, then they could live with that within the overall total. Chairperson Campbell said that was her question earlier. They don't want to eliminate all of those units, but if they do have a restriction on the height, they could still come out and have additional units. Commissioner Schmidt said that was fine with her as long as it was within the same footprints as proposed. Commissioner Tanner agreed that it gave them some flexibility. With that clarification, Chairperson Campbell called for a vote to that amended condition. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont voting no. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2435, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. DA 06-03, PP/CUP 06- 17 and TT 35426, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont voting no. C. Case No. ZOA 07-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council for approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and draft resolution. He asked for questions. Commissioner Tanner said he was in favor, but his concern was if there are any current projects that would be negatively affected if this amendment was approved right now. He asked if there were plans in place that this would alter from the ridge line. Mr. Stendell replied no. He said there was one application before them that was eventually withdrawn. He didn't believe this would directly affect anybody. For previous entitlements in Bighorn, none would be effected. Most of those homes would have fallen into the section about house size and pad size and restoring that relationship; 35%. Most he takes through were 20-25%. He confirmed that they wouldn't have to go before the Planning Commission, just Architectural Review Commission for approval of anything over 35% lot coverage. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2007 Chairperson Campbell noted that if the proposed amendment was approved this evening, it would go to City Council for approval. If they approved it, she asked when it would become effective. Mr. Smith indicated it would become effective after second reading and a 30-day posting. Regarding grading and percolation, things like that, Commissioner Limont asked for confirmation that they would still have to get a permit and this pertains to that as well and people couldn't sneak in through the back door. Mr. Stendell said absolutely they would still get permits and there were no back doors here. They were adding to what was already a pretty restrictive ordinance. The only leeway would be to allow some of the Bighorn homes that were asking for entitlements for hillside homes in excess of 4,000 square feet. It allowed them to escape the public hearing process for something they were entitled to at the beginning, but it didn't allow them any back doors for grading or percolation. Commissioner Tschopp thought everyone would agree that the intent is good. He complimented Mr. Stendell in trying to come up with a definition for ridge lines. That was his only concern; some of the definitions on some of the words like "prominent ridges." His understanding of what a prominent ridge and that of a home owner could be completely different. He thought the way Mr. Stendell wrote ridge line is basically to the valley floor, and he didn't know if that was right, but to him valley floor would be Highway 111 or Highway 74 and he didn't think that was the right definition either. He thought they might need a geologist to help them out and an attorney to help us figure out exactly what we're trying to say there. He thought they all had the same idea in their minds, but the person who wants to build might have a different definition. He just wanted staff to clean up that terminology a little better. Mr. Stendell said that was also his intent and the City's legal counsel was currently reviewing it. The first read was it could work with some tweaking. He knew the word prominent was going to become an issue and this language could be cleaned up in any way, shape or form. There was still a fair amount of review in front of them, so staff would definitely take a look at it and firm it up. He said it could be brought back to the Commission if they would like to see it firmed up. Commissioner Tschopp thought they were all in agreement as to the intent. Commissioner Tschopp also noted that it said that "rooflines are not visible above existing ridge lines"and asked who that referred to. Most development they were concerned about would occur on the west side of Highway 74 and there are people that are going to be looking down on homes and the way it is written they could use that as a reason to oppose a development because they would be looking down at the rooftop. He thought they had the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2007 right intent, but didn't think they had the verbiage down right yet. Mr. Stendell concurred. Regarding the noticing, Commissioner Tschopp asked if the City pays that with the fees from the developer or the individual pays the City. Mr. Stendell explained that the applicant provides the City with an affidavit from a title company certifying certain standards that we set forth. In this case they now send us a letter with a 300-foot radius ring and all the labels. They give us all the labels and then we take care of the mailing costs and publish it in the newspaper. In this case, it would create quite a few more mailings, but from what he gathered, there were only 25-30 hillside lots in the western portion of the city and some he didn't think were developable. So they would come up occasionally. It would be the developer's obligation to provide them. They would have to agree on some way of coming up with the analysis of line-of- sight and it would have to be something between the engineer and staff. Then if staff feels more comfortable adding an additional amount of noticing, we can do that. Commissioner Tschopp said that was his next question. How do they determine the line-of-sight? Mr. Stendell said that in initial talks when this was first formulated, they talked about having the engineer of the project submit a line-of-sight. If they didn't agree with that, staff would add to the list. Staff has done that in the past. In the case with the grading and percolation, he added 500-600 feet of noticing just to make sure they got more. They always have the ability to add, which is a good thing. Commissioner Schmidt agreed that this was a good first attempt. She asked if they had any definition of what these hillside ridges are and what we're concerned about. She asked if there was a way to overlay on a map the area being discussed. Mr. Stendell said yes. Mr. Smith explained that we're only impacting the properties that are currently zoned HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) and that is a defined area on the zoning map. The area in question most specifically is the area west of the channel with that zoning. Mr. Stendell said there are also about a dozen lots within the Canyons of Bighorn that also fall within that zone. So they were talking about the area west of the storm channel and a few scattered lots within the Canyons of Bighorn. Commissioner Schmidt asked what was left around the Hagadone property. Mr. Stendell indicated that there are three or four more lots on that road, all of which are lower than the Hagadone property. He thought there was one higher up the road, but it was on the western side of that street, which falls on the lower side of the mountain, so they wouldn't have another ridge top there. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2007 Commissioner Schmidt asked if the Hagadone property had been allowed under "D Exceptions." Mr. Stendell said yes, the entire project was an exception. After carefully reading the proposed resolution, Commissioner Schmidt had a couple of suggestions. She asked that "D" in the first paragraph of Exhibit B start with "All." She also wanted to better define the mailing of notices. She thought it was vague as to who does the mailing and it seemed to refer to "C" above it. The "not less than 10 nor more than 30 days" seemed boiler plate in publication. Then when they add "and mailing notices to people whose names appear" she thought they should really define it as United States mail to all people whose names appear; pin it down. That would be her suggestion because this is what gets them in trouble, the vagueness of some of these definitions. Also, the word "provide" where it states development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential zone shall "provide' notice should be shall "require" notice to all. She would also add with "D" that all hillside development sites shall conform to all regulations or requirements of this chapter. Further down under the second "D" she recommended starting the second sentence with the word "Building" to read, "Building pad elevations..." She asked for clarification for the real purpose of section "E." She also suggested adding in the word "building" before pads. Mr. Stendell said the purpose of "E" relates to what probably started out as 25-30 lots within the Canyons of Bighorn that were approved under a pre-2004 ordinance and those homes have been subject to a lengthy review process. One of the reasons staff was inclined to use the review process is that through the approval process the City was able to get the energy efficiency standards on these larger homes; however, since then the citywide Energy Ordinance has been enacted so now they don't need the discretionary approval to add those as conditions. So in essence, to hold those larger lots that were approved previously that were under a certain expectation of a house size, then in 2004 we said they were no longer entitled to that house size, only 4,000 square feet of house, then every one of those homes started coming through as an exception. Now the energy efficiency standards are in place and kind of preempted the discussion at Council as.to whether we really need to see each one. He thought the intent, since they were developed and approved under an older ordinance, had certain expectations. Now with the ordinance in place they didn't need the lengthy review, so let's allow them to get them going quicker. Commissioner Schmidt asked if someone wanted to step outside that prior approval, if a review would be required. Mr. Stendell said yes and they had 17 • MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2007 a case in the past where a lot with prior approval wanted to increase the pad size with some extra land they were going to acquire from the golf course owner and in an instance like that, it would trigger a new exceptions section through the hillside zone and would require full public hearings. Commissioner Schmidt asked if that was articulated in this ordinance. Mr. Stendell said the pads are existing and approved. Any expansion is therefore considered an exception. Since the lots were already approved under an old tract map under an old ordinance, any change thereto would be an exception. It's implied in his opinion, but he would double check with the attorneys. Commissioner Schmidt would rather see it clearly stated rather than implied. She thought it was the biggest headache and if they could resolve it without much trouble she thought they should. She said it was a good start, though. Chairperson Campbell asked if the Commission felt comfortable approving the resolution with the changes or if they wanted staff to come back with the new verbiage. Mr. Smith recommended a continuance to March 20. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, by minute motion continuing Case No. ZOA 07-01 to March 20, 2007. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Potential Trip and Attendees Mr. Smith explained that the Agenda on March 6, 2007 would have a request for a proposed 782-unit two- and three-story apartment project at the northwest corner of Portola and Dinah Shore. The developer requested that staff try to arrange a tour for Planning Commissioners and City Council members. The proposed trip was tentatively scheduled for Monday and Tuesday next week, the 26th and 27th. Brown Act issues limit attendance to two members of each body in any one group. If there were more than two people from the Commission interested in the trip, then a second one would be scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, the 28th and the 1st. He asked if people wanted to indicate now or check their calenders and let Tony Bagato know in the next day, then staff could make the arrangements. He indicated that the developer has four or five projects of a similar nature in 18 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 HPR ordinance has no specific language relating to ridge-top development. II. 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. CEOA 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: Ryan endell St a Smith Assistant Planner Acting Director of Community Development Review aZApped: 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 w _ � 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 25.15 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. II. 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. 1. 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 noted 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%. 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 P.frTION: AP Prepared by: PROVED ✓ DENIED RECEIVED OTHER MEIN G DAT Philip Drel AYES: Director of Community Development NO ABSTAIN: Reviewe nd Appr d by: VERIFIED BY: Original on File Wth City Clerk's Offir•e Romer Croy Carlos Ort eg ACM for Dev ment Services City Manager G:0ammng%Tw"M rw\wyd=%JMJNE-P0re11SR061201.dw Page 2of2 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. 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 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 j 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 B1 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. it 5 • RESOLUTION NO. 04-43 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 81 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 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 firebreaks 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 characterofdevelopment.(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. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit (unless otherwise provided), or land subdivision, a Hillside Development Plan shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council. This may include, as determined by the Director of Community Development, the following information as set out in Sections 25.15.110 through 25.15.130. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983) 6 l RESOLUTION NO. 04-43 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 and/or 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, 1 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, soil openings, hydrologic groups, slopes, runoff potential, percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns; 7 RESOLUTION NO. 04-43 l 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 and/or 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, 1 5. Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage patterns, structures 1 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, soil 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 likelyto be encountered in order to insure that these artifacts and/or sites are not inadvertently destroyed; E. Additional information to include: 1. 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 RICEIVED CIPALM LE DESER PST FICE PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Film Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) 2007 FEB I5 AM II �0 RECEIVED FEB 15 2007 STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside :OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen --------------- years,and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter.1 am the principal clerk of a printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, - County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been No.0503 adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Cm�EGA�PALM Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of CASE NO.ZOA 01-01 California under the date of March 24,1988.Case NOTICE IS NEREsv OIVEN that a public hearing I Number 191236;that the notice,of which the Combrmgisheon to consider and smendme Desert ntl t nihe annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller R side Onddlhe5"'1°t'relates 25.1 0 ldgedopedevalop- than non pariel,has been published in each regular '^ante otic nve oe is ron on EnV�roronmenial�im and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any and pact ae a relates thereto. supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: SAIo public nearing wilbin the Council Cham•1 Februa�fYY 20th;a<6: P ter,1a-j- rich Fred m bar at the Palm Dasen CWic Can February 10 ,2007 Waring Drive,Pelm.Desen. Galrornla, at inv time and place all Interested Persorrs are invked -------------- ell Rems covered by this public hearing to enend end 6e heard.Wdtt an comments date of oho earning the pro osetl notice shell be accepted up -^------ -- headn9 Information conoem�p9 pevebp- Y �„law in�herD PeM1meM of Gommuniry ale �for All in the year 2007 5;00 p,m.Monday through FddaY. ment at the above address between the hours at 8:00 a.m. end ro osetl actions In court. It you challenga the p P 1 ass 1 certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the 6e Ifmaed to ralsm on1Y ubticaheadng foregoing is true and correct. you orasomeone aloe reised agt t commisatan el dencebdelrvered to the ell at correspan- m or prior to,the public headn9 retary stave Dated at Palm Springs,California this--13 ,---day smtth,Actirq Sec Palm Desert Planning Commleslon of---February --,2007 OeaeA Sun FebruarY to-�1 PUBLISHED: — ---------- ign lure � ED RECEIV ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM MAx2.2 2007 1. Project Title: ;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Zonino Ordinance Amendment 07-01 CITY OF PALM DESERT 2. Lead Agency Name & Address: �s�o� City of Palm Desert ooN� Palm1 Desert, AFred 'ng 92 60Ve ey FEB. 1 1QQj j 3. Contact Person & Phone Number: Ryan Stendeli, Assistant Planner o p ry (760) 346-0611 ext. 384 4. Project Location: City of Palm Desert 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: F�e�`a�'onitirc`inn City of Palm Desert peps Fo aresz°ar,, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 FEB 16 �007-erryos 6. General Plan Designation: Hillside Planned Residential .'�`� 7. Zoning: Hillside Planned Residential 8. Description of Project: Approval of an amendment to the hillside development standards to limit ridge-top development and increase the notification requirements for hillside projects. 9. Surrounding Zoning: North: Vacant South: County zoned hillside areas East: Palm Valley Storm Channel West: Vacant Hillside 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 PAGE 1 OF 12 FORM "J" ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment 07-01 2. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 3. Contact Person & Phone Number: Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner (760) 346-0611 ext. 384 4. Project Location: City of Palm Desert 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 6. General Plan Designation: Hillside Planned Residential 7. Zoning: Hillside Planned Residential 8. Description of Project: Approval of an amendment to the hillside development standards to limit ridge-top development and increase the notification requirements for hillside projects. 9. Surrounding Zoning: North: Vacant South: County zoned hillside areas East: Palm Valley Storm Channel West: Vacant Hillside 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 PAGE 1 OF 12 FORM "J" ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The envi onmmW factors chalked below would be potentially affmted by this project,involving at least am impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following per• xAesthetics ❑ Agricdture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards&Hazardous Materials. ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Plarming ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significances DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envbmmcnt,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect an the envroameat there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or&grad to by the project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ❑ 1 fund that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant a"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Elk or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are A o Upon the proposed project,nothing further is required pr Z,b IQ-7 Signtvvc n f/ 'o Date Pnn Name f Ir /r For CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"J" Page 2 of 14 ' EVALUATION OF EN,-AONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that ate adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the refaatoed information sources show that the impact simply dons not apply to projects like the one involved(mg. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based an project-specific factors as well as general standards(mg the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based an a project-specific waning analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as them and construction as well as operational®peas. 3) Once the lead agaxy has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checdlist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant, ff these are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"Buries when the determination is made,an EIR i required 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation mcaauues has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact" The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVII,"Earlier Analyses,"may be cross- , refaa=d). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EI1t,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above chcddist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-spxific conditions for the project 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential imps(c 9 genes Plans,zoning ordinarues). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion 8) This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies arc free to use different formats;however,lead agencies should normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected CITY/RVPUB/1 9991313785 FORM"P' Page 3 of 14 9) The explanation of each issue should identify- a) the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question;and b) the mitigation measure identified,if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance. SAMPLE QUESTION L.ea Thn si®afima Issues: Potmudly with L CU Than S*dfiem ?Ms tin So WAM NO Imps Imwa Iuwtpmuted Impact L AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scene vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not ❑ ❑ ❑ limited to,tress,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ ❑ ❑ of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ❑ ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? / \ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant atvironmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? CITY/RVPUB/I999/313785 FORM"T' Page 4 of 14 1 t.osr'Ihaa Issues: slpffi= Pokod y with LAU Ihm s� s� Noce c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑ vy due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of ]"� Farmland,to non-agricultural use? Ill. AIR QUALrrY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ❑ ❑ D air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ❑ D D r,( to an existing or projected air quality violation? y� c) Result in a cmmulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ D criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonanamment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant D D ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ D people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through ❑ D ❑ habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"T Page 5 of 14 t t.nr rho Issues: Si�ifieaa poo®tiliay With LA=7bm svllirr Mnigauae S40fi No Imps Mtn b=fP=W bvm b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or O D D other sensitive natural caaununity identified in local or regional plans,policies,rnidations or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected D D ❑ ) wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal, etc)through direct removal,filling hydrological interruption,or other means? \ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ p p IGI resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with JJ�� established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or erdmances pig ❑ ` D ❑ qq biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or 1 ordinance? I) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat p ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ historical resource as defined in§ 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to§ 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside ❑ ❑ ❑ of formal cemeteries? CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 8 5 FORM"T' Page 6 of 14 t.as 7hW Issues: S*Vfmw roa�.nr vra. LAU Thu S*ffic VWPUM spificam No Imp Iapwt bmpmsftd Invog VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effects,including the risk of loss,injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑ most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. u) Strong seisraic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii Seisnuc related ground faihrq including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ iv Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or,the hiss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ . . ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that ❑ ❑ ❑ would became unstable as a result of the project,and Potentially result in on-or off-mte landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table I8-1-B of ❑ ❑ ❑ ky the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systerns where sewers arc not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: A) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"P' Page 7 of 14 t Lers Thm Issues: sw fcma Potentially Wei Lan Thm Siva hLcptim swirmd No WPM Empact h2corponded 1112ped b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the avirament ❑ 0 ❑ through reasonably fammable upset and a=dmt. conditions invohring the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous a acutdy 0 ❑ ❑ hazardous materials,substances.or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed schod? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous D ❑ 0 �y maunalssites compiled pursuant to Government Code 7f section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environmwt? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, O 0 O where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people iesidiog cur working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would O ❑ ❑ the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impar implementation of or physically interfere with an D D ❑ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ O O injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge D D D requirements? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"T' Page 8 of 14 ? Lim lrh= Issues: Sipeseane Pwwtiasy V" LAm Than SiFdfiaw tostiptim Si®eo "M No imr Imwa N=PD wd lasped b) Substattially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ D substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volute or a lowering of the local groundwater table levd(a g.;the production rate of pre-ousting nearby welts would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been grate? c) Substantially alter the odsting drainage pattern of an site or D ❑ ❑ �7/ area,including through the alteration of the course of a 7i stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑ area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a man=which would result in flooding Do-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ . ❑ capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff! f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a I00-year flood hazard area as ❑ D ❑ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a I00-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? re i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, D ❑ D �y{ injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ CITY/RVPUB/1 9991313785 FORM"J" Page 9 of 14 e - Issues: swdream pawfi 9y Wah I.eu 711M SwaGeas Nwpdm S44ficaer No imp bgmd lawrp"W tmpm IX LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal progrmt,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ natural community conservation plan? T� X MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project Y a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ ❑ ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or T noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ groundbomc vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ ❑ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "r Page 10 of 14 P 1 f Lm Thera C Issues: Poftn»any with Len Than si0faam Mit*fiM sige&C M No Im Impact Incorporated 11"M e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? l) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ ❑ die project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? JUI. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either ❑ ❑ ❑ directly(for example.by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Xlll. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ l Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ CITY/RVPUB/l999/313785 FORM"P' Page I 1 of 14 t Issues: swwcmm pbtenfi* With Lon Than S*dficmt Mrow" Nrifi= Notmp& 112"a bmVe sted gapes Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ �/� M. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional ❑ ❑ ❑ parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the prgecr include recreational facilities or require ❑ ❑ ❑ `lam the construction or expansion of recreational faciliti which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation ❑ ❑ ❑ to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on , roads,or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of ❑ ❑ ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ �( CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"T' Page 12 of 14 tAn TWO lttmet: Poiaro.tly sWith Lan Th= S4Pfic at hfiUP2= Sfge MM No tmp li impact b=rpwmd tmpffid f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ suPPQrti119 alternative transportation(e.g.,bus tornows, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project; a) Exceed wastewater treatment tequiremmts of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? / b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water . ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the yt' construction of which could cause significant eavironmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ Project from existing entitlemens.and resource's,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ r� provider which sores or may serve the project that it has f adequate capacity to sore the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"T' Page 13 of 14 6. Lea Than Issues: Ply With LA=Th= Sipdfic= M1dPum sipifim t No lmpr Impan t =pu.oea WqNd XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ❑ ❑ ❑ of the envicattrrent,substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustainmg levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important munaples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 limited,but crmrulafiwly considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current project,and the effects of probable firtme projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ' ❑ ❑ ❑ cause substanual adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? CITY/RVPUB/19991313785 FORM"P' Page 14 of 14 INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 LEGEND OF SOURCES 1. City of Palm Desert General Plan 2. City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance 3. City of Palm Desert Director of Community Development 4. Visual Inspection by City of Palm Desert Community Development Staff 5. City of Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage 6. City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance 7. Coachella Valley Water District 8. Riverside County Fire Department 9. Sheriff's Department/ Palm Desert Branch 10. Coachella Valley Fringed-Toad Lizard Conservation Plan INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) The proposed ordinance amendment, if approved, will increase the noticing requirements for hillside homes and limit grading and home-sites on ridge-tops. The ordinance will reduce the environmental impacts including but not limited to, impacts of aesthetics, air quality and land use to levels below than expected under the current HPR ordinance. No. 1429 ORDINANCE NO,1138 �.l l IAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT;CALIFORNIkq,APPROV- ING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTDENTIAL (ERS25.15 HILL25.86 PUBE PLANNED LIC HEARINGS/AS THEY FiPRND ELAqTO PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS DEVELOP- MENT STANDARDS AND RIDGE-TOO DEVELOP- PROOF OF PUBLICATION MENT. 1 CC CASE NO.ZOA 07.01 _ (2UI5.J.0.C.P) WHEREAS the City Council of the Cit}r�f,Palm Desert, California, did on the,12th day,of„April, 2007, hold a duly noticed public.hearindYo con- sider amending Palm Desert Municipal ,Code Chapters 25,15, Hillside Planned Residential Me- trot and 25.85 Public Hearings;and - WHEREAS,the Planning Commission by its Res- ' oludon No. 2439 has recommended ePpprovai of the proposed amendments as described In exhibit .81 of this document; and. STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, said appDlication;hiss complied with the requirements of.,tha City'of Palm Desert Pro- County of Riverside cedure for Implementation eof-the-Calitomie Envi- ronmental Quality.:Act, ResolutlonMo,06.78,'in that the Director.of,Cummunity.Devebpment has determined that the;amendment;willnot,have a ,significant adverse'impact on,the-environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Im- pact has been prepared; and, - - WHEREAS at sold pPublic hearing .upon heart and cansidedng all, astimony,and arguments, if ` any, of all Interested)p ersonsidesiringg to be 1 am a citizen Of the United States and a resident Of heard, said City Ceuncll-;dldptind.thedollowing the Countyaforesaid; I am over the age eighteen facts and reasons to exist;to.iusBty°;rts actions_es i g of g hteen described below: years,and not a party to or interested in the 7.That the Zoning brdinanceamendment Is con- above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a sistent with the adopted General Plan and affect- printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING ad specific plans. COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, 2. That the Zoning Ordmance'amendment wouldbetter serve the public health',safety and general printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, welfare than the current regulailons.'. - - County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning.Commission of the City of Palm Desert, adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the California,as follows: Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of 1.That the above radiations are true and cc not California under the date of March 24,1988.Case and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. Number 191236;that the notice,of which the 2. That�a Neeggative''Declanation;of.Emvlron6`ma'I annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller Impact, Exhibit A attached, is hereby cerli0d u�p than non pariel,has been published in each regular '3.That ZOA 07-01,as delineatetl{in'the attached and entire issue of said Y newspaper a er and not in an Exhibit 8, Is hereby ordained supplement thereof on the following dates,t0 wit: PASSED;'APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regu- .ler meeting9 of the Palm Desert Clry,Oouncll, held i May 7 ,2007 vote, 28th day,of HPr11 i 007,-byrthe following. 1 mto wit; y AYES: BENSON, FINERTY, SPIEGEL, and KELLYvS NOES:NONE -All in the year 2007 ABSENT:NONE - ABSTAIN:FERGUSON 1 certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the RICHARD 5. KELLY, MAYOR foregoing is true and correct. ATTEST: ' Dated at Palm Springs,California this----8rn,--day CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA of-------- May --- ---,2007 - 4� EXHIBIT^A•. Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6,Article 6 fwm- mencing with`sectlon.-15070).of the California Code of.Regulationsi ;NEGATNE DECLARATION nAt re CASE NO:ZOA 07-01 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Wrinngg Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 tat N PROJECT DESCRIPTIONA.00ATION: U i, N A rove an amendment to,Cho ptera 25.15 Hlll- Li.lJ SgI Plannd Residential (HPR)and25.86 Public lL s Hearings as they relate to public hearing requlre- 00h— ments, development standards and ridge-top de- g velopment. LLI,rY OC Q S- LJ The Director of the Department of Community De- velop has ment,found therydescrib d Palm project will noot have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of I..IJ the Initial Study has been attached to document 9- the reasons In support,of this findin . Mitigation :J•-- C measures, If anyy,Pncludd m the pro�act to avoid --1 potentially signi0cant effects, may also be found attached. 1- a DATE:April 26,2007 U N LAURI AYLAIAN DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.' EXHIBIT'S' Chapter 25M 12 AatJ dab ll� cn4 vrea<l� C �1 �-� 1� -4- t-- p 2 - 5 /69 r �k� dd ovk, eJ � "'L se 030 oe u 14� S 4�v cry G s� 2-) (� cvyr�v 0,30 r- oo �v i C C 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. � c STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 FEBRUARY, 20 2007 CURRENT RIDGE-TOP DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: At this time the HPR ordinance has no specific language relating to ridge-top development. If. 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: Ryan 81endell St a Smith Assistant Planner Acting Director of Community Development Review and Appr ed: 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. C 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 G descends to the valley floor. Tha e ffolllowing provision be added to Section 25.15.010 (Purpose) Development on or across prominent ridges is p�bited. 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..00 (De)r�lopment Standards) E. Previously approved existing ds sh e subject to the standard coverage limitations of 35% a may be increased up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval. 4 I l C_ 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 2e,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 C 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 25.15 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. 11. 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. 1. 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 amendmentwould 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. '. 4 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%. 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 Citys 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. Prepared by: ZITY COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED. DENIED. RECEIVED OTC MEETI DAT Philip Dre AYES: 1 Director of Community Development ABgENT. ABSTAIN: Review nd Appr d by: VERIFIED BY: Original on File th City Clerk's Office omer Croy Carlos Orteg ACM for Dev ment Services City Manager G:UPannjngXTw gWnrW\WP oUANINE-PPrell SRN1201.eae Page 2 of 2 C, C 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. CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE /v 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 Tern 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 � c 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 361 st 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 OF THE 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 C.., C. 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. 04-4,3 25.15.023 Principal uses and structures permitted ( The following are permitted uses within any hillside planned not require pre-approval pursuant to a development plan: residential district and do 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 § 8, 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 - I 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 81 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 with the purposes set forth in Section 25.15.010. structure that the Planning Commission or City Council may determine to be in conformity 5 d' C C, 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 firebreaks 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. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit (unless otherwise provided), or land subdivision, a Hillside Development Plan shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council. This may include, as determined by the Director of Com munity Development, the following information as set out in Sections 25.15.110 through 25.15.130. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983) 6 RESOLUTION NO. Q4- 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 Director of Community Development and/or Planning Commission may require any of the following information: A. Accurate topographic maps indicating the following: I. 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 anal ysis 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, 1 5. Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage patterns,structures I and retaining walls, 6. Locations of disposal sites for excess or excavated material, 7. Locations of existing trees, other significant vegetation and biological features, B. 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 orgeologists based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capabilities, including soil types, soil openings, hydrologic groups, slopes, runoff potential, percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns; 7 C 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: 1. 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, 8. 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 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 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 1. BACKGROUND: t 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. At its meeting of February 201h, 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed this matter and directed staff to adjust the draft ordinance in several areas including, public noticing requirements, line of sight and the definitions of a hillside ridge. The matter was continued to the March 20`h meeting. 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 MARCH, 20 2007 CURRENT RIDGE-TOP DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: At this time the HPR ordinance has no specific language relating to ridge-top development. II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Public Notices (Chapter 25.86): The Planning Commission has expressed a concern over how a line of site analysis would work with hillside lots. Staff has revised the proposed amendment to mail legal notices to property owners within 4,000 feet of the property being developed. Staff arrived at this number by taking the highest property in the hillside and gave a reasonable distance that would notify property owners east of Highway 74 (see attached exhibit). 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. Building pad elevations and architectural design shall be set that rooflines do not create a negative visual impact on the City. Staff has also expanded on the idea of defining a hillside ridge by developing a map that identifies all ridges throughout the HPR zone. This map was developed with City mapping technicians using contour and topographic data that is available to the City. Staff feels this map will be a valuable tool in developing within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. 2 i STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 MARCH, 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. CEOA REVIEW: 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 Prepare Reviewed and Approved by: t � yan Stendell Ste Smith Assistant Planner Acting Director of Community Development Review and App d: Homer Croy ACM Deve ent 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 March, 2007, continued from the 20thof 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 March, 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 v 'S' i LAI Cis• 6� 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. All development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone shall require 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 via United States Postal Service to people whose name appear on the latest adopted tax rolls of Riverside County as owning property within 4,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing and notification to 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- A ridgeline that is formed by the juncture of two (2) or more sloping planes that project outward from a mountain range and descend towards the valley floor more particularly identirled on attached exhibit labeled Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridges. That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.010-(Rerpese} pZ 036 Pt—I s*6 D. Development on or across ridges is prohibited wilding pad elevations and architectural design shall be set so that rooflines do not create a negative visual impact on the City That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.030 (Development Standards) wt4'E. Previously approved existing building ads shall be subject to the standard coverage limitations of 35% may be increased up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval. Any change to an existing approved building pad shall require a new public hearing subject to the provisions of this chapter. 4 r; RESOLUTION NO. 04-43 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 r RESOLUTION NO. 04-43 ,.j �1CJ 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 i 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 B1 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 1 a 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 abandonedon builds ed 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. Ail easements for firebreaks 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. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit (unless otherwise provided), or land subdivision, a Hillside Development Plan shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council. This may include, as determined by the Director of Community Development, the following information as set out in Sections 25.15.110 through 25.15.130. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983) 6 l RESOLUTION NO. O4-43 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 and/or 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, 1 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 orgeologists based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capabilities, including soil types, soil 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: 1. 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 to the applicants proposal. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983) relevant 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 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 2007 in favor of this to see the project move forward and give the developer some flexibility in that direction, although he liked the original project. Mr. Smith asked for clarification if it was their intention to approve a project with 20 fewer units or only put the height restriction at 42 feet on the development and if they could come back with a project that has maybe 10 fewer units, then they could live with that within the overall total. Chairperson Campbell said that was her question earlier. They don't want to eliminate all of those units, but if they do have a restriction on the height, they could still come out and have additional units. Commissioner Schmidt said that was fine with her as long as it was within the same footprints as proposed. Commissioner Tanner agreed that it gave them some flexibility. With that clarification, Chairperson Campbell called for a vote to that amended condition. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont voting no. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2435, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. DA 06-03, PP/CUP 06- 17 and TT 35426, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont voting no. C. Case No. ZOA 07-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council for approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and draft resolution. He asked for questions. Commissioner Tanner said he was in favor, but his concern was if there are any current protects that would be negatively affected if this amendment was approved right now. He asked if there were plans in place that this would alter from the ridge line. Mr. Stendell replied no. He said there was one application before them that was eventually withdrawn. He didn't believe this would directly affect anybody. For previous entitlements in Bighorn, none would be effected. Most of those homes would have fallen into the section about house size and pad size and restoring that relationship; 35%. Most he takes through were 20-25%. He confirmed that they wouldn't have to go before the Planning Commission, just Architectural Review Commission for approval of anything over 35% lot coverage. 14 MINUTES PALM D RT PLANNING COMMISSION FEMARY 20, 2007 Chairperson Campbell noted that if the proposed amendment was approved this evening, it would go to City Council for approval. If they approved it, she asked when it would become effective. Mr. Smith indicated it would become effective after second reading and a 30-day posting. Regarding grading and percolation, things like that, Commissioner Limont asked for confirmation that they would still have to et a permit g p t and this pertains to that as well and people couldn't sneak in through the back door. Mr. Stendell said absolutely they would still get permits and there were no back doors here. They were adding to what was already a pretty restrictive ordinance. The only leeway would be to allow some of the Bighorn homes that were asking for entitlements for hillside homes in excess of 4,000 square feet. It allowed them to escape the public hearing process for something they were entitled to at the beginning, but it didn't allow them any back doors for grading or percolation. Commissioner Tschopp thought everyone would agree that the intent is good. He complimented Mr. Stendell in trying to come up with a definition for ridge lines. That was his only concern; some of the definitions on some of the words like "prominent ridges." His understanding of what a prominent ridge and that of a home owner could be completely different. He thought the way Mr. Stendell wrote ridge line is basically to the valley floor, and he didn't know if that was right, but to him valley floor would be Highway 111 or Highway 74 and he didn't think that was the right definition either. He thought they might need a geologist to help them out and an attorney to help us figure out exactly what we're trying to say there. He thought they all had the same idea in their minds, but the person who wants to build might have a different definition. He just wanted staff to clean up that terminology a little better. Mr. Stendell said that was also his intent and the City's legal counsel was currently reviewing it. The first read was it could work with some tweaking. He knew the word prominent was going to become an issue and this language could be cleaned up in any way, shape or form. There was still a fair amount of review in front of them, so staff would definitely take a look at it and firm it up. He said it could be brought back to the Commission if they would like to see it firmed up. Commissioner Tschopp 9 y thought the were all in agreement as to the intent. Commissioner Tschopp also noted that it said that "rooflines are not visible above existing ridge lines and asked who that referred to. Most development they were concerned about would occur on the west side of Highway 74 and there are people that are going to be looking down on homes and the way it is written they could use that as a reason to oppose a development because they would be looking down at the rooftop. He thought they had the 15 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISS!nN FEBR reRv 20 nnn� right intent, but didn't think they had the verbiage down right yet. Mr. Stendell concurred. ' Regarding the noticing, Commissioner Tschopp asked if the City pays that with the fees from the developer or the individual pays the City. Mr. Stendell explained that the applicant provides the City with an affidavit from a title company certifying certain standards that we set forth. In this case they now send us a letter with a 300-foot radius ring and all the labels. They give us all the labels and then we take care of the mailing costs and publish it in the newspaper. In this case, it would create quite a few more mailings, but from what he gathered, there were only 25-30 hillside lots in the western portion of the city and some he didn't think were developable. So they would come up occasionally. It would be the developer's obligation to provide them. They would have to agree on some way of coming up with the analysis of line-of- sight and it would have to be something between the engineer and staff. Then if staff feels more comfortable adding an additional amount of noticing, we can do that. Commissioner Tschopp said that was his next question. How do they determine the line-of-sight? Mr. Stendell said that in initial talks when this was first formulated, they talked about having the engineer of the project submit a line-of-sight. If they didn't agree with that, staff would add to the list. Staff has done that in the past. In the case with the grading and percolation, he added 500-600 feet of noticing just to make sure they got more. They always have the ability to add, which is a good thing. Commissioner Schmidt agreed that this was a good first attempt. She asked if they had any definition of what these hillside ridges are and what we're concerned about. She asked if there was a way to overlay on a map the area being discussed. Mr. Stendell said yes. Mr. Smith explained that we're only impacting the properties that are currently zoned HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) and that is a defined area on the zoning map. The area in question most specifically is the area west of the channel with that zoning. Mr. Stendell said there are also about a dozen lots within the Canyons of Bighorn that also fall within that zone. So they were talking about the area west of the storm channel and a few scattered lots within the Canyons of Bighorn. Commissioner Schmidt asked what was left around the Hagadone property. Mr. Stendell indicated that there are three or four more lots on that road, all of which are lower than the Hagadone property. He thought there was one higher up the road, but it was on the western side of that street, which falls on the lower side of the mountain, so they wouldn't have another ridge top there. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20. 2007 Commissioner Schmidt asked if the Hagadone property had been allowed under "D Exceptions." Mr. Stendell said yes, the entire project was an exception. After carefully reading the proposed resolution, Commissioner Schmidt had a couple of suggestions. She asked that "D" in the first paragraph of Exhibit B start with "All." She also wanted to better define the mailing of notices. She thought it was vague as to who does the mailing and it seemed to refer to "C" above it. The "not less than 10 nor more than 30 days" seemed boiler plate in publication. Then when they add "and mailing notices to people whose names appear"she thought they should really define it as United States mail • to all people whose names appear; pin it down. That would be her suggestion because this is what gets them in trouble, the vagueness of some of these definitions. Also, the word "provide" where it states development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential zone shall "provide" notice should be shall "require" notice to all. She would also add with "D" that all hillside development sites shall conform to all regulations or requirements of this chapter. Further down under the second "D" she recommended starting the second sentence with the word "Building" to read, "Building pad elevations..." She asked for clarification for the real purpose of section "E." She also suggested adding in the word "building" before pads. Mr. Stendell said the purpose of "E" relates to what probably started out as 25-30 lots within the Canyons of Bighorn that were approved under a pre-2004 ordinance and those homes have been subject to a lengthy review process. One of the reasons staff was inclined to use the review process is that through the approval process the City was able to get the energy efficiency standards on these larger homes; however, since then the citywide Energy Ordinance has been enacted so now they don't need the discretionary approval to add those as conditions. So in essence, to hold those larger lots that were approved previously that were under a certain expectation of a house size, then in 2004 we said they were no longer entitled to that house size, only 4,000 square feet of house, then every one of those homes started coming through as an exception. Now the energy efficiency standards are in place and kind of the discussion preempted sion at Council as to whether we real) each one. He thou . y need to see thought the int ent, since e they were developed and approved under an older ordinance, had certain expectations. Now with the ordinance in place they didn't need the lengthy review, so let's allow them to get them going quicker. Commissioner Schmidt asked if someone wanted to step outside that prior approval, if a review would be required. Mr. Stendell said yes and they had 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20,2007 a case in the past where a lot with prior approval wanted to increase the pad size with some extra land they were going to acquire from the golf course owner and in an instance like that, it would trigger a new exceptions section through the hillside zone and would require full public hearings. Commissioner Schmidt asked if that was articulated in this ordinance. Mr. Stendell said the pads are existing and approved. Any expansion is therefore considered an exception. Since the lots were already approved under an old tract map under an old ordinance, any change thereto would be an exception. It's implied in his opinion, but he would double check with the attorneys. Commissioner Schmidt would rather see it clearly stated rather than implied. She thought it was the biggest headache and if they could resolve it without much trouble she thought they should. She said it was a good start, though. Chairperson Campbell asked if the Commission felt comfortable approving the resolution with the changes or if they wanted staff to come back with the new verbiage. Mr. Smith recommended a continuance to March 20. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, by minute motion continuing Case No. ZOA 07-01 to March 20, 2007. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Potential Trip and Attendees Mr. Smith explained that the Agenda on March 6, 2007 would have a request for a proposed 782-unit two- and three-story apartment project at the northwest comer of Portola and Dinah Shore. The developer requested that staff try to arrange a tour for Planning Commissioners and City Council members. The proposed trip was tentatively scheduled for Monday and Tuesday next week, the 26th and 27th. Brown Act issues limit attendance to two members of each body in any one group. If there were more than two people from the Commission interested in the trip, then a second one would be scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, the 28th and the 1st. He asked if people wanted to indicate now or check their calenders and let Tony Bagato know in the next day, then staff could make the arrangements. He indicated that the developer has four or five projects of a similar nature in 18 POSTED AGENDA Regular Meetings of The Palm Desert City Council, Redevelopment Agency, and Housing Authority for Thursday, April 12, 2007 Civic Center Council Chamber c° Please set your pagers and cell phones to silence mode. 2:30 P.M. — Study Session - Recreational Facilities (ACR) 3:00 P.M. — Closed Session 4:00 P.M. — Regular Session and Public Hearings Fuse s to "Flex Your Power." Don't Max Out! Minimize energy during peak demand hours of 5:00- 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices available upon request. Please contact the City Clerk's Office, 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, (760)346-0611, for assistance with access to any of the Agenda, materials, or participation at the Meeting. Palm Desert City Council Richard S. Kelly, Mayor Jean M. Benson, Mayor Pro-Tempore Jim Ferguson, Councilman Cindy Finerty, Councilmember Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman Staff Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager/RDA Executive Director David J. Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building & Safety Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Patrick Conlon, Director of Office of Energy Management Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Douglas Van Gelder, Director of Information Systems Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment & Housing Frankie Riddle, Director of Special Programs Richard Twedt, Public Arts Manager Gary Rosenblum, Risk Manager POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2007 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M. It. ROLL CALL III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A (CLOSED SESSION ITEMS) Any person wishing to discuss any item of Closed Session business may address the City Council or Redevelopment Agency Board at this point by stepping to the lectern and -giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the City Council or Redevelopment Agency Board. Because the Brown Act does not allow the City Council or Redevelopment Agency Board to take action on items not on the Agenda, members will not. enter into discussion with speakers but will instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future City Council or Redevelopment Agency meeting. IV. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION Reauest for Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: 1) Property: 35 acres +/-, NWC Portola Avenue (extended)/ Dinah Shore Drive, Palm Desert, CA Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert Property Owner: Mike Marix Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment 2) Property: Lease Property - 74-735 Hovley Lane East, Palm Desert, CA Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Frankie Riddle/City of Palm Desert Property Owner: City of Palm Desert Other Parties: Cox PC Assets, LLC, d.b.a. Sprint PCS/ Global Signal Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b): Number of potential cases: 2 Conferencewith Legal Counsel regarding significant potential to initiate litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c): Number of potential cases: 1 Public Employment pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: Title of Position: City Attorney V. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M. A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION. Action: VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -Councilman Robert A. Spiegel VII. INVOCATION - Mayor Pro Tern Jean M. Benson Vill. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B Any person wishing to discuss any item not scheduled for public hearing may address the City Council, Redevelopment Agency,or Housing Authority Boards at this point by stepping to the lectern and givina his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, or Housing Authority Boards. Because the Brown Act does not allow the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, or Housing Authority Boards to take action on items not on the Agenda, members will not enter into discussion with speakers but will instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future City Council, Redevelopment Agency, or Housing Authority meeting. IX. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 2007 AS "PREVENT CHILD ABUSE MONTH" IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. Action: 2 POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 B. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF APRIL 22-28, 2007, AS "NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK" IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. Action: C. PRESENTATION TO RECOGNIZE CITY OF PALM DESERT/PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY EMPLOYEES FOR EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE — MARCH 2O07. Action: D. APPOINTMENTS TO THEAUDIT, INVESTMENT&FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSING COMMISSION. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Appoint Stephanie M. Loog to the Audit, Investment & Finance Committee to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Dixie Proulx, whose unexpired term concludes December 31, 2009; 2) appoint Natalie M. Russo to the Housing Commission for a four-year term (December 31, 2010) to fill the at- large member vacancy created by the resignation of Carrie McLeod, whose term concluded on December 31, 2006. Action: X. CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER SECTION XI CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER, OF THE AGENDA. A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 22, 2007. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 196, 197, and 201. Rec: Approve as presented. 3 POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 C. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes for February 27, 2007. Rec: Receive and file. D. REQUEST FOR DECLARATION of Surplus Property and Authorization for Disposal (Miscellaneous Computer, Electronic Equipment, and Furniture). Rec: By Minute Motion, declare the items listed on the accompanying staff report's Exhibit "A" as surplus and authorize disposal as is deemed appropriate. E. REQUEST FOR DECLARATION of Surplus Property and Authorization for Disposal (Vehicles and Miscellaneous Public Works Maintenance Equipment). Rec: By Minute Motion, declare the items listed on the accompanying staff report as surplus and authorize disposal as proposed. F. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT for the Annual Color for ElPaseo Medians and Civic Center Park for Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 (Contract No. C26230, Project No. 930-07). Rec: By Minute Motion, award the subject contract to Arakawa Nursery, Inc., Corona, California, in the amount of$17,059.44. G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Amendment No.4 to Contract No. C23110 — Engineering Services for Design of the Highway 111 Sidewalk Improvements. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Amendment No. 4 in the amount of $2,820 to the subject contract with Omnis, Inc., Chino, California, for design and engineering services to construct a bus bay on Highway 111 east of San Pablo Avenue; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute said Amendment — funds are available in Account No. 110-4300-413-3010. 4 J POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. C25570 — Section 29 Assessment District (No. 2004-02) Sewer Installation, Phase I. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $2,563.13 to the subject contract with Jones Bros. Construction Company, Coachella, California, to modify two manhole facilities; 2) authorize the transfer of $14.09 from contingency to base for the project; 3) appropriate $2,549.04 from Unobligated Fund 400 to the project account; 4) authorize the Mayor to execute Change Order No. 2. I: REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Contract No. C24440B — Traffic Signal Installation on Country Club Drive at Via Scena (Project No. 578-06) (DBX, Inc., Temecula, CA). Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the subject project. J. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Contract No. C25050— 2006 Citywide Street Restriping (Project No. 564-06) (California Traffic Maintenance, Burbank, CA). Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the subject project. K. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Contract No. C25570 — Section 29 Assessment District (No. 2004-02) Sewer Installation, Phase I (Project No.627-S-05)(Jones Bros. Construction Company, Coachella,CA). Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the subject project. L. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Tract Map No. 34927 (Stone Eagle Development, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 07-22, approving the Map of Tract No. 34927. M. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of a Storm Drainage and Retention Basin Maintenance Agreement with Rilington Dolce, LLC. Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute the subject agreement with Rilington Dolce, LLC. 5 POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 N. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Purchase Orders/Audio-Visual Invoices for 2007 "Summer of Fun" Concerts. Rec: By Minute Motion, approvetwo purchase orders/audio-visual invoices totaling $14,800 with Studio Instrument Rentals, Palm Springs, California, for concert sound and lighting equipment and professional staff for the 2007 "Summer of Fun" Concerts — funds have been budgeted in Account No. 110-4416-414-3061 for this purpose. O. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Cal COPS Expenditures. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Cal COPS Funds expenditure for purchase of: 1) Vista FX Premium Crash Reconstruction System in the amount of $6,695; 2) 30-Olympus FE-2107.1 Mega Pixel Digital Cameras and 31-Gigabyte Memory Cards from Pearl Mutter Purchasing Power in the amount of$5,462.93, as recommended by the Public Safety Commission at its March 14, 2007, Meeting. P. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Receive and File General Release Agreements in Conjunction with the Fred Waring Drive Soundwall at Desert Breezes (Contract Nos. C24100C-G). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Receive the General Release Agreements for properties affected by the height reduction of the Fred Waring Drive Soundwall at Desert Breezes (77-699 Calle Las Brisas South, 77-707 Calle Las Brisas South, 77-717 Calle Las Brisas South, 77-723 Calle Las Brisas South, and 77-733 Calle Las Brisas South); 2) authorize the City Clerk to record said General Release Agreements with the Riverside County Recorder. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of a Grant from the City's Child Care tQ Development Mitigation Impact Fee Fund 228 for Exterior Painting of the Family YMCA of the Desert Jean M. Benson Child Care Center. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve a grant in the amount of $7,242 to reimburse the Family YMCA of the Desert for exterior painting of the Jean M. Benson Child Care Center; 2) appropriate said funds from Fund 228 - Child Care Mitigation Fees. 6 POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 R. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Contractor Services for Electrical, Plumbing, and Heating/AC for Fiscal Year 2007/08. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve contractors identified on the staff report's accompanying list for performance of the subject services needed on an immediate basis and in an amount not to exceed $10,000 per occasion, based upon the hourly rates established on said list. S. CONSIDERATION of Action Taken by Legislative Review Committee Regarding AB882 (Hernandez) — Sales Tax Exemption. Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative Review Committee at its March 27, 2007, Meeting and direct staff to prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to AB882 (Hernandez). T. CONSIDERATION of Action Taken by Legislative Review Committee Regarding AB1120 (Tran) — Sales Tax Exemption. Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative Review Committee at its March 27, 2007, Meeting and direct staff to prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to AB1120 (Tran). U. CONSIDERATION of Action Taken by Legislative Review Committee Regarding AB1152 (Niello) — Sales Tax Exemption. Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with -the action taken by the Legislative Review Committee at its March 27, 2007, Meeting and direct staff to prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to AB1152 (Niello). V. CONSIDERATION of Action Taken by Legislative Review Committee Regarding AB1206 (Smyth) — Sales Tax Exemption. Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative Review Committee at its March 27, 2007, Meeting and direct staff to prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to AB1206 (Smyth). 7 POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 W. CONSIDERATION of Action Taken by Legislative Review Committee Regarding AB1449 (Saldana) — Density Bonuses. Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative Review Committee at its March 27, 2007, Meeting and direct staff to prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to AB1449 (Saldana). X. CONSIDERATION of Action Taken by Legislative Review Committee Regarding AB1681 (Houston) — Sales Tax Exemption. Rec: By Minute Motion, concur with the action taken by the Legislative Review Committee at its March 27, 2007, Meeting and direct staff to prepare a letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature with regard to AB1681 (Houston). Y. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION to Reject All Bids and Re-advertise for Two Half-ton Pick-up Trucks (Regular Cab). Rec: By Minute Motion, reject all bids received on March 12, 2007, for the subject purchase and authorize the City Clerk to re-advertise. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1Y Report on the Status of Highways 111 and 74 Relinquishment. 2. "Long Range Plan Proposals for Enhancing Disaster Preparation and Response" Report. 3. Update on Public Relations Activities Conducted by Nancy J. Friedman Public Relations. Action: XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER XII. RESOLUTIONS None 8 POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 XIII. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 1135 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 96-1 AS IT - RELATES TO A 300-TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT, 215 CURRENTLY ENTITLED UNDER THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Case No. DA 06-03 As It Relates to Case Nos. PP/CUP 06-17 and TT 35426 (StarwoodNWC Rancho Mirage, Inc., Applicants). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt, subject to receipt of the Development Agreement as executed by the Applicants. Action: XIV. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF REQUEST TO ENTER INTO A 25-YEAR EASEMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR CITY LAND AT THE PALM DESERT SOCCER PARK(74-735 HOVLEY LANE EAST)TO HOST A SPRINT PCS WIRELESS CELL TOWER (CONTRACT NO. C19290). Rec: To be provided. Action: B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE IN OPERATIONAL TIME FOR THE PALM DESERT SKATE PARK. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a change to the operational hours of the Palm Desert Skate Park to coincide with the Desert Sands Unified School District calendar. Action: 9 POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 C. INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT AL ATION(RHNA) UPDATE(JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PA DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY). Rec: Minute Motion, receive and file the report. ion: D. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR OWNERSHIP TRANSFER FOR VILLA AT PALM SERT, AS REQUIRED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Case No. DA 86-1 (Atria Palm Desert, LLC, Applicant). Rec: By ute Motion,approve assignment of ownership from Atria Senior ing Group, Inc.,to Atria Palm Desert, LLC,and authorize the Mayor o execute the Consent to Assignment. Action: I E. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATI�OF NORTH CARPORTS PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM (CONTRACT-NO. C23290C1). Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize: 1) rd of the subject contract to Carlson Solar, Hemet, Cal ifor is in the amount of$464,157.68; 2) a 10%contingency for the p 'ect in the amount of$46,415.70; 3) $800 for Interconnection lication fee for net-metering to Southern California Edison- Director of Finance to allocate $510,373.38 for this work — n ppropriation is necessary for the project, funds are available ' ccount No. 400-4511-422-3911. Action: 10 POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 F. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FO HE 2007 CITYWIDE PALM TREE PRUNING AND REMOVA ROGRAM (CONTRACT NO. C26220, PROJECT NO. 931-07)(JOI CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORI ). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) and the subject contract to Tree Rite, Bermuda Dunes, C ' ornia, in the total amount of $78,421.50 (City: $68,336.75• ousing Authority: $10,084.75); 2) authorize the Director of Fin ce to set aside an additional 10% Contingency totaling $7,8 .15 (City: $6,833.67; Housing Authority: $1,008.48); 3) authori the Director of Finance to appropriate $10,084.75 of the total co ract amount to the respective Housing Authority Landscape Mai enance Budget line items plus set aside $1,008.48 of the total ntingency to the respective Housing Authority Landscape Maintenance Budget; 4) authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement—funds for the City portion of the contract are available in General Fund and Assessment District Fund 200 accounts. Action: G. CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVERSIDE CZNTYAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION'S(LAFCO)RE EST FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SPHERES OF FLUENCE. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Provide directio to LAFCO relative to retention of the Del Webb Sp re of Influence. 2) Provide rection to LAFCO relative to retention of the Bermu Dunes Sphere of Influence, and if City Council /irec "on is to retain this Sphere: a)Authorize staff to retain the es of a professional firm to conduct a Fiscal Impact bility Study on the Annexation of the Bermuda Dunes re of Influence; b) appropriate an amount not to exceed $25,000 for a Fiscal Impact Feasibility Study on the Annexation of the Bermuda Dunes Sphere of Influence. Action: 11 I POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 H. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CON TRO IELD SERVICES WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPART NT OF ANIMAL SERVICES, EXTENDING THE TERM FO HE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2006, TO JUNE 30, 2007 (CONTRAC 0. C24200). Rec: By Minute Moti : 1) Approve the One-year Extension to the subject agreement h the Riverside County Department of Animal Services, Riversi California, in an amount not to exceed $88,328 unless othe ise approved; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute same—funds available in Account No. 110-4230-442-3090. Action: XV. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEM9NT FOR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES TO THE TYIOF PALM DESERT (CONTRACT NO. C00-008A) (Continued f the meetings of January 25, February 8, February 22, and March , 2007). Rec: By Min otion, approve as presented and authorize the Mayor to axle a same. Action: B. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PROCESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS ATTHE PRESIDENTS' PLAZA I (EAST/WEST) BUSINESS/1�IIPROVEMENT DISTRICT (CONTRACT NO. C26260) (Continue om the meetings of February 22 and March 8, 2007). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) pprove the subject contract with Nasland Engineering, San Di o, California, in the amount of $45,282, plus $1,000 in reimburs bles, to prepare a Parking Structure Feasibility Study for Presets' Plaza I (East/West); 2) authorize the Director of Finance to s aside the amount of$4,528.20 as a 10% contingency (use of c ingency requires additional action); 3)authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement —funds are available in Fund 400. Action: 12 POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 XVI. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMEND T NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C22870C — CONSTRUCTION MA GEMENT SERVICES ON THE WHITEWATER BRIDGE AT PORT AVENUE (PROJECT NO. 647-04). Rec: By Minute Motion, ap ove: 1) Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $133,050 to the su ect contract with Berg & Associates, San Pedro, California, foJ�additional construction management service's; 2) transfer/of $76,117.10 from contingency to base for this amend nt; 3) appropriation of$56,932.90 for this Amendment from Uno gated Fund 400 monies. Action: XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.15 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE - HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND CHAPTER 25.86 - PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. ZOA 07-01 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1136 to second reading, approving Case No. ZOA 07-01. Action: XVIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER B. CITY ATTORNEY C. CITY CLERK 1. Reminder of Study Session to Receive an Update Presentation from the Palm Springs Desert Resort Communities Convention &Visitors Authority on Thursday, April 26, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. Action: 13 POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 D. PUBLIC SAFETY o Fire Department o Police Department E. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL o City Council Requests for Action: 1. Consideration of City Council Liaison Appointment to theCity's Public Safety Commission (Mayor Richard S. Kelly). Action: o City Council Committee Reports: o City Council Comments: XIX. ADJOURNMENT FUTURE MEETINGS: April 16, 2007 3:00 p.m. Citizens' Adv. Cmte.-Proj. Area#4 Administrative Conference Room April 17, 2007 8:30 a.m. Parks & Recreation Commission Administrative Conference Room 2:00 p.m. Marketing Comtittee Administrative Conference Room 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission Civic Center Council Chamber April 18, 2007 9:00 a.m. Art In Public Places Commission Visitor Center-72567 Highway 111 3:00 p.m. Library Promotion Committee Administrative Conference Room April 24, 2007 10:00 a.m. Audit, Investment & Finance Committee North Wing Conference Room 10:00 a.m. Historic Preservation Committee Administrative Conference Room 12:00 p.m. Architectural Review Commission Community Services Conference Room April 26, 2007 3:00 p.m. Regular City Council/RDA Meetings Civic Center Council Chamber I hereby certify,under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,that the foregoing agenda for the Palm Desert City Council was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 6th day of April,2007. iaelD. Klassen, City` rk-- 14 POSTED AGENDA REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2007 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 1. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL III. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION Request for Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: 1) Property: 10 acres +/-, NEC Country Club Drive/Desert Willow Drive Negotiating Parties: Agency: Justin McCarthy/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Sanderson J. Ray/Desert Springs Partners Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment IV. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M. A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION. Action: V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER SECTION VII CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER, OF THE AGENDA. A. MINUTES of the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting of March 22, 2007. Rec: Approve as presented. POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE AGENCY TREASURY -Warrant Nos. 196RDA, 198RDA, 202RDA, 196-Housing, 199-Housing,203-Housing, 200HA, and 204HA Rec: Approve as presented. C. CITIZENS'ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROJECTAREA NO.4 Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2006. Rec: Receive and file. D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of a Grant of Easement to the City of Palm Desert for the Purpose of an Emergency Access at Hovley Gardens Apartments. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the Grant of Easement portion of APN 624-440-038 to the City of Palm Desert for the purpose of an emergency access to the Hovley Gardens Apartments. E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of the Purchase and Installation of ADA- Compliant Exterior Doors and Hardware at the Catalina Pueblos Community Room. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the proposal by Magik Glass and Door, Palm Springs, California, in the amount of $24,051 to provide and install ADA-compliant exterior doors and hardware at the Catalina/Pueblos Community Room —funds are available in Account No. 850-4433-433-4001. F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 7. to Contract No. R21780 — Construction of the Palm Village Apartments. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 7 in the amount of $42,146 and 10 additional workdays to the subject contract with Taylor Frager, Inc., Temecula, California; 2) appropriate $42,146 to Account No. 870-4349-433-4001 from the Redevelopment Agency's Unobligated Funds for this purpose. 2 POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 G. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. R22600A — Construction of the Henderson Community Building at Entrada del Paseo. Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Approve Change Order No. 1 in the credit amount of($15,059) to the subject contract with Steton Construction Group, Brea, California; 2) adjust the original $454,000 contingency for the project to the increased amount of $469,059 to reserve for future change order requests. H. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION of Amendment No. 7 to Contract No. R23390—Development and Construction of Affordable Single-family and Senior Housing Projects Known As Falcon Crest and La Rocca Villas. Rec: By Minute Motion, ratify Amendment No.7 in the amount of$3,931.50 to the subject contract with ComDyn PD, LLC, Santa Monica, California, for the purpose of landscape modification to address potential health and safety issues at Falcon Crest development — funds are available in Account No. 870-4698-466-4001. Action: VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER Vill. RESOLUTIONS None IX. NEW BUSINESS A. INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ALLOCATION(RHNA)UPDATE(JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL). Rec: By Minute Motion, receive and file. Action: 3 POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT NO. R23210 — CONSTRUCTION OF FREEDOM PARK. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve assignment of the subject contract with James E. Simon Company, Indio, California, to Simon Contracting, Indio, California, the construction division of Superior Ready Mix, for construction of Freedom Park. Action: X. CONTINUED BUSINESS None XI. OLD BUSINESS None XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS None XIII. REPORTS, REMARKS, AND AGENCY BOARD ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION A. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR B. AGENCY COUNSEL C. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY XIV. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,that the foregoing agenda for the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 6th day of April, 20 7 achelle D. Klassen, ity Clerk 4 POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2007 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER SECTION IV CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER, OF THE AGENDA. A. MINUTES of the Housing Authority Meeting of March 22, 2007. Rec: Approve as presented. Action: IV. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER V. RESOLUTIONS None POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE 2007 CITYWIDE PALM TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL PROGRAM (CONTRACT NO. C26220, PROJECT NO. 931-07) (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL). Rec: By Minute Motion: 1) Award the subject contract to Tree Rite, Bermuda Dunes, California, in the total amount of $78,421.50 (City: $68,336.75; Housing Authority: $10,084.75); 2) authorize the Director of Finance to set aside an additional 10% Contingency totaling $7,842.15 (City: $6,833.67; Housing Authority: $1,008.48); 3) authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate $10,084.75 of the total contract amount to the respective Housing Authority Landscape Maintenance Budget line items plus set aside $1,008.48 of the total contingency to the respective Housing Authority Landscape Maintenance Budget; 4) authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement—funds for the City portion of the contract are available in General Fund and Assessment District Fund 200 accounts. Action: VII. CONTINUED BUSINESS None Vlll. OLD BUSINESS None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS None X. REPORTS, REMARKS, AND AGENCY BOARD ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION A. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR B. AUTHORITY COUNSEL C. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AUTHORITY 2 POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING APRIL 12, 2007 XI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - C Any person wishing to discuss any item not scheduled for public hearing may address the City Council, Redevelopment Agency,or Housing Authority Boards at this point by stepping to the lectern and givino his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, or Housing Authority Boards. Because the Brown Act does not allow the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, or Housing Authority Boards to take action on items not on the Agenda, members will not enter into discussion with speakers but will instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future City Council, Redevelopment Agency, or Housing Authority meeting. XII. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing agenda for the Palm Desert Housing Authority was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 6th day of April, 2/000 �1! u CrG Rachelle D. Klassen, Oi Clerk 3 trz�Ja(m Awed Council Agenda Request Meeting of APRIL 12, 2007 1. To be considered under: Consent Calendar ❑ Resolutions ❑ Ordinances ❑ New Business ❑ Old Business ❑ Informational Items ❑ Public Hearings M Other ❑ 2. Item Title: (Please provide the wording that should appear as the item's title on the agenda). Approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Ct apter 25.86 Public Hearings. Financial: (NIA) (a) Account/Project# (b) Amount Requested _ (c) In the Current Budget? (d) Appropriation Required? 4. Submitted by: Rvan Stendell 5. Approvals: Department Head: ACM for Development Services: LauriAylaian ?H ro City Manager: Finance Director. Carlos L. Ortega Paul Gibson K CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings. SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 07-01 DATE: April 12, 2007 CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Background and Discussion C. Ordinance No. D. Planning Commission Minutes E. Planning Commission Resolution 2439 F. Ordinance 1046A Current HPR Ord. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the findings to approve Case No. ZOA 07-01 and pass Ordinance No. on to second reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval of the staff recommendation will prohibit construction of homes on ridges in the hillside planned residential (HPR) zone, will increase requirements for public noticing and will restore the relationship between pad size and -house size for previously approved pads within the HPR zone. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: ,At its meeting of December 14, 2006 the_ City Council discussed possible changes to the Hillside Planned Residential (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 a zoning ordinance amendment for the HPR zone. Current.Public'Hearing Ordinance(25.86 Public Hearings): [For projects being proposed within the HPR zone; current code requires that notice of hearing be given not less than ten days nor more,fhan thirty days prior Eto-the.date of the--hearing by-publication in a newspaper of general.circulation in Staff Report ZOA 07-01 Page 2 April 12, 2007 the city. Notices must be mailed 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 contains the following development standards: Density: One (1) unit per-five (5) acres Grading: Building 'Pad 'Area-maximum of 1-0,,0001square feet. Access 'Road/Driveway- maximum of 3�00 square feet. Maximum Total dwelling unit with garage and accessory building shall Dwelling not exceed 4;000 square feet. Size: ;Eicceptions: The above standards 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. Current Ridge=Top Development Requirements: At this time the-HPR ordinance has- no specific language relating to ridge-top' development. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:---� '-Public Notices (Chapter 25.86): Staff,proposes to revise the ordinance to'require mailing legal notices to property owners within 4000 feet-df'the- perty being developed., Staff arrived at'tfiis' -- - ,number-by taking,the-highest'property in the hillside and giving a-reasonable distance that would-notity;pr`operty=owners east of Highway 74 (see attached LBuil_ding Size Limitation: The current HPR zone as amended in 2004'allows a maximum 6f-'.4-,,000 square ` feet of living space based on 40%o_coverage of the maximum disturbed pad area of 10,000_square feet. The hillsids.lots within the Canyons at Bighorn-were I Staff Report ZOA 07-01 Page 3 April 12, 2007 approved and graded pursuant to the pre-2004 hillside amendment that allowed pads of 30,000 square feet and more in areas of moderate slopem Jhe.,only house size limitation in place at that time was standard lot coverage of 350/crand? up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval. 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. 7'Anyr:request to enlarge an existing•pad would trigger the exception provision and associated' public hearing process with Planning Commission and City Council. Ridge-Top Development: Most of the City's remaining undeveloped hillside areas involve ridges or steep canyons. ITo�.protect ridges from development it is recommended that we add the following specific language to 25.15A3'0 (development standards). t F. _Development on or.across'hdges is prohibited. _ . G. {Building pads and architecture shall�be des. &s-igned Ito zeliminate or• minimize any visual impact on-the"City"to`"the maximum extent ,feasible: Staff has also expanded on the idea of defining a hillside ridge by developing a frap'that identifies all ridges throughout the,HPR?zone. This map was developed with City mapping technicians using contour and topographic data that is available to the City. Staff feels this map will be a valuable tool in developing within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. (See attached map) @PLO`ANNING-COMMISSION: At its meeting of February 20"', 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed this matter and directed staff to adjust the draft ordinance in several areas including public noticing requirements, line of sight and the definitions of a hillside ridge. The matter was continued to the March 20"' meeting. At the March 20t' meeting the Planning Commission reviewed this matter for the second time. The Commission was pleased with the visual representation of the hillside ridges within the HPR zone. The Commission also endorsed the proposed distance notifying method, along with notifying homeowners Staff Report ZOA 07-01 Page 4 April 12, 2007 associations south of Haystack Road of proposed projects. With minor changes, the Commission approved the recommendation to Council by a unanimous vote. 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 prohibited developing on top of mountain ridges. The proposed amendments accomplish those goals. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: 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. Submitted By: Department Head: Ryan Stendell Lauri Assistant Planner Director of Community Development Approval: City Manager 7� �I-6-IA M for Development Services ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 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 City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12th day of April, 2007, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amending Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapters 25.15, Hillside Planned Residential District and 25.86 Public Hearings; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2439 has recommended approval of the proposed amendments as described in exhibit 'B' of this document; 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its actions 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 City Council in this case. 2. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached, is hereby certified. 3. That ZOA 07-01, as delineated in the attached Exhibit B, is hereby ordained. ORDINANCE NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. 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 DESCRIPTIONILOCATION: 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. LAURI AYLAIAN DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "B" Chapter 25.86 PUBLIC HEARINGS That the following provision be added to Section 25.86.010 (Hearing time and notice) D. All development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone shall require 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 by mailing notices via United States Postal Service to people whose name appear on the latest adopted tax rolls of Riverside County as owning property within 4,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing; and by notification to 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- A ridgeline that is formed by the juncture of two (2) or more sloping planes that project outward from a mountain range and descend towards the valley floor more particularly identified on attached exhibit labeled Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridges. That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.030 (Development Standards) E. Previously approved existing building pads shall be subject to the standard coverage limitations of 35%, which may be increased up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval. Any change to an existing approved building pad shall require a new public hearing subject to the provisions of this chapter. F. Development on or across ridges is prohibited. G. Building pads and architecture shall be designed to eliminate or minimize any visual impact on the City to the maximum extent feasible. 4 CIIV 01 P(H [ M DESERT ` 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o61I FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-dmert.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: March 22, 2007 City of Palm Desert Re: ZOA 07-01 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its regular meeting of March 20, 2007: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Please call if you have any questions regarding this action. Case No. ZOA 07-01 is tentatively scheduled for City Council public hearing on April 12, 2007. LAB Stephen R. Smith, Acting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission km cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal C,mnmartnmoanr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 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 Citxr of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of March, 2007, continued from the 20 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 Planning 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 NO. 2439 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of March, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: LIMONT, TANNER, TSCHOPP, SCHMIDT, CAMPBELL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: STEPHn R. SMITH, Acting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 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. ST PHEN R. SMITH DATE ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 EXHIBIT B Chapter 25.86 PUBLIC HEARINGS That the following provision be added to Section 25.86.010 (Hearing time and notice) D. All development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone shall require 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 via United States Postal Service to people whose name appear on the latest adopted tax rolls of Riverside County as owning property within 4,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing and notification to 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-A ridgeline that is formed by the juncture of two (2) or more sloping planes that project outward from a mountain range and descend towards the valley floor more particularly identified on attached exhibit labeled Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridges. That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.010 (Purpose) D. 1. Development on or across ridges is prohibited. 2. Building pad elevations and architectural design shall be set so that rooflines do not create a negative visual impact on the city. That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.030 (Development Standards) E. Previously approved existing building pads shall be subject to the standard coverage limitations of 35% and may be increased up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval. Any change to an 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2439 existing approved building pad shall require a new public hearing subject to the provisions of this chapter. 5 49220 Quercus Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 March 17, 2007 Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert RECEIVED 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 MAR 19 2007 RE: Staff Report Dated March 20, 2007 Case No: ZOA 07-01 ;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Dear Planning Commission: I am writing this letter on behalf of the 1050 homes in the Ironwood Community. For the past year and more, we in Ironwood (along with representatives from The Reserve, The Summit, and Monterra) have worked with members of the City Council and Mr Hagadone to mitigate the impact of the Hagadone development on Palm Desert residents and have been pleased with the response of both Mr. Hagadone and the City Council In that regard. We also appreciate being asked to comment on the proposed amendments being recommended in the Staff Report dated March 20, 2007: • PUBLIC NOTICES— Mailing legal notices to property owners within 4000 feet of the property to be developed is a reasonable and clear approach. We support this recommendation strongly. Had this been in place several years ago, much of the recent controversy over ridge line development could have been avoided. • BUILDING SIZE LIMITATION— No objection. • RIDGE-TOP DEVELOPMENT—We earlier suggested, as perhaps did others, the use of the word "prohibited" recommended for 25.15.010 as it is clear in meaning and intent: "(D) Development on or across prominent ridges is prohibited." Also, we find the next sentence acceptable: "Building pad elevations and architectural design shall beset that rootlines do not create a negative visual impact on the City" Overall, we would prefer that the wording say that rooflines should not be visible, but recognize the difficulty inherent in this wording. Therefore, in the context of the other recommended changes, we feel this version would be effective. Recently, Ryan Stendell was kind enough to share with me the ridgeline map that was prepared as a aid in enforcing these changes, and we feel it would be very effective. We respectfully and strongly recommend you approve these amendments as proposed. Sincerely, Lawrence T. Sutter President, Ironwood Master Association ,? lirl'd-s ro .31A 77 Q,fin/C- O+t� L�ibGt�D �S�CJl�✓T> RECEIVED k ki Z 0 2007 Name: Richard Fromme Valley resident since 1965 :OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 48-625 Paisano Rd. CITY OF PALM DESERT Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Political: I believe that these proposed restriction being placed on the property owners of the Palm Desert Cahuilla Hills properties are nothing but a response to the uproar from the Hagadone project in The Canyons at Big Horn. It seems very unfair for these property owners to be restricted like this for this reason. The responsibility for the Hagadone project belongs to the city that issued the permit to build the house, not the rest of the property owners who happen to have property on hillsides. Property Values: The restrictions being placed on the hillside properties by Palm Desert will have a significant affect on their value. A property on Upper Way West was listed for$1,295,000.00 on a 4/28/06 CMS report that I have in my possession. It sold for $276,500.00 in December of 2006. The assessed value of the property was $882,300.00 at that time. I understand the reason for the low price was restrictions placed on the property by the seller to insure his privacy. These restrictions are similar to the ones proposed by this ordinance. Cahuilla Hills property owners should be paid for this decrease in value and the owners of ridgeline lots that are unbuildable should be paid the entire value of the property. I understand the city is purchasing property in the hills and it seems to me that this ordinance would be a good way to purchase the property that the city wants at a devalued price. I hope this is not the case. Notification: Notifying everyone within 4000 Feet by mail is expensive and unnecessary. If this is the new criterion, then it should be the same for everyone, even the properties in the flat parcels. It was much prettier for Cahuilla Hills residents when we could see the wildflowers instead of houses. Shouldn't we be allowed the same courtesy? Would publishing the project in the newspaper, as the city does,be better? City Council: I think that there are some conflicts on the city council concerning the hillside plans. Voting on this should not be allowed for those council people involved. Homestead Act: The Federal Government allowed the hills to be homesteaded so people would build and settle on the property they homesteaded. I realize that now the Federal Government defers to the local government to administer development, and rightfully so, but don't you feel the original intent of the pact should be considered. I ,q� mLS CMA Report(216) ( r Paget of 2 a CMA Report Listrigs as of 04/28/OB at 4:30pm Pap I RESIDENTIAL Address Chv Man Bd Bth SaFt L.otSz Year WA• Dab >; E!22OMO!A9 PrtceUst Price =40 V er Palm DesertPage#931,G 22.50 2DD02208W 1960GPS 01/03=647.50 113 1,295,0001�95 000 48725 Ve enis Rd Palm DandPage#818,D 3 2 2317 2.600ac 19NO 02/22/06 561.07 3w.000 1 AW.00D 71450 Pointed Canyon Palm DesertPaga#848,8 4 4 5000 87556sf 1950GPS 11/23=5W.00 166 3,900,0002,900,000 Listing Count 3 Averegss 3108 598.19 111 2,185,�0 Meth 1,831,-667 Li High 2.900.000 Low 1,296,000 Median 1,300,000 SOLD Properties Address C@y Man Rd Bill Supt LotSz Year WA• Date 6/SpFtMMOrIa PrtaUst PrImSele PriceSP 71825 ChoNa Way Palm DesertPage#848,B 2 0 1071103672sf 1963G 01/24/03 276A4 -20 308,000 309,9; 295 £ 71-760 Choda WayPalm DesertPage#848,B 32.50 1950 1.110ac 1991 GP 03MGM 227.04 172 489,000 449'W W £ 48n55 Ve71395 srbena Rd Palm DesertPogs#848,B 3- 2 23� 723098t 1990G3 OV 269.75 314 8 .SW 649.500 625 000 £ 71440 Qasls Trf Palm DesertFage#848,B 11.50 2970 87120sf 2001 G 12/23/M WAS 349 825AW 795.000 795,DW IC 71550 Quail Tri Palm DesertPage#848.8 4 4 32001089005f 1983GPS 10/13/04 281.25 277 975,000 925,0D0 9DO.000 £ 71900 71450 C Jaguar W�Palm DesertPage#848,G 33.25 4208217800ef 19MGG 02/09104 303.42 422 1 A70,0001 350,OOD 1.0001,195,000 �29.5,WO £ 71285 Mesa Trt Pabn DesertPege#848,A 44.50 4369217800af 2000GPS OSN2106 583.66 44622.0002,950,000 2.550.000 E Usting Count 9 Averages 3097 293.53 278 1 ,6331A33,111 956.778 £ High 2,550,000 Low 295,00D Median 795.000 Address Cihr Mao BdBth SaFt LotSz Year WA* Dab t/SgFtCDOMOrio POMUSt Pd= 71550 Quell Td Pabn Desertpage#W.8 4 4 3400106900sf 2005GPS O4/05106 468.12 136 1,095,0001,595,000 Usting Count 1 Avansgss 3400 469.12 135 1,695,0001,595,000 HIgh1,596.110D Low 1,%5,000 Median 1,596,000 fir:' Ownership Information 7MIft Owen : MARK It STEML4N g Op2ah OW � : _ drMn i =110 UPPER WAY W PALM DCMT 922604093 AddrM : 72 M UPPER WAY W PALM DESERT.CA WM TdspbM : Arerre Pieed W : 625-170.0E7 Coimr Turd : 0411-0tl Mtp PEp Ga i TVA New Pep CAd VA I.epiDnetlptloe: MAMUMMSEC30TSSR48 KNOT W Ttwtt : 6- Property Details VOI Cot1e : SMQLA FAMMYRESMOKS Zedu " P&G Bedroom s 2 Nenwof vdte : t Rirwms : 0.7 Yge>{ellt a 1960 F*dft s OMp-1 LtSb1 : IlOtWsOI5.070Aau VIA : NIA or Faw : 1I16 Pad : Yr Told ROoer : NIA FirdIsm : IBA O"Oork to lot : VA TAX Information Arend Total : sst3.360,c, Tu Areeet s w969.26 Load Toed s sWq" T1eclNase s Mee: Inpieemst : s31431i ygtpoilliquaw : MA ' logWor W 1 42% TuRmAeee : Is601 6MOBPllee : WA Sale Information Let6ldeDm : DOMO W142M 1.ee6er i TEA DEeeneel NIa : 600091761E 1811462 Annn : NIA 8e1oAw: : t276100(Pu>n VIM LOWII)pe WA Let Tlae1 V1ro$ : TVA Zed LOU AaoeM : TVA Io1e Dee wro f : Colt/S4MM Fen : 227 Cep 19p¢ty QarQMdpE.>tie�ow tel0®Nha h aMiieep 60o1eWi0 dicmneiu rd h oetseeen0ii6. 117M07 10:832 MI t Etleee►53ttet6tRep: tC11Da1fry TOP86 Ipi 11,963 - MINUTES DRAFT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION %iff r20071 Action: Commissioner Tanner made a motion that they accept the building with the conditions and that the building owners work with the Fire Department to get those two issues worked out. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification that the motion included approving the building. Commissioner Tanner said yes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tschopp. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voting no. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2438 recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 07-03, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2 with Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voting no. Mr. Smith stated that the meeting between the applicants/owners and the Fire Department would take place prior to City Council public hearing and those two issues would be resolved. C. Case No. ZOA 07-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report, pointing out the additions and changes that had been made since the last meeting. He said there was correspondence on the matter and copies received within the last few days had also been distributed to Commission. Some letters were in favor and some felt it would devalue their properties. Mr. Stendell explained that development standards weren't being changed; owners were still entitled to a 10,000 square foot pad, 3,000 square feet of access road and a 4,000 square foot house. They were just insuring now that no more ridge-top developments were being created. Commissioner Schmidt asked for the definition of "that roof lines do not create a negative visual impact on the city'; she asked what that meant to staff. Mr. Smith replied that it means that the goal is that rooflines will not be visible above ridge lines and if from some vantage points they happen to be visible, they are not at a point where they become an adverse impact on that view. Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Stendell the same question. He replied that his definition was very similar. As Mr. Tschopp pointed out to him at the last meeting, it was very hard to say it wouldn't be seen depending on 12 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 the vantage point. He noted that this was the purpose section of the code where they are stating their goals and policies. Even discussing it with legal counsel, it became very difficult to state what they had in the last draft. If the Commission wished, it could be massaged a little bit to possibly get more of the intent of the relationship between the roof of a home and the ridge of a mountain. They didn't want to create something in the ordinance that was impossible. Commissioner Schmidt read the information three or four times and the impression she was left with was that they can't have a roof above the ridgeline, but if they do, it shouldn't create a negative impact. That was how she was interpreting that sentence. So it was contradictory and too vague for her. The whole purpose in reviewing this is to tighten it up and it seemed they were floundering. That was the impression. Mr. Stendell said he could work on that statement with legal counsel if it was too vague. Commissioner Limont said there are slopes, and a good example is going down Highway 74; in one spot it will be seen and in another it won't. She said maybe they could take into consideration the elevations, because it would be difficult even if they go below the ridge lines and on three sides it can't be seen, but maybe from one spot it could. If it said no ridge lines, it would render it impossible to build because a person could argue depending on where they were standing. Mr. Stendell said that was correct; their intent was to leave the negative visual impact determination on the city up to the Commissions and Council. Commissioner Tanner said included in the city are the neighbors who were also involved. He thought this provided a good guideline to them and Architectural Review. It added teeth to the prior one and protected visual impact to the city and surrounding neighbors. They were talking about increasing the notification and this is what is going to appear. If there is any kind of a negative impact on the city, and they were talking about all of the city, not just Palm Desert; it was all involved. For him it added teeth and he was comfortable with the wording. It gave them an opportunity to say it will give a negative impact on the city and its inhabitants, whether they are next door neighbors or on Interstate 10. Commissioner Schmidt thought perhaps the way to address this would be to not have the sentences all in one paragraph. The first sentence was very strong and clearly states our intent; don't do it. Then they were giving some sort of out depending on who objects and then it was very subjective from that point on. She suggested labeling the two sentences D-1 and D-2. She thought that might help. But she would love to know a clearer definition of 13 MINUTES DRAFT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 what negative impact is because to her it might mean one thing and to someone else quite another. Commissioner Tanner agreed. Commissioner Tschopp thought setting up the D-1 and D-2 was a good idea. With the topography and view angles which are impossible to define and the D-2 statement giving a lot of discretion, it also gives the applicant/builder a lot of warning that they better design something that isn't going to have a negative impact on the city and better not be sitting above the ridgeling for the most part. It gives them some discretion and is a good statement. He thought separating them was a good idea. Commissioner Tschopp brought up the issue of the 4,000 square foot notice. He liked what Mr. Stendell had done; it gave some reasoning and thought behind doing it, but he thought of the old adage that if you are standing next to something you can't design it, you have to stand back to really see it. Because they were dealing with something that is seen by the rest of the city, he asked if it would be a big problem to have it also noticed in the paper, not as a legal notice, but as a general notice so that other citizens who might not be within the noticed area might get an idea of what's going on in the hillside. Mr. Stendell said right now it goes into the newspaper as a legal notice. He didn't know how to notice it in the paper any other way. He asked Mr. Smith if any other noticing had been done historically. Mr. Smith replied not on an individual property application basis. When the general plan went through, display ads and the like were placed. He was talking about the General Plan Update, not individual general plan amendments. Mr. Hargreaves explained that State law establishes certain minimums, but the City could require whatever it thought was appropriate, as long as it was reasonably legal. Mr. Smith said if they wanted to say a display ad was needed, they could. Commissioner Tschopp didn't think that would be necessary. He thought with the way they were clarifying it now, the new code would take care of the problems of seeing something from Interstate 10. He was comfortable with what had been done and thought staff gave it a lot of thought and it appeared they didn't think it was necessary. Commissioner Tanner felt there could be representation with the Desert Sun. The original plan would go through Architectural Review and if there's any indication there's an issue, it would get printed in the paper and maybe that, along with U.S. mail would be enough of a notification to get people to the meeting to tell them if something is or isn't satisfactory. Mr. Stendell stated that .he was very comfortable with the 4,000 square feet and the homeowner's association notification. He thought that would get the word out to a massive number of people. He noted that Palm Desert is a small town 14 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20_ 2007 and word usually spreads like wildfire. That was the intent of the noticing. He was comfortable with the level of noticing proposed. Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Stendell to show them how far 4,000 feet was on the map. Mr. Stendell explained that there are two areas of Hillside Planned Residential zone; one being the Canyons of Bighorn and the other being west of the storm channel. Commissioner Schmidt asked to see the distance that would still notify Ironwood. Mr. Stendell pointed it out. There were no other questions for staff and Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this application. Referring to the Request to Speak cards that had been submitted, she invited Mr. David Nelson to address the Commission. MR. DAVID NELSON, 72595 Beavertail in Palm Desert, informed Commission that he has five acres on Upper Way West up in the hills that he bought and struggled through with the general plan update process. He wanted to build a house up there and had started the plans. Now he was struggling through another zone change around him. He said his property is basically all ridge line, but he was trying to work something out with the City where they could build a little more into the canyon. When talking about ridge lines and not being above a ridge line, he noted that the ridge line is not a horizontal line, it's at an angle. So if he is below it or next to it, he would be above it further down the hill a little bit. So it had to open up to the city somewhere, some way, some place. It was not in a bowl. By doing this, they were saying he has to build in a bowl which was impossible because there were no bowls up there. He bought his property to build a home for he and his wife and it just seemed like they kept getting down zoned and down zoned. He thought the Hagadone house was ridiculous and thought the City might have a knee-jerk reaction, but after such a big house was built that the City didn't have to approve, they had been telling him that they don't want big houses up there and at the same time approved that. But he hated to see it being micro managed. They couldn't have it below the ridge line because the ridge line goes all the way to the floor, so that didn't make sense to him. But he said he was trying to work with the City and was working on a property swap with a piece 15 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 of property the City might have where he could build down more in a canyon, but it would open up to somebody somewhere. He liked the fact that it was changed so it couldn't be above the ridge line, but there is some common sense to it. That was all he asked. He got worried when they kept trying to make zoning so tight on something in the hillside that is next to impossible to do because every lot is so different up there. Those were his comments and he said he appreciated their time. MR. RICHARD FROMME, 48625 Paisano Road in Palm Desert, said he lives in the County, but owns two five-acre pieces down by the water tank. He has been a valley resident since 1965. He believed these proposed restrictions being placed on the property owners of the Palm Desert Cahuilla Hills properties was nothing but a response to the uproar from the Hagadone project in the Canyons at Bighorn. It seemed very unfair for these property owners to be restricted by this for this reason. The responsibility for the Hagadone property belongs to the City that issued the permit to build the house, not the rest of the property owners who happen to have property on the hillside. He thought the restrictions being placed on hillside properties by Palm Desert would have significant effect on their value. The property on Upper Way West was listed for$1,295,000 on a 04/28/06 CMS report he had in his possession that he thought he furnished a copy to the Planning Department that morning. It was sold for $276,500 in December of 2006. The assessed value of the property was $882,300 at that time. He understood the reason for the low price with restrictions placed on the property by the seller to insure privacy. These restrictions were similar to the ones proposed by this ordinance. He stated that Cahuilla Hills property owners should be P paid for this decrease in value and the owners of ridge line lots that are unbuildable should be paid the entire value of their property. Mr. Fromme understood that the City is purchasing property in the hills and it seemed to him that this ordinance would be a good way to purchase the property that the City wants at a devalued price. He hoped this was not the case. Notifying everyone within 4,000 feet by mail is expensive and he thought unnecessary. If this is the new criterion, then it should be same for everyone, even the properties on the flat parcels below. It was much prettier for the Cahuilla Hills residents when they could see 16 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 the wild flowers and sand dunes instead of houses. Shouldn't they be allowed the same courtesy with publishing the project in the newspaper? Mr. Fromme also thought there were some conflicts on the City Council concerning the hillside plan and voting on this should not be allowed by those Council people involved. The federal government allowed the hills to be homesteaded so people would build and settle on the property they homesteaded. He realized now that the federal government defers to the local government to administer development, and rightfully so, but he felt that intent should be considered also. He asked when they considered a building abandoned. He asked what constituted abandonment. It was also stated that this plan serves the public health and safety of the community and he didn't understand how it had anything to do with the health and safety of the community. He commended Mr. Stendell; he said he has a real grasp of the problems in developing the Cahuilla Hills. He said he spoke with Mr. Stendell at length the day before and he thought he was a good man to have doing this job. He believed that he would be fair if allowed to do things and make decisions that would be fair to everyone around. He thanked them. MR. LAWRENCE SUTTER, 49220 Quercus Lane, said he is the President of the Ironwood Master Association that represents 1,050 homes. They followed this process over the last year and he filed a letter yesterday, which he assumed they had before them so he wouldn't repeat what he said except to say that he thought the wording choices recognized in the line-of-sight issue, in fact all the changes recommended by the Planning staff, they really supported. They thought it made a lot of sense. The big issue for them in the past with Hagadone was not being notified. They learned about it when they got up one morning to see a crane on the hill. He really liked the line-of-sight plus 1,000-foot idea, but as he thought about it, it got complicated and he thought Mr. Stendell's recommendation of 4,000 feet was fine. They were also comfortable with the wording talked about earlier. In terms of prohibiting development and saying absolutely nothing could be built, that wouldn't make sense either, so they support the 17 ®RAFt MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 wording as it stands. They were appreciative of the Planning Commission and Council working hard to improve this ordinance. He also thanked Ryan Stendell. He thought the map was a great tool and if they had the map before or this kind of tool with the noticing, then they wouldn't have experienced what they had gone through in the past year. He encouraged the Commission to vote yes and supported it strongly. MRS. GIGI MCCORMICK, 29220 Via Las Palmas in Thousand Palms, said that she and her husband have owned a piece of property in the hillside for 21 years. She said they were working class people who had a dream to build a home. She said they weren't rich people, just working class people, and she understood the ridge line; they have the highest peak up there. Their property, like some of the other properties, is mostly ridge line. She said she could live with the map being proposed, but her question was on development on or across ridges being prohibited. If they looked at their parcel, access to their parcel has to be across a ridge line. Coachella Valley Water has an access road to their property and she was wondering if that meant they couldn't cross a ridge line to get to their property. Is the road no longer accessible to them? Or to Coachella Valley Water? She had a letter from the water district showing that a meter has been there since 1986 and they have been paying their water bill. That was all she had to say. There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Stendell had any other comments. Regarding Mrs. McCormick's questions, Mr. Stendell said it was uncertain at this point; the access road is there and they have talked about it. He thought it wasn't visually seen from the city because it was behind an existing ridge which blocks it. He said there were no guarantees in this ordinance, but the wording allowed staff, the Commissions and Council to make the determination of a negative impact. If there is no negative impact or it was very minimal and they didn't see it and they have a very responsibly done hillside home, staff would recommend approval and it would hopefully gain approval from the Commissions and Council as well. They were looking at responsibly done, well-designed architecture that does not happen on the ridge lines. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Stendell would comment on Mr. Nelson's comments when they have a parcel that is primarily ridge lines. Mr. Sterdell said Mr. Nelson's lot is extremely difficult to develop. He said it was 18 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20. 2007 a good example of an interesting lot to develop to say the least. Mr. Nelson has a major canyon running through his property and it is completely ridges. It was an example where they have an extremely difficult case, if ever, of being developed. To Mr. Nelson's benefit, the City owns some property and if they can flip a property line, that could create a nice place to put a home with the least amount of visual impact. That could work out to everyone's advantage; however, if that was to never happen, he'd be stuck with the very hard task of developing an extremely steep ridge lot. So any development that could occur would have to be very creatively and well thought out. That was par for the course when dealing with hillside lots. Commissioner Tanner asked for and received clarification that Mr. Fromme has two five-acre pieces of property and their location. He noted that he would also have some valleys and peaks to deal with. Mr. Fromme said he already has an approved pad. Mr. Stendell noted that there was also an old concrete pad from a homestead home with an existing access road. He had been out to that site and it is fairly low and he thought spots on those properties could be found for development. Commissioner Tschopp asked how they would balance the needs of the property owners. They obviously have property owners who have been holding land for a long time with dreams of building homes up there and to leave it so vague; he didn't like that. Mr. Stendell said that the existing exceptions section is still intact. They can always ask. Whether it would be approved or not was another story. Second, at the first discussion relative to this proposed amendment at City Council, it was kind of the impression that if development was going to be restricted to the point where it couldn't be developed, the City should consider taking on those properties. Their intent wasn't to do that; they are still allowing them their 10,000 square foot pad, their 4,000 square foot house. Their intention is to increase the noticing and to insure that nothing gets stuck on top of a ridge line. He didn't think that killed anyone's chances of developing their dream home. He noted there are many creative hillside developers in this town that could create something almost anywhere. If they were ever to restrict someone to the point where they couldn't ever develop it, they would have to see what would happen with our legal counsel. Mr. Hargreaves said that if it was restricted to the extent that it couldn't feasibly be built on, then the City would have to buy it. Commissioner Schmidt asked for discussion on the testimony regarding the access road. She asked Mr. Hargreaves if access could be denied to a property/property owner. Mr. Hargreaves said no; if a property has access and the City somehow messes it up, then the City has a certain liability there. That didn't mean that the City had to guarantee access to every piece of 19 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2007 property; some properties are inherently difficult to access. There was kind of a give and take there. His understanding is that when those lots were homesteaded, there were access easements along the boundaries. If they tried to put a road on those boundaries, there would be some extremely difficult access issues. Commissioner Schmidt said it was truly a case by case situation. Mr. Hargreaves concurred and said the City has a policy to work with every property owner to find out some way to make it feasible. But if a piece of property is inherently undevelopable because of access issues or other issues, they didn't have an obligation to make it developable. Commissioner Tanner noted that Mr. Stendell mentioned an exceptions section. Mr. Stendell clarified that in the existing Hillside Planned Residential zone there is an exceptions section. He explained that is says that the standards of the Hillside Planned Residential zone can be modified based on several criteria as listed on page five of the current Hillside Planned Residential zone. The standards shall be required unless modified by a precise plan of design, taking into consideration 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 25.16.010. He said that would leave the ability to take a lot that may have something like a road that crosses a ridge that they have identified as being prohibited, if it is responsibly done and the Commission and Council feel it is acceptable, an exception could be granted and they have granted some in the past. It is there if it is needed. Commissioner Schmidt said it would never be her intent to deny someone access to their property. She didn't want them to misunderstand that and was glad they cleared that up a bit. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Tanner thought there had been some great discussion on this hillside exhibit in front of them. He liked the suggested change to the Draft Resolution Exhibit B under Section 25.15.010 (Purpose) separating the two sentences as D-1 and D-2 and there was an understanding that there are exceptions to these provisions. They would go before Architectural Review and then to Planning Commission. They were trying to learn from what has been done in the past and they didn't want to create any more of an eyesore nuisance than what they have right now. He liked what was presented by Mr. Stendell, but it needed a little bit of work. He was in favor of approval at what they were looking at with those couple of exceptions. 20 DRAFT MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 Commissioner Limont agreed with Commissioner Tanner. She thought it was a great start. She thought a couple of things needed adjustment and the reality is that no matter what they do, they will get challenged at some point. The nice thing about it is that it's a step in the right direction about being very clear on what they are looking for and that will save residents, architects, and a lot of time for staff. She agreed with the approval, subject to a couple of adjustments as mentioned. Commissioner Schmidt added that Riverside County is also wrestling with their hillside ordinances and her feeling is that they are sort of looking this direction to see what Palm Desert is doing. The County has a larger area to deal with and worry about. She thought it was interesting to see them wanting to put some sort of language together that eliminates some of the intense building that has gone on some beautiful ridge lines in Riverside County--all over the county. She agreed that as long as they try to find a definition for negative visual impact, she too would be in favor of what was before them. Commissioner Tschopp complimented Mr. Stendell for doing a good job. He noted that it wasn't easy and there was no way to put into words to bring it all together to be any clearer than it is now. It was incumbent upon future Commissions and the Council to make sure the intent is kept, but he felt it was a good hillside ordinance and he was sad it wasn't in place a little bit sooner. Chairperson Campbell was also in favor and said that Mr. Stendell had done a very good job. The Planning Commission would be reviewing all proposals as well as Architectural Review; if someone wasn't happy, it would go to Council anyway. But it was a great beginning and she was in favor of proceeding 9 with it. Commissioner Tanner clarified that the intent wasn't to prohibit anyone from building, the intent is to protect the integrity of Palm Desert. People would still be coming before the Planning Commission with their proposals. With proper plans, hopefully it would be accepted. But it would be within the guidelines being set forth. This would also go to Council with their changes. They weren't trying to eliminate building, they were just trying to make sure that it doesn't infringe on anyone's sight lines and helped keep the hills beautiful. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the radius map and exhibits were referenced in the ordinance anywhere. Mr. Stendell said the radius map with the bulls eye was for demonstration purposes only; the more important map with the 21 • MINUTES DRAFT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20 2007 identified ridges was attached and labeled Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridges and it was an exhibit tied to the ordinance. Commissioner Schmidt said that if someone wanted to see what 4,000 feet would be, they would ask staff. Mr. Stendell concurred that staff had the ability to provide that information for each individual parcel. Each application would be different and an applicant at the time of submittal would provide the 4,000 square foot radius as prepared by a title company. There were no other questions and Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2439 recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 07-01 with the changes as identified to D-1 and D-2. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Chairperson Campbell indicated that the next meeting would be March 21, 2007. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont reported that the next meeting would be March 21, 2007. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont reviewed the issues discussed. 22 MINUTES C _ PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION in favor of this to see the project move forward and give the developer some flexibility in that direction, although he liked the original project. Mr. Smith asked for clarification if it was their intention to approve a project with 20 fewer units or only put the height restriction at 42 feet on the development and if they could come back with a project that has maybe 10 fewer units, then they could live with that within the overall total. Chairperson Campbell said that was her question earlier. They don't want to eliminate all of those units, but if they do have a restriction on the height, they could still come out and have additional units. Commissioner Schmidt said that was fine with her as long as it was within the same footprints as proposed. Commissioner Tanner agreed that it gave them some flexibility. With that clarification, Chairperson Campbell called for a vote to that amended condition. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont voting no. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2435, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. DA 06-03, PP/CUP 06- 17 and TT 35426, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont voting no. 7 C. Case No. ZOA 07-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council for approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and draft resolution. He asked for questions. Commissioner Tanner said he was in favor, but his concern was if there are any current projects that would be negatively affected if this amendment was approved right now. He asked if there were plans in place that this would alter from the ridge line. Mr. Stendell replied no. He said there was one application before them that was eventually withdrawn. He didn't believe this would directly affect anybody. For previous entitlements in Bighorn, none would be effected. Most of those homes would have fallen into the section about house size and pad size and restoring that relationship; 35%. Most he takes through were 20-25%. He confirmed that they wouldn't have to go before the Planning Commission, just Architectural Review Commission for approval of anything over 35% lot coverage. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 2007 Chairperson Campbell noted that if the proposed amendment was approved this evening, it would go to City Council for approval. If they approved it, she asked when it would become effective. Mr. Smith indicated it would become effective after second reading and a 30-day posting. Regarding grading and percolation, things like that, Commissioner Limont asked for confirmation that they would still have to get a permit and this pertains to that as well and people couldn't sneak in through the back door. Mr. Stendell said absolutely they would still get permits and there were no back doors here. They were adding to what was already a pretty restrictive ordinance. The only leeway would be to allow some of the Bighorn homes that were asking for entitlements for hillside homes in excess of 4,000 square feet. It allowed them to escape the public hearing process for something they were entitled to at the beginning, but it didn't allow them any back doors for grading or percolation. Commissioner Tschopp thought everyone would agree that the intent is good. He complimented Mr. Stendell in trying to come up with a definition for ridge lines. That was his only concern; some of the definitions on some of the words like "prominent ridges." His understanding of what a prominent ridge and that of a home owner could be completely different. He thought the way Mr. Stendell wrote ridge line is basically to the valley floor, and he didn't know if that was right, but to him valley floor would be Highway 111 or Highway 74 and he didn't think that was the right definition either. He thought they might need a geologist to help them out and an attorney to help us figure out exactly what we're trying to say there. He thought they all had the same idea in their minds, but the person who wants to build might have a different definition. He just wanted staff to clean up that terminology a little better. Mr. Stendell said that was also his intent and the City's legal counsel was currently reviewing it. The first read was it could work with some tweaking. He knew the word prominent was going to become an issue and this language could be cleaned up in any way, shape or form. There was still a fair amount of review in front of them, so staff would definitely take a look at it and firm it up. He said it could be brought back to the Commission if they would like to see it firmed up. Commissioner Tschopp thought they were all in agreement as to the intent. Commissioner Tschopp also noted that it said that "rooflines are not visible above existing ridge lines"and asked who that referred to. Most development they were concerned about would occur on the west side of Highway 74 and there are people that are going to be looking down on homes and the way it is written they could use that as a reason to oppose a development because they would be looking down at the rooftop. He thought they had the 15 C MINUTES PALAA DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY n 2007 right intent, but didn't think they had the verbiage down right yet. Mr. Stendell concurred. Regarding the noticing, Commissioner Tschopp asked if the City pays that with the fees from the developer or the individual pays the City. Mr. Stendell explained that the applicant provides the City with an affidavit from a title company certifying certain standards that we set forth. In this case they now send us a letter with a 300-foot radius ring and all the labels. They give us all the labels and then we take care of the mailing costs and publish it in the newspaper. In this case, it would create quite a few more mailings, but from what he gathered, there were only 25-30 hillside lots in the western portion of the city and some he didn't think were developable. So they would come up occasionally. It would be the developer's obligation to provide them. They would have to agree on some way of coming up with the analysis of line-of- sight and it would have to be something between the engineer and staff. Then if staff feels more comfortable adding an additional amount of noticing, we can do that. Commissioner Tschopp said that was his next question. How do they determine the line-of-sight? Mr. Stendell said that in initial talks when this was first formulated, they talked about having the engineer of the project submit a line-of-sight. If they didn't agree with that, staff would add to the list. Staff has done that in the past. In the case with the grading and percolation, he added 500-600 feet of noticing just to make sure they got more. They always have the ability to add, which is a good thing. Commissioner Schmidt agreed that this was a good first attempt. She asked if they had any definition of what these hillside ridges are and what we're concerned about. She asked if there was a way to overlay on a map the area being discussed. Mr. Stendell said yes. Mr. Smith explained that we're only impacting the properties that are currently zoned HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) and that is a defined area on the zoning map. The area in question most specifically is the area west of the channel with that zoning. Mr. Stendell said there are also about a dozen lots within the Canyons of Bighorn that also fall within that zone. So they were talking about the area west of the storm channel and a few scattered lots within the Canyons of Bighorn. Commissioner Schmidt asked what was left around the Hagadone property. Mr. Stendell indicated that there are three or four more lots on that road, all of which are lower than the Hagadone property. He thought there was one higher up the road, but it was on the western side of that street, which falls on the lower side of the mountain, so they wouldn't have another ridge top there. 16 c MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 2007 Commissioner Schmidt asked if the Hagadone property had been allowed under "D Exceptions." Mr. Stendell said yes, the entire project was an exception. After carefully reading the proposed resolution, Commissioner Schmidt had a couple of suggestions. She asked that "D" in the first paragraph of Exhibit B start with "All." She also wanted to better define the mailing of notices. She thought it was vague as to who does the mailing and it seemed to refer to "C" above ft. The "not less than 10 nor more than 30 days" seemed boiler plate in publication. Then when they add "and mailing notices to people whose names appear" she thought they should really define ft as United States mail to all people whose names appear; pin it down. That would be her suggestion because this is what gets them in trouble, the vagueness of some of these definitions. Also, the word "provide" where it states development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential zone shall "provide" notice should be shall "require" notice to all. She would also add with "D" that all hillside development sites shall conform to all regulations or requirements of this chapter. Further down under the second "D" she recommended starting the second sentence with the word "Building" to read, "Building pad elevations..." She asked for clarification for the real purpose of section "E." She also suggested adding in the word "building" before pads. Mr. Stendell said the purpose of "E" relates to what probably started out as 25-30 lots within the Canyons of Bighorn that were approved under a pre-2004 ordinance and those homes have been subject to a lengthy review process. One of the reasons staff was inclined to use the review process is that through the approval process the City was able to get the energy efficiency standards on these larger homes; however, since then the citywide Energy Ordinance has been enacted so now they don't need the discretionary approval to add those as conditions. So in essence, to hold those larger lots that were approved previously that were under a certain expectation of a house size, then in 2004 we said they were no longer entitled to that house size, only 4,000 square feet of house, then every one of those homes started coming through as an exception. Now the energy efficiency standards are in place and kind of preempted the discussion at Council as.to whether we really need to see each one. He thought the intent, since they were developed and approved under an older ordinance, had certain expectations. Now with the ordinance in place they didn't need the lengthy review, so let's allow them to get them going quicker. Commissioner Schmidt asked if someone wanted to step outside that prior approval, if a review would be required. Mr. Stendell said yes and they had 17 �... C MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 2007 a case in the past where a lot with prior approval wanted to increase the pad size with some extra land they were going to acquire from the golf course owner and in an instance like that, it would trigger a new exceptions section through the hillside zone and would require full public hearings. Commissioner Schmidt asked if that was articulated in this ordinance. Mr. Stendell said the pads are existing and approved. Any expansion is therefore considered an exception. Since the lots were already approved under an old tract map under an old ordinance, any change thereto would be an exception. It's implied in his opinion, but he would double check with the attorneys. Commissioner Schmidt would rather see it clearly stated rather than implied. She thought it was the biggest headache and if they could resolve it without much trouble she thought they should. She said it was a good start, though. Chairperson Campbell asked if the Commission felt comfortable approving the resolution with the changes or if they wanted staff to come back with the new verbiage. Mr. Smith recommended a continuance to March 20. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion of continuance. Action It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, by minute motion continuing Case No. ZOA 07-01 to March 20, 2007. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Potential Trip and Attendees Mr. Smith explained that the Agenda on March 6, 2007 would have a request for a proposed 782-unit two- and three-story apartment project at the northwest comer of Portola and Dinah Shore. The developer requested that staff try to arrange a tour for Planning Commissioners and City Council members. The proposed trip was tentatively scheduled for Monday and Tuesday next week, the 26th and 27th. Brown Act issues limit attendance to two members of each body in any one group. If there were more than two people from the Commission interested in the trip, then a second one would be scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, the 28th and the 1st. He asked if people wanted to indicate now or check their calenders and let Tony Bagato know in the next day, then staff could make the arrangements. He indicated that the developer has four or five projects of a similar nature in 18 f - RESOLUTION NO. 04-43 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. O4-43 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 firebreaks 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. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit (unless otherwise provided), or land subdivision, a Hillside Development Plan shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council. This may include, as determined by the Director of Community Development, the following information as set out in Sections 25.15.110 through 25.15.130. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983) 6 f . , 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: 1. 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 speck 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 ��- � a���'sa .' r�"��' ..•. t3 ?E19 :mot i4Y�I�I�t, �d`��- �...' � ..� a R'y� 1 � . �a'� �,�er� �>z' fidcrq?�<w��WR�t/'��:�i��� ,�■a ,;�''j� �}�'.�(Rr - ,�'•.�. — �r r�,�,� 4'�t �°l�R IP*I•E ri R.aalNtlle Ckl I� �4 ..{�1+�s,��." �1., = e�, a w.RN e• a ti >✓. _ .5' �rK ,�\dI�FL�, 'Cl�f 1�I�� �1�a�(J�'�b�JFa(144 �Yk Kru� 3- r,,.j�'Y s,✓'� � <Q• �1a^ 4 ���_ t a re f c� t �7"ii �c.(}gyp a1E1 04wTi i° v � �F•qr La V n ♦a /' h'. +,l •'Kv_,'/ , 3 Y — � � '��P'tl��r�^ �llllEfr-r~ ��lfsej E'•'�" i# ��'il l{4 �� j����?�R' �3�n r1�I �' {���4���`€d��•�����'''�#������ .tr t:. 3�i� �,�;a� Ada ' `.��q ski dG f� ,� :.:w RT ,guar= ■" iCdC A !. , lrX� �'lI`i�•'fi w�a •�:`� 4.i;,+. 2,kf74TJ,�t�h �f71M,1p"fd R,rip' , 'ASraS,a Kd Oka F OVA. OOVE Ups,@ �tR 1t!*) .�� �' , r{ry(R wr�-P a..� •q yS+FI' : � 1 _ �?4l ,+�lRII�IMF oT�ilGG1eR, OW*- a stMW_99_ Igle,l'�t1RA* aH'' r43w11 � 1� +WO!�' � OL �J 1�L1 IN T IN WCON. q:�la' s ICY• 9',. /1ME � �I'--_. A4`+ '/,"'�,? ' j''+�� �l:;g�A �C..._ - :.r.r• ccs`cs r.�:� t�r� . �%RN' A Legend -10 y ram, gi Mailing Ring-1 other •r„��. aZylNis i i"� T�•Ei F•`x1f ,. 7♦ 3 Y�F e � r t � A »; 4 r l ✓fir r��r isr� ``e1 Ya�t it r distance ai'.! 4 1000 1 1 1 R;+* 3000 { � ,I Buffer . � ^!l `� r.41• Lp .� r�" ''#i�.($�.�T.t�'��rla�a�!1i.�w. �� B� {OW6i.��Rs.'���il�'rAF71a��R��i::•v'��+m�:� ' ��'�riisrS�.L'�1F1'i �=4i$����''t.���l, . t w s-4 l 'h^5i s7 U� 'g• > M �.i�zILNS' Im.�.�; as l+/Qtil'I�: n11*1/U�%*i�r ltP tr llfJllPwe+�9 '! .>•F�s`'�+M ,sa�. .ti f i �: w�sa+t��l�tiaii� .�t�i�iWl.a'v7�'�[��'si� I.r4.�6�y�IF���I�.��,i" �`J�-�=_`_�`_-,-�•w'r�y'>��<� ,�.--+rx.� --- r.:as::�= �•-_-. "'-=�- ,��� �ti!it'iflliTielF+�91E1f/@S. y. +,.ta.'i.� ;a'::.lil,IyiG, 'n+Iwo MEMORr?NrUmmN+13- � �tq N-11 fi_—iN IKED 'i/ � 'y! su •,i r �1�8� 'hT4rf11!Sop"f•�iw":'�7wJ•.4NK.i�.ii.,yY�bi�: ' .c's'1� ii �m�S; 64 �i` it��fku .1 �'�>a11116.IFfll[I�'IAI!rL �!•'�1' <`�-j �' �# N�Ey .� .yg .. ,y ?� 6..y�sy7pi •,i::+ r �r {mac W" '+o6i �0."N\ISL'. -�w�\'��yWTr[ � 1�5' :{•dri /s+ ' t��i�' � f.'.'i arnN�Lnl� rt .+A L'� �r1�4^'Tfmo t�` h, '�ii•!. • J-Wi r 1lNt\ 1 ' , �a• i ,..a� �i r.$^ n ,AV tl_} � t �' �', - uN ? + _ 4�� I Fw if,�, lev , � H 1A 5/i'1 rq'.s ' ac �a s' t ti 7"f'p 1st ' , . '.Ik ,Tor .lf�: ;e � �. ° ' ` ' ':v n1G`� )`•�f' +d�'Rai�'}� � t��. ���:��F��"���`�rn>'���'Py �'4t�4wp���''R7kF?�"`c`'�.GH '�`'�����",�'I��t',!�E�'Ef.p�'�'aa'�lat���;r�,\•% ibIi\ �! F �, a l.,g e'1+.3lgr i .v a E. 1L 9Arnr�i ,� i y .h �3�t9. iy,r � g:. i lli�ii. tl'4i1 i�1�'11A�11I3 + ' s: 10l�y'�fV�i i9hlr�a:`nllf +q( • ai�� �A�Sj�' /y��`sli�,,,"' -+^ a,w•\�i'•izi�� . yam.`OM' ,� r� i�3.y,h�,-i �' -. ,��.. ram,:a�.'�.'�7 �` ',.�,�A`� � 'r'�� rti's��• +�l�YT ty, f. , }f }alpIi' ! /r .Y' a9 a IAiipillln, � + �, '�� sA W `t F,�e+^•! u�.�� �a�y� � /.,� .�w Yo: +f+ _ :�w �?7, dr q3. �4iANlaf 'I'5+- ,'' 1 .•.-{ K' 'Y,i ,_ ' e: �'�v .Y :. :f{f/fj t�t��d' ON(��;'Q ti.4sl!l,o.,�Rr �d g + m0+AGi•ay: � l � '� -.ter•;i - �•i.ram. 'its IF !el^`�\ ss• -Z�� fq' �?��p'I •.�{ d 'a,�6+ ,L- �'� Fi,' �3t��ik7lgl� {+.� �.. � _ �O `. �� 7� / 1 '; } itittinr�ei,i' ' '\'(� - _ ,. ry..,a _�''�a 2 uy�, ... ,�\ A wit* s--•r•§v i +,2', d! � t�a Il'1�7f.1+�r r p�� a �4V ,�f lt4xlr/ s\Ai 1� � r��l Y4 rar �. ♦ r f VtT OW appn iPtl1 in s"`k;: igl 4 ,+OT•w ! �yi1� { !� y2ytp l�' •'!. ?G AF' �. •S: l.S�'„`- .� �' q'h w.n h eQ ., ■ry' > t 2� r al ' as _ q�►, r �u. 1_ •` `P iY C0 t. A ld'��r`!..^.. ilP._ j�� �, � •3[rel "� � Wn� �',�� � i � - .. M wit i RM TW � Mailin 1 q _ yY � 1V 1 ( r w t • • other a P e a distance ............ 100 111 111 - 1 1 1 glm) ' s # r } Mam Mad �.rrYdiy�„Trc �srl isS x � �l�d� rk bap �R if +r�*�� r rx5q ,<3e.GtH aF taaee��7 {{M! k e e.� '�bl�wLa�L•e f MtueaDw o +Ser d{i[t<r rtt^,1.rIN�s� �. "'.( '�x f4•'�r•�� t �A 7qM fl4Fy � Ct rR ;p' gip " m '`°' f'a�li�" lra,. �/� * � . a,_ ` y y rY. r r ,r b if t�ili;!�li�eylAilrf7l►li L. FSI �Ir' '��M,'�1� , tz 'rr `� � '2M TYy•l'l+sia<i1Ss_s. . on WIN t Legend "'Ito Mailing_Ring-I other11 C itfg11y``pp--YY T� 7 4 �� i7ai s ( I iG 4� t 'LC • _ . M S e iF31Er�'i,,,r �" ffi �e � 9a wa1000, fir' r -' � �' 1 ety rxP' ii s F ! 11�e If 5�y� 'Y µ t 'r '-r � ` Y 2000 4111 f f `i MK .R.rr.Yr.' x !ramAft - r SJp�� �vaa�� afY ry..'�.�y � '�' '-� '�yR,["yF}. ` 1� ]yam }1' r�l��> I��''• 74 R-MI.�.•az � F�""' +TJa�i a111++7y7uMi�s1'f4f�A,�"3�V s. �'';anisl>rt�siFFlt6{y±PsAlPiiil�+�Ild2rflCF�riM�4ia��/�4.;�.y�1111�i31AlAt 1�sP_�1,fsMl�!lP��r7{;114 ,��+6A:i �. •� fo�q,� f �, t�dClYlx��":fT'�19[ r�Ii����lll�.�L���� • _ -•—�--^r.`sf I ��'Y' ����'�� il{it ,,F ��i���ki>tr ,1t !� �yw�9kCli•IFawil�wl� . is Aa�i O}O'� ' y}yVO R.�t9'isl4,10,k_pi Wj 100, .5 I�'i3lM9J { ; ��e�g�ar+�eRgv, �, �d►�, }� ,' 5�+' all sa,.A, � Ml, fY I '1 Sriu Srml�leiIwfr U,�tzL�Rr�u,.. F{ 7fif i�+i sky e Q••y�,R'�s„sy ,:a35•-�y.c� .Y t W � ��'�.y� �{�.'� Qti� ?fig. {.��?yg� q rnp�y 61` `•' — a}yr? ' lfi'�,'J'17F r��i R`-'»it`8by�;}y'IM`�a.�,5�'l�+r�,'r.+r l� .i.6+ L.f �q�'•' r �!!➢l..'F�. '¢'��$H� P{aAi SINR`1R "�rlf,«:�NLEYt"�ir ,s� jY�,�+ M~ rA'rrn 9 Yf f Zak�rF' k� �Oi w t i SJ r[ � �' +�{- �;1s +P '� S' m !�M ,�d _�i ,�b14�► p a ;,tea olj .A n 'yCs�1' ' ' im »t•. 'T 3L K LF T►'14 {.,�}rre}1 b' alC' �:b r �' yA! f'rl�' '• 1 -r;jrt ff i 'Mmi- �.9tV�. F�1,�- .,.. I. R;l ' <!", ` �� ror if '7 - eq?M' �����r'je *I rr��"{ '!T %+1✓K ri�i, A. �• ___{ rWWON t � p �rssl� ,�ili .p �`laiiF�i(�'7p`�`11f tiIMR :'�+ ip�l�_ rP'`+�f1M1'���`fi�l }.�B j IO' 1�ts`t(�,"�`j /��ll���tA�1����M�:��'f 71�i-E:IFr�4l1�-� h _'g' J''p�lN���+-�` s���+`'•t'" ,�, ^n�?F' CWY'o g1�l a"��g�Fy�ac how �"r�,�.'.�' ""t��r�} 1 � :] .�I�lA•�'vr'sn:. y9.'1�4i`��t11Cy:�y7r'q��'� .!l� �Op�i�p a, !►'d,(iy. ,�/��r s�d.��� A.,�}"'!t',�'�` .., q,� j�`�oaa.,H Srl:l�YN (ir `A=Y`F1f�1 1S?p, S�'JIF�;+'#•.^�YiREipf". �. ' a - . B ,s� ,j1E `. e�� 6�i',�r�, 'F *f414 '' f�'hJs IMKVI r, +► Y rS J�.it71��,'�'Y. tt r nr�,,r i ,r.4 � � .�.zn ��p y. � � i" , � ♦�,! rr �x �a�f .ti:: -. S( �i4•°li�-'1yeu ��L ��'S.ti$'�l��f«'��r��e fl4�il '!�'� � 1► Y• �+. r l `u' *� ill vl tt'tiFy� �"�y�Y�r�ilr flat! ,•�r, r+, c ,y�� � ,w• {y � '� � �1rr} �,„'�� '� i'r � >�5 R^�s.r y Fig+ r �? Ate'' t �. 't�+ �r., �� '`rN1h4Flt �I i�l� �N3a\,.��� :_R'� .f' '`� ,3�, •y �1l } ,'�`Y^' la_f �' it d; _�yti`+ I 1 ! 45yx.k g aC � i��� ;*`lr'' } ,I��'"�l 4• r� '� rqT to •Y 1flikl , \, . )-• � f,� -,•�dlls '"�4s - ..�.f II� Tom! r7R.^. iv 3" tia "�' 'N� 1s 4 � � ~ � -.r: 4 •"OI' �Sp .a, +r +. v_ ( �,n'!G k'N`� CS,, �py��1� � '! ��. � & i7� N'Sili• I{ ♦• :�,�"",t S f�\ �SM .§'Sif"§.1L,��^, .t �RC1' �!,• ..�' �f �'C �f l4x?`' ;iYl �• I#'L *gip. "` (y,j M "'� Ye ` �71-vow ,, . tP� •' . Si o r, rR+.. . M t _��{��",�t{r_y���y'•��F � gf �(�r 4F� �apr!► _ �.11�• � ` � awl A ALM �� a �r e� �T�w :I•�5�� i � ASV y.a+ t�".'^rp ^` 1"'. , F : � r' a ;' � � I�°'NCl NiIIC�; '^' r�i�► s,.,. ,I � `�.i ar S+I .h N , b • end Mailing_Ring_l i other a" distance 111 111 f; 111 y • 111 Ft fr .: ; a�t.,��i40T. �,*�i'«'2 v , ys • z '•Yq ,C r� �r� .1 "L. i � � ' .,�Fi.'.''3.�7"�k�uICN n « �l �f ♦�fjt 1 1•V y y} ,� , 4: a\ ♦ ffi' 1R+ { r �',a ';w..a��ii '�'9 5✓���` •«� � � y ��`� 1 u e 9�,, .u._ F , •'. 1. y _.�...,�,� , ,� `may � :. .. �. � •� r''° � ` -��_ ' � r ��4� �� ... � : r , _ r, ,; >:.� • Y 1,y._.+. '•"1. y a r£:,:i,�.'..F 7"g t,t•r .*S � 1 � � + 3' , '� - We ,•, r'x! w• a Y r rYA s t�71 r �i' r wy: k Y �•�. '.' t jn f ..✓p ? ; �' . .a:SWkkY�,on:nlr Wk. Nli • � �Y`. k— y"�;f `_ �� f '���• $t. ., 1 i.�."—�i � . jY',• 4 a .r �.r� � +s��,..,, � y �-V5�`aa.'L'fl` x� � w�� '. •��? � J i �"yyt���,,.��� `�"'K6C d �h4,r1 ,ta •� �- 1, u 4 .., y�i � .��•�. t b .. i•'YrvF1a +y �T'Y +lY" a,..+a y Y\:. trh '•1+;7`_'i..Y..YOYs. i <c! i � � Y Ii'$ �v . ., t Y... r a�. �+y r :: • ,y�' �.,,� 4yr tM�+S� h � , ♦ ; � '..w r,k � �1 L� �;r��ywtl� �y{��p,,�y�•}r �' 7 y, Sr �\� t�� j#�vr44;:•• ! � ,i A �'Jy �1 '�*a• i t i.�-.,"!.k n e �.Y4! I ��".`_STt�` Q 1� � f � { "`• �°�•.R$r- Fkaa4 !`F 'Y� '• .q Nx l 'i'1 �.e !"r'';^�•cp •^w .•�.,.,..v� __•1 _J�.i i{.!�i a'� CwR �r S y r: �L, •'.^'Mi•`Y- w" ' ram' 1 J VRr .. � F.}r7T n 1 �. k '( •.j u. '> '. s� So-'f:.w �trq et Ai, 1 ' P�� S.' .� .�--....� S�r:�- 1 IA .n ir�p\•�i�. i'. ;p—r_n i�`9 yam+-.. „••a�YMl ,RT C {` s]' k' f a� 4QGqIK- 7QA0' cy i. li` 7t+..• '• i,. __,.t j3''b '" X'4.fi *+` 7 "' $ V .gin t.. ...v' .e,. �1. w'�rd .'Ye�' hY�'�w;R�.�F _qr�' ' '•' [r �'C. � Fx m • *'i"' �S'.� t,,. _ _� e7. ..+vim• _ t Nti ..� S� 'u+�. • Fr" • I � i"4 T��t J � i - � i „ ♦ ` Vim.. 1 Rl��w' � , ,.4 ! k,s , ' r � : d ,�.�i i t y •:4t V',` ra"a ?"`.r� .� 5.' �l,x'�c u. "" A'k'��n •rot''. ��a aF" "�.w_- � i r �' •` '� 2 r•+ny� x r :.Y+e. f � v.v. ;3` L T n rlyy � ^ °e i . M a _ e .n' :.n ���yGJ • '' '� �'.Yp',k�f"/'�' f� 3+ i �,eV. e�'r� `. r ( ..:, I �rj),_ �`�; t.. 'V � �. �� Ta ♦at #�, Y 'r _:yqy r � t l v + F4 " F , k ��....PP dseA � �:s +�ed4'" .. �' � 3000,-�`4�_� � t �" -'* � `• � '7l,�ta'mr ♦..r v � x ..-. • �q t� � � y .. '•,C, C• ;�-' r'-Y' r —r ,y A X 4 f^.• a J4�"�'� jj,,.„,6 y� �y :� _, F yam„ � �?III.._^ P s ' � � 9 _l. � s.. h � 4 �1 'Xdya, h� 3�Y- > R.F Y 'f+7^},1 { Jd '+•'} A � y -K Legend , T- Mailing_Ring-1 .a e <all other values> ' ; v In t '. . �kY ''F� t flt�`y'. �°�•[ '�� t f�[C' ...' t distance 1000.i ✓{,Zi sr .� 7 si. �� �+ � '•ty� ;• ems...': :,. y'f °(p., 'f�•'ry�''F aY f `f 4r1. s 'I - 3 " e$p , µ j3000' 1 /�a kv n # wyi •. s•• .J fL.- 'Y`' .. n ,c.• . " r .f h'-. r " 4000' �' . 0 Noticing_ luffer-1 sI 4 k r , r 4 Y I a \ Hai 8 rA ` ♦ t < .I L p ' 1 . r !x J v f f 'A N i n. .'♦'' ✓ -,r Pit } -`� , >• ',)f�a t �� H � >,,.. • C $��'��p ak >n A �`r+. f, ('fS-I r,20, }�:'R.. a1 ' � :.. 4A .{{. ..y '�^T'}.l'7S'w ikM •£� "• 6 .. .; I r A N yy� ..,� 4 - I ,.uq. . 1 `r ,S. � tY 4"�"�`:�.f, ;T 4y Kr�?'fV �`(pY�t'li 9. •} � �l:y-. *.: �":3iw��y aa'�.#[ � Ml:y� � 1 ' t ;�- 4a� _ /' \, /"r �� �+',kS�7-t'^Y li\ „, �'�4 • _ y � n \ .,Y � \r,. l\ • r ) air "' ,�, `� � ?" i f l { x r r w .j"ti 7 d � •N� � ^i - y. �.' < l�w >t 1 Iry'��br,�,nc'}'Ta: i�w n• , 3 •' .:i:.kq.... + 'A 'lic Pot^ %':"t* :y r rk. ' r W ee {3 .:.ni4z _r •♦� �' �'�+'�F y ���t 3:b� '+�j,:3� _ '� a � 'Y!l�i�,� t + a{, 5 A •r �f�r,,. .,MY` a `7:�1{� �>+j'�!„ ..-� v.. •' e! °� y� _ L'T T �� { ` ) H��i - \ 1 t Q ile � a Y3 a `� ''R•�."i, r•�v t i �° if L t,s��� y 1 " b� +'• r'f�r ri 4 y � J ,a t � , ° �y• r � p�,: .,,�'",�f,,, 'n'f'' r ,R'. c � � ..�Yp a;, /non 5>w y{l 'Gy�,�`k*��ty�i-'{'♦d� :y'�ifn�-'S.^�,'�� ,a.. :'�� :v Y `• n e{ v ��+M'� w +r':tal+ '} `.+'g.-' `'f't` `'� ;-'�"�-"l;1 .J.Jt�i �I ma's •f'1Y' 1� � L. 1h"Y n � 'IGr'1 ♦. 'r l.t-. jI zY ♦ a .., v ,t r ' -+ '�I r'err , � �"" t.` �[ &'� {s �".'a. . • '3 . 'k} f r 31 J� n• . �.�,,`. y ..yga 4^ _.. ,�� v�"t c I"�K tG '� 'a ��6tt��!'" "a�� t'i�-'Y�,�N,'t� +s�"�3, i' 7 ,�. '` J s ,�'•t b' .e aW. ,i�Y 'fr r:'��• -r ``� 1 9e i � .i, 3�1�,'4.� "'kJi.ya e`.M�}�` 'n t >s y `.. �t ..f Ih' Al..}♦u ''a ��` b`OMF:. ^� is � '"rR � ,_� �£ 'P Y� �. :i � �'.,P :. + '�d + ' � � � d.}(„fr _ ��F �b S >' t ,''`� 1d 4s . f� v9 47 � •r c .Xxt 4FFIIY(V�-A+ s - ;••'a�,�rmi '`g- C-„ r y, r ,� >„rX-\ • ° "• .r° *.' x , Z Yr' Q1, R'^3♦>. .c.^ TT C� J' ��.�i� .!{',���••� 1"I,ry•r4Y� �w�.. � n�h, � Z�' - � �����'�+"`.t���i'F% . .`A �'�E �"e' i"' _>, r.� \..,=•.i' ' .....� � �, W1, �'r'M - Ff�'y4 ar T.1,`�'� h��eY,,•.?�.ty V},.dg t� 3l4 „�Y o.. `' '�,.. .h :."u�,,.r: 4Y `�`s iAvY fi '•. Legend Il E. tt,�, �r 43'�4r�w 1`i y-?fl'ti�hj�.+•��s+'' / � \ r. Mailing_Ring_1 k } t <all other values> �i�. � R,JItT( \ TJd'MSaF ?..�, �y\s:iv: Y. 'rn {✓�� '�.. oY' ,, �v�1 n distance AN, t2 t{Ek r:koTtr �{.y. 1000, � +T 'NMa1t }" ARIA �'-'� "vh♦ )t y♦ 1�lyAf e*4 /� !. $ Ty.t � A Y. .3F •XR" y LOOO +� r 4iMCI '-,rt . rf' r iV�v .��'wc<iP,k �9 l•p 1 fy >4d1 \L�;"al� .a4'E 1 �•L �` " d`7yi.[�{n�„3' ^S y '�h-•4�•'` ffk�♦,y t�Y".1CM1y;R f�14r. y��.lt.���}TC�-� �u �{`'^ N �_r 4^r'ih'r+ �g;>'vnM `�� � VOOO' ec i mJp Y a r♦ut .t{' zEr� 1C YK..:3 rh"'L�i�/'.N�•t..+�9�' :�,n \ Lr'^f'!$-�5'�. #•'ye''a r�kk l�!�"�,4. 1 'k ��>T• s: `��.5'Y�.�,t'�`^ ���, < q:. , �t� r'.P j ta• � y�' S7VpC ^YW vi M ;t: -C b i.R �Y ����o ',i �C:�/j".1{ PR 4000 .Y� t i>'s �;�p`y��/ .! � ��{,�a.y.���^ �. r` ,'r rtt u��iFf'�'�^.t, Y-i•t�14�ti,'+ "�' �i, � r-'.� '��ry;�.� � �;:'r"�Yi '•':t�T n f_� � "c. Xr' �aa' kf • r 14i �, .r' a �^ tty'V^'. -_ ., a :Y r,' �•�Y' .a�� �4 � aMk� � a t �a�,}V� 4. xv ,(Fy��p�yq(� Yi y+�.\ �i ` �l}Ahlltia���'''�� ,.1 tiri: W .., s 33.'•r<t'i'A♦E{- � fiw�V °� .S.r - ... U,rvv.fin....c•A:`+li Tk'.Vk'L4n+_. . �Y�Sa>Y\'�r�iY Y �.' -. ..:rw fi�c r. •` x . ,'. -# w..sr .. SA,^eYi-(_�r..rL�.>:y. m4.. r ..1.. >Y>e. . 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. All development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone shall require 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 via United States Postal Service to people whose name appear on the latest adopted tax rolls of Riverside County as owning property within 3,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing and notification 0 all homeowners associations within the City south of Haystack Road. b 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- A ridgeline that is formed by the juncture of two (2) or more sloping planes that project outward from a mountain range and descendit towards the valley floor more particularly identified on attached exhibit labeled Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridges. That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.010 (Purpose) D. Development on or across ridges is prohibited. Building pad elevations and architectural design shall be set so that rooflines do not create a negative visual impact on the City That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.030 (Development Standards) E. Previously approved existing building pads shall be subject to the standard coverage limitations of 35% and may be increased up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval. Any change to an existing approved building pad shall sells ute a new public hearing subject to the provisions of chapter,251 a B( rcept/ansj" "'4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER zz_ fL' 1 W EXHIBIT B off Chapter 25.88 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 a 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. ;15 Chapter 25.15 a w -k HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT That the following section be added to chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District. 25.15.015 Definitions. Flo 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 prohibite& ad 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 c r IN 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 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 FEBRUARY, 20 2007 III. ANALYSIS: _ r 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. VL 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: Ryan 4rendell St a Smith Assistant,Planner Acting Director of Community Development Review and Appr ed: 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 sere 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. J 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 DESCRIPTIONA.00ATION: 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 \_ 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 25.15 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. ll. 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. I. 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%. 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 Citys 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. Prepared by: ZITY COUNCIL ANION: APPROVED ✓ DENIED. RECEIVED OTHER MEETI G DAT Philip Dre AYES: Director of Community Development NOES: ABSTAIN: Reviewe nd Appr d by: VERIFIED BY:LAIlylbri Original on File Wth City Clerk's Offire gomer CroyCarlos Orteg ACM for Dev ment Services City Manager O:w annlN%Tw"ManrMXWPdo %JM 1NE.P0ell SR W201.d= Page 2 of 2 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 MR. SNIJDERS said it was difficult to do because the height of the back yard 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 Tem 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 comer 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 /v 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 , � t 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 fiat 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 Tem 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 Tern 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 361" 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 1 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 OF THE 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. 04.4 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 I � 7 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 firebreaks 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. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit (unless otherwise provided), or land subdivision, a Hillside Development Plan shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council. This may include, as determined by the Director Of Community Development, the following information as set out in Sections 25.15.110 through 25.15.130. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983) 6 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: 1. 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 ann�- — ,}�� `1M � S�J 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: rAt 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 dire_ct_ed_ staff to initiate the) {zoning ordinance amendment for the HPR zone. l CURRENT PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE (25.86 PUBLIC HEARINGS):T 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. A�e,CURRENT B4hc- p* - nr rn� .�s �'9 n Da -�(y The current HPR zone allows the following developmentstandards: 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. s 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 =RRENT RIDGE-TOP DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: At this time the HPR ordinance has no specific language relating to ridge-top development. If. 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 Commissiori& 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 rt rtr. O �y a� it•e '. 11�'t"4s o!•. aI iM ,�f� is Aj1Ra`�!'�S td�s lt+ 5 Ff ii ate- 5f if IPNh ': i 1 �[-3gV, e 4g11. FT- - h I 3 i ,A� .!'f; pin �CfS�" s,' '�b '�� ftrli�1' l5�� ti.•� �_ F=..-rd�'d`'�r-a-+F-u . f ww�L7'TAL .c�,Yi;P.t��1iS� ka. 7 . .. ! i• � �il�`�rb r� ��,�,`4gr��•.�`rq�l))`,��<�ilslaP d'� }r� Ilry w7Y. 4... .,� r•q'eMf rC�'i'!°n'i;r4 �C..7j•.d-ry; fit'"'Sr t �r�.``=�2C•Jl `A F6Jt¢,r i ,IC O;M 1'1ip i•'J1.w /�1�, s ,.1/.� 4 P•I•• + 1tlt lnS • - ' 1 '>>b is .. �+s Qf`a d14i1! ♦ r �.S+.. a-� y . ��'Nr : va �, it - �. 4 l-7ti , r `I tL'Fa•Illi��'[?+�l. y +!". r�f lKw��y 'lf�,� av�r y{� 1 w 40 �JM Y"A r ak JF•lif �; t ,��c Yr tvY�.f y}� >�@,a�(.}�'�.�i�. O i� l�:fiT' �L9•w,.a�Y�y°5t8� •Cil��k ^e fC��j�{���a±,t�" J1 ��Lk'^'�'r. a I NAMVi �dlrigp ¢¢� �p :I3 f. Jd°'�►lt �« L, tyfp , lc6r r 1ntr �r• p' ILy sip r.I � •1tla _ ,�E •��+ _��"+ ,1�',•;r �;,��4i��' ( ���,,. t t USAa�r �s LiN OT FV t r . I' '1 • h... H: �1 '�: � .��i.'•�41<"�rlai_�}��s'��: y�49Ev�ien(�f31 �'.. g�rgq�l�J�..��. i�i � k k3' t3e®S■Y !" �I�•94'LL4�', �•rOP'SS - - w �'ia�' S,'W �•��._:4,��M a1►}.''1'�!l'!��µ�11!!S�k.� l�"li. F � ��'+ �afVV� �llllfli +1E t `�'� a p�;x ,I TA tJl Legend e 4 11111 /yr F Lmz, REM-) te n. Mailing Ring-1 ms ol." jl±I,�klut�i°dip> ., 4` -� re9l+�:1•df „y,�:' ' � 'w e•,4 <allother try lin (b t��•lp 3 tli^ ��3 r:C&�st distance r►�:. c1�t kp�7im'+ +Ql L�,,I .d;t{Iit•1'' 'f!/..ar�raP $MM� .i,r�� � rr ylk ✓' 4'ya _ •' +lt�ti(PIT %4rri *.rD,Yn �?'` ' I�a1'�� M p 1000 r" r -r, Q• s �u!U �' S'11f {.b y�O�b r�-�. r•N: ,�L _ .' - ,� 1'tahl4'pFply'v" .3/t�r k94'�� s.�u•x ,�.r � r mv„•yr��� k_-.r� es,Y r t'a � 11 I C+A� � Jam`'} a irWrFi��Y'4:a'. 2000 � T. �tl3�IPiIF ..irypl i O.e 7 r ' < 4'y-•• gJr d.e2•c. ,a.'9 - w.w calf`".%.• �•.W +,' .�"ar��j`g.y.'��srst: �s N � �. •" �y { �; J��� III 40001 . - . �•�'." ` 7� � �Y r �:4:''. �3;.. ^� ,• yr. -;�7"_ . �5">�;e'�3�r.�d�r� i`_. . *wG` -s+*40.4ow bm PA {r��7 �.;Y� •a ��y�.+�yp liII'' I � 9Ui?,'Lg:y All�9lRw�itFTCI ,!��yr,r��+'�yx .fir" „r \�\ rt ndF1}'M9 'i3C5'n79E3iG k'si6•� sl �� @f .1 f! —lr aY. Ri' °��ci rxt`- 'N - 1 ;w�'-•-- 3 — f. ! f'dp`•lit44.1lFV11PR3l�<iP!° f � '� "� �A !1Fs� 44 `t!,®®■'� t�4t+��M��I{ + �s eF���r�wur�,� /may? �r All Fta , ®�1�g 7 .tli ISO�T .�t lf��>ai, '•3 hYlW, i ?� i�i'i�'►�` er;r• �l4y � �'�I L'�k �;�A �'ra,-1. y), s i'ti rJffl,,Iti !]�•�.��A ,Yr� '#. .%�• ..pl�V_ . YNfipx , .._. � �i � �,- 3�4 :^5���� 1'"ti�����:.J�G��939`�K"`►"N�+``'a+���i�. ,',� . 011 �`+ + 9 9 i U ' A @{ 194s� 9 n*- +, qa•{8°.r' „ . tf jMk 14"'. � ! � p .Fsl, r IRtdd_`f1 6 n�. yam""` C' ' la' �. �,� ' s 'r r ■q,[y® (� q�y[, �i y �' 0(. �)C� ��•ctt���,,,'� � ��j 6 „4� ,� ,a.i• '�1 '.E'�C]"Y'�[��4' �' I�- tQ%. ` Tl li it^'3 �.. 4� _ , 4jT\ Il (� F✓<"'n� + P w;y �iJ•li la T•6+ a'I r ?}F5a,4 FF la' r i 'q(r flfEfB i C1 nA { > Jrr`n — �, ;' �x.�' ° > CEP° a. ,,; x PFAiAKFORS1 ",we. � ;, cEtblif}b9t, 5��1fj,$ 3 �' �9�PaI�,��,+i ;(F y.x.I �y� Y' ,_ ,�•,3 fa.r �`121 Yf( f rY 1.1 ICY (ll I]' '�`.➢Yv \ 4i i�}F Q 6'IIZil�i i �i N �. i l f %F/• ^ `Y' g�� �1`} < 1`iyp-./�d LP�y�� ..{C� /� ��rpl9a:s1)�"" HfFi'Jrl k° .evFfi p� 6•rl1F P'�Okk�Et•r:111"A IRi•L�.�e�lr sn�•Y' G,,.. �'F�. �aF��.���i . .,�,�r�'x a+,r,, im�.� "�:-sti�!iiY ° , ipF f91slaJ/;`d/ {: °�ey, H/'45:-iR4iH.. � 7 L•r' .< a►:t'!"Yn ..ep ��/' " F? -iY',d4 �� e^.fr �-0{r ✓ ' wr�"ag 1S' r �r�. � r asr �' .t..l-;"fi 5"` b,_ a.'�J J'dF �,<sd♦moo aJ ll ' s 7' r .?at�p'i\ ?c.•'F3'.�iL ik9F'a7 i{� ' ®n +�i .�A a •:1,.{ rO,s3F sys1•��e`..i�• 'q, ate,, z4 F GJ6 fir' �, 4 ✓s tie\v L C mm a �+C' �J 4 7n truzE' » P" 1lkd �. .�Ii #✓ .>'°+cyA 2 � B `t 3�fr7' b - BPh i�g s°Z. n.-: , i dr�`y' .1jrS,�G}_ ' ...jy A tip, .+ n �. �`'' r}`�: ! c ..4- i�f _ 1 i ! , k"p �aPf' R 1k �s�"•+ `� tin.,.a a•,' IAA h� Z •F ? >.,I pi �- ! rr a ".'• !N �I `li �S. / 19 �p k" ..y tN r rv� at .r , fy r.� e,�.�44FR# , jf(A[ etli ; y. �.�^... 7„F�.."' "''�yi' s _ y.� 1 i ra —! 'a ,• `"fl f"..�. uhi ' fe �e , i. r } Fya, ��..iL��• ea. .r.Fta Sf-^ C� +, ,1•"R � �� � YF04 ^- ,.7y," ta'`..: y. ��G , .G .. AG• ,�, ' '' 'AQA.� ' +h`ol �rNC at ti I f'f 5. ��'~sz S !iG },9. h I d"n"r-''r� E s ��kl�1i at..A�4• •` `� �'"•J34.. `�,� ,,�� +�L.� �.�I- L` as"fit '!'� y'� �•, r _ �' �t111t!>rti7 •a? �:... -/'� i► t �F1l ", •. F,�..-w'as •� t ' +' • A '�N ,.:_ . ..- t•!It•� 'N j ,} ,l'a7ltl: y ,�'CJ s�'� r r� aSr..��w�• qi tf' ���,da' jji�� � ; - R/'ta�""�'$��J�r� wx.. ��.wd+x>y,°,� � y� "�' i�,.�[ ,� '�•: �1 �, � :� � `" eY '�`•,`��� 9� �''Ik��i��,�yai�l��p�Mpy,`�' �t� 'tip. „r P "S ��:•la is'""WJ ,' "+i� 'itl 3�`Er�@P"IFir��`.� � �„`'t1� ,( %'j`�4': ' �� e ) }y'O�li km ♦F a h:�y� •54�� qy� - F % .R ApR �J ids `�' .:rz A'�� •" � �` � � ��.�`9a'�k�i v ;„�,r9�Fs��;t, i ��g� �wS���,�HFi���j!^"' �� . —,�{ `7 b"�' rw4 a. r Fa= �w 't3t'!'.{•'{ F �•�,jy,��; / �,. A.' �� <,g X' �� ' i � '� rFl"��j-rZ�bs • s ►0.��!�i o� "�%*iy�`;����'�;+,�;i � r �. • � 1.a,} .! a t '.i 1 A � ;s• �cif .y F Legend r - • • ' 4 ' distance ,. 10001Y. •+ J n tit t��'r� „ 111 + 3�py 3000 . � F/ems 7V 3/�%7 h� ,Klc_ 9A) /fia�s,✓J rion�rra e�r�,s'�� RECEIVED MAii 2 0 2007 Name: Richard Fromme Valley resident since 1965 %DMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 48-625 Paisano Rd. CITY OF PALM DESERT Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Political: I believe that these proposed restriction being placed on the property owners of the Palm Desert Cahuilla Hills properties are nothing but a response to the uproar from the Hagadone project in The Canyons at Big Horn. It seems very unfair for these property owners to be restricted like this for this reason. The responsibility for the Hagadone project belongs to the city that issued the permit to build the house, not the rest of the property owners who happen to have property on hillsides. Property Values: The restrictions being placed on the hillside properties by Palm Desert will have a significant affect on their.value. A property on Upper Way West was listed for$1,295,000.00 on a 4/28/06 CMS report that I have in my possession. It sold for $276,500.00 in December of 2006. The assessed value of the property was $882,300.00 at that time. I understand the reason for the low price was restrictions placed on the property by the seller to insure his privacy. These restrictions are similar to the ones proposed by this ordinance. Cahuilla Hills property owners should be paid for this decrease in value and the owners of ridgeline lots that are unbuildable should be paid the entire value of the property. I understand the city is purchasing property in the hills and it seems to me that this ordinance would be a good way to purchase the property that the city wants at a devalued price. I hope this is not the case. Notification: Notifying everyone within 4000 Feet by mail is expensive and unnecessary. If this is the new criterion, then it should be the same for everyone, even the properties in the flat parcels. It was much prettier for Cahuilla Hills residents when we could see the wildflowers instead of houses. Shouldn't we be allowed the same courtesy? Would publishing the project in the newspaper, as the city does,be better? _City Council: I think that there are some conflicts on the.city council concerning the hillside plans. Voting on this should not be allowed for those council people involved. Homestead Act: The Federal Government allowed the hills to be homesteaded so people would build and settle on the property they homesteaded. I realize that now the Federal Government defers to the local government to administer development, and rightfully so, but don't you feel the original intent of the act should be considered. 00 5) .- MILS CMA Report(216 Page 1 of 2 CMA Report Llslhre8 as of 04Y18106 at 4:30pm Page 1 RESIDENTIAL Addr City Mao Bd Bth Sg1 LatSz Year WA• Date $lSgFtCDOMOrfgPteeUstPrice 7 y Y-YV Palm DeseRPege#931,G 22.50 2000220849a1 1960GPS 01/03108 647.50 113 1 295,0001,295.0 00 48725 Ve nia R se d Palm Dert Page#818,D 3 2 2317 2.500ac 19MG OVUM 561.07 '-�5 1,300,0001,300,000 71450 Painted Carryon Palm DesertPage#80,B 4 4 5000 $75580 19WGPS 11/23M6 5W.00 156 3,900,0002,900,000 Listing Count 3 Averages 3 006 598.19 Ill 2.165,0001.931,667 High 2.900,000 Low 1,295,000 Median 1.300,000 SOLD EM02 OS Addroes C8v MAD Bd Bth SOFt LotSz Year WA• Dab S/SaFtCDOMOri#PVr—1 t Prkesale PdcosP 71825 Cholla Way Palm DeserlPage#848,B 2 D Wit L tt72sf 1983G 0124/03 275.44 20 308,000 30 .Um 295 '. 71-750 Chdla WayPalm DesertPage#848.B 32.50 1960 1.110ac 1991 GP 03/05N4 227.04 172 489.000 449,500 £ 71395 Oasts Trail Palm DeaertPage#848,B 4 4 3300 tat 2001 GPS 03/29/02 187.88 379 675,000 675,000 6 ,ODS) £ 48725 Verbena Rd Palm DesedPage#643,B 3 - 2 2317 72309sf 1990G 02JI7106 269.75 14 649.500 649,500 625,000 £ 71440 oasis Tt Palm DeseRPage#848,B 11.50 2970 87120sf 2001 G 12143/04 267.68 349 825,000 795,000 795,000 1C 71550 Quell Tit Palm DesertPage IF 848.B 4 4 32001089DOsf 1983GPS 10/13/04 281.25 277 975,000 925,000 900,000 £ 71900 Jaguar Way Palm DesertPege#US,C 32.50 4421 1200ac 1985GPS 04120MS 245.65 427 1Z50,0001,195,000 1A86;W0 £ 71460Cholle palm Oesertpage#848.G 3325 4266217OW 1993G 02109104303.42 4221,470,0001,350-0001,295,000 9 71295 Mesa Tri Peim OessrtPage#846,A 44.50 4369217WW 2000GPS 08/12MS 583.66 446 2.960,0002,950.000 2.550,000 e Willing Court 9 Avsrapss 3097 293.53 278 1,065,8331,033,111 956,778 £ High 2.550,000 Low 295,000 Median 795,000 WITHDRAWN EMplifta Address City Map Bdtittr SgR LotSA Year WA• Data f/SgFtCDOMOrtg Prim Ust P — 71550 QuaH Td Palm Deaell ft#848,B 4 4 3400108900sf 2005GPS 04/05/UB 469.12 135 1,895,0001,595,000 Listing Count 1 Averages 3400 469.12 135 1,695,0001,695,000 High 1,595.000 Low 1,595,000 Median 1,595,000 I r -z-ropeny arro.jil Ownership Information Prha TOweer : MAPX&STMOU 0pj.Vq V0W A.n.�q Owpr F"Yompown Dtre "= : Bite Addrep : ?lM UPM WAY W PA1M D6sW qZW WI MWvt Addte'.t : 722A0 UPM WAY W PALm DEsB-r,CA rgo Telspbpre i Annmre Paved Pa. : 02i174007 GIauT.ad : 04SI-Ml Map Pop GrW s wA New p►p Grid N.'A LeW DelesipdM: EA7 ACRF iN PAA SIC uTSS M RoeMK 11�eet a Property Details t>ae code SntGLfl FAMILY AESIDEACB PAS : RFAI Rem ; 2 Newberatvdk / t DA&VOMe : 0.7 Year xW t : 1960 pwrkft : 0MW-1 Soeee(sj Lot Sin : 220M sgtt/5M Aaft Moir 1 WA SrparFest : 1216 Teel : Ya Told Rooee : NIA FlreFleee : N/A NIA Tas Information Armed Total : suX3004W Tea AamM 1 tA969.26 Lead Total sM".%9 Tea Btetas : CUR" imWmemmt : silzal YeeDOMOMM 1 NIA %IMPldvameet s 42% Tall Raft Am : I3003 Itamplim : W/A Sate Information LOU Bde Date DMM)bW 14 2006 Lender r NA DOtment r4a : 0000917M0 Net Loan Aumm : NIA BeleAnmlet : S276,900(FUM nwLou y" WA Lest Trans WM s : wA sed Lsaa Aam m : NIA LWbee W/Os : Cad/Sgllere Fee[ : 227 Ceq�+IB:of 199FfM Megel".lb am kdSemdm is d au"am wbliv h mi and is MK- 21N/Se07 10:01:]SASd Cettmep Ytrsiee 144: S'8etri TOPS 6 IDt AM 49220 Quercus Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 March 17, 2007 Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert RECEIVED 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 MAR 19 2007 RE: Staff Report Dated March 20, 2007 ;OMUUNITY.DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT Case N% ZOA 07-01 CITY OF PALM DESERT Dear Planning Commission: I am writing this letter on behalf of the 1050 homes.in the Ironwood Community. For the past year and more, we in Ironwood (along with representatives from The Reserve, The Summit, and Monterra) have worked with members of the City Council and Mr Hagadone to mitigate the impact of the Hagadone development on Palm Desert residents and have been pleased with the response of both Mr. Hagadone and the City Council In that regard. We also appreciate being asked to comment on the proposed amendments being recommended in the Staff Report dated March 20, 2007: • PUBLIC NOTICES — Mailing legal notices to property owners within 4000 feet of the property to be developed is a reasonable and clear approach. We support this recommendation strongly. Had this been in place several years ago, much of the recent controversy over ridge line development could have been avoided. • BUILDING SIZE LIMITATION — No objection. • RIDGE-TOP DEVELOPMENT—We earlier suggested, as perhaps did others, the use of the word "prohibited" recommended for 25.15.010 as it is clear in meaning and intent: "(D) Development on or across prominent ridges is Prohibited." Also, we find the next sentence acceptable: "Building pad elevations and architectural design shall be set that rootlines do not create a negative visual impact on the City" Overall, we would prefer that the wording say that rooflines should not be visible, but recognize the difficulty inherent in this wording. Therefore, in the context of the other recommended changes, we feel this version would be effective. Recently, Ryan Stendell was kind enough to share with me the ridgeline map that was prepared as a aid in enforcing these changes, and we feel it would be very effective. We respectfully and strongly recommend you approve these amendments as proposed. Sincerely, Lawrence T. Sutter President, Ironwood Master Association C C 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. � c STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 FEBRUARY, 20 2007 CURRENT RIDGE-TOP DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: At this time the HPR ordinance has no specific language relating to ridge-top development. It. 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: Ryan 8rendell St a Smith Assistant Planner Acting Director of Community Development Review and Appr ed: Homer Cro ACM Developm Services 3 C r 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. 1 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 � c 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 c 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 consideran amendmentto 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 200,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 C- 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 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District. 1. 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. 1. 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%. 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. Prepared by: -ITY COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED ✓ DENIED. RECEIVED OTHER MEETI DAT Philip Dre AYES: NQiW Director of Community Development ABSENT: ABSTAIN: /ro? d by: VERIFIED BY: Original on File th City Clerk's Offire Carlos Orteg ACM for Dt Services City Manager O:WIannlrplTmyaM1lan1wbyda NINE-P.DrtlI Sit 051201dx Page 2of2 c c MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2006 MR. SNIJDERS said it was difficult to do because the height of the back yard 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. SNJDERS 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 Tem 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. 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 remainingarea was subject to some development. Most of the Ci 1tys 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 i 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 C C 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 over react 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 C C. 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. 26.15.080 Erosion control. 25.15.090 Preservation of open space. 26.15.100 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 r �^ l RESOLUTION NO. 04-43 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 wi entitled to at least one unit. ll be 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 m in the discretion of the Council, not be considered disturbed for purposes oayf, Subsection B1 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 ` `.-. w 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), f983). 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 forfire 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. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit (unless otherwise provided), or land subdivision, a Hillside Development Plan shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council. This may include, as determined by the Director of Community Development, the following information as set out in Sections 25.15.110 through 25.15.130. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983) 6 RESOLUTION NO. 04- 1 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 and/or 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, 1 5. Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage pattems, structures 1 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, soil openings, hydrologic groups, slopes, runoff potential, percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns; 7 !^ C 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: 1. 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 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 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. At its meeting of February 20th, 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed this matter and directed staff to adjust the draft ordinance in several areas including, public noticing requirements, line of sight and the definitions of a hillside ridge. The matter was continued to the March 20`h meeting. 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 MARCH, 20 2007 CURRENT RIDGE-TOP DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: At this time the HPR ordinance has no specific language relating to ridge-top development. II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Public Notices (Chapter 25.86): The Planning Commission has expressed a concern over how a line of site analysis would work with hillside lots. Staff has revised the proposed amendment to mail legal notices to property owners within 4,000 feet of the property being developed. Staff arrived at this number by taking the highest property in the hillside and gave a reasonable distance that would notify property owners east of Highway 74 (see attached exhibit). 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. Building pad elevations and architectural design shall be set that rooflines do not create a negative visual impact on the City. Staff has also expanded on the idea of defining a hillside ridge by developing a map that identifies all ridges throughout the HPR zone. This map was developed with City mapping technicians using contour and topographic data that is available to the City. Staff feels this map will be a valuable tool in developing within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. 2 • STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 07-01 MARCH, 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. CEOA REVIEW: 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 PreparedA4, Reviewed and Approved by: d y(pODD n�.i � yan Stendell Ste Smith Assistant Planner Acting Director of Community Development ZReviewand App d: Homer Cr y ACM Deve ent 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 Cil of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of March, 2007, continued from the 20 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 March, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: Steve Smith, Acting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 I 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. All development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone shall require 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 via United States Postal Service to people whose name appear on the latest adopted tax rolls of Riverside County as owning property within 4,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing and notification to 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-A ridgeline that is formed by the juncture of two (2) or more sloping planes that project outward from a mountain range and descend towards the valley floor more particularly identified on attached exhibit labeled Hillside Planned Residential Zone Ridges. That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.010 (Purpose) D. Development on or across ridges is prohibited. Building pad elevations and architectural design shall be set so that rooflines do not create a negative visual impact on the City That the following provision be added to Section 25.15.030 (Development Standards) E. Previously approved existing building pads shall be subject to the standard coverage limitations of 35% and may be increased up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval. Any change to an existing approved building pad shall require a new public hearing subject to the provisions of this chapter. 4 `-' l' RESOLUTION NO. 04.43 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 r 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 B1 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 a 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 firebreaks shall be dedicated to this purpose through record D. All buildings s 9 recordation.g hall 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 character of 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 Ian. Prior to the issuance of an p y building or grading permit (unless otherwise provided), or land subdivision, a Hillside Development Plan shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council. This may include, as determined by the Director of Community Development, the following information as set out in Sections 25.15.110 th rough 25.15.130. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983) 6 l RESOLUTION NO. O4-43 25.15.110 Environmental assessment. Ali applications shall comply with the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983) 25.15.120 Required information. The Director of Community Development and/or 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, 1 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, soil openings, hydrologic groups, slopes, runoff potential, percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage pattems; 7 1 f RESOLUTION NO. 04-43 D. Archeological studies in areas where wdsting evidence seems to indicate that significant artifacts of historic sites are likelyto 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, 8. 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 applicants 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 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 2007 in favor of this to see the project move forward and give the developer some flexibility in that direction, although he liked the original project. Mr. Smith asked for clarification if it was their intention to approve a project with 20 fewer units or only put the height restriction at 42 feet on the development and if they could come back with a project that has maybe 10 fewer units, then they could live with that within the overall total. Chairperson Campbell said that was her question earlier. They don't want to eliminate all of those units, but if they do have a restriction on the height, they could still come out and have additional units. Commissioner Schmidt said that was fine with her as long as it was within the same footprints as proposed. Commissioner Tanner agreed that it gave them some flexibility. With that clarification, Chairperson Campbell called for a vote to that amended condition. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont voting no. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2435, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. DA 06-03, PP/CUP 06- 17 and TT 35426. subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont voting no. C. Case No. ZOA 07-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council for approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and draft resolution. He asked for questions. Commissioner Tanner said he was in favor, but his concern was if there are any current projects that would be negatively affected if this amendment was approved right now. He asked if there were plans in place that this would alter from the ridge line. Mr. Stendell replied no. He said there was one application before them that was eventually withdrawn. He didn't believe this would directly affect anybody. For previous entitlements in Bighorn, none would be effected. Most of those homes would have fallen into the section about house size and pad size and restoring that relationship; 35%. Most he takes through were 20-25%. He confirmed that they wouldn't have to go before the Planning Commission, just Architectural Review Commission for approval of anything over 35% lot coverage. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 2007 Chairperson Campbell noted that if the proposed amendment was approved this evening, it would go to City Council for approval. If they approved it, she asked when it would become effective. Mr. Smith indicated it would become effective after second reading and a 30-day posting. Regarding grading and percolation, things like that, Commissioner Limont asked for confirmation that they would still have to get a permit and this pertains to that as well and people couldn't sneak in through the back door. Mr. Stendell said absolutely they would still get permits and there were no back doors here. They were adding to what was already a pretty restrictive ordinance. The only leeway would be to allow some of the Bighorn homes that were askingfor entitlements for hillside homes in excess of 4,000 square feet. It allowed them to escape the public hearing process for something they were entitled to at the beginning, but it didn't allow them any back doors for grading or percolation. Commissioner Tschopp thought everyone would agree that the intent is good. He complimented Mr. Stendell in trying to come u with a definition for r ridge lines. That was his only concern; some of the definitions on some of the words like "prominent ridges." His understanding of what a prominent ridge and that of a home owner could be completely different. He thought the way Mr. Stendell wrote ridge line is basically to the valley floor, and he didn't know if that was right, but to him valley floor would be Highway 111 or Highway 74 and he didn't think that was the right definition either. He thought they might need a geologist to help them out and an attorney to help us figure out exactly what we're trying to say there. He thought they all had the same idea in their minds, but the person who wants to build might have a different definition. He just wanted staff to clean up that terminology a little better. Mr. Stendell said that was also his intent and the Citys legal counsel was currently reviewing it. The first read was it could work with some tweaking. He knew the word prominent was going to become an issue and this language could be cleaned up in anyway, shape or form. There was still a fair amount of review in front of them, so staff would definitely take a look at it and firm it up. He said it could be brought back to the Commission if they would like to see it firmed up. Commissioner Tschopp thought they were all in agreement as to the intent. Commissioner Tschopp also noted that it said that "rooflines are not visible above existing ridge lines"and asked who that referred to. Most development they were concerned about would occur on the west side of Highway 74 and there are people that are going to be looking down on homes and the way it is written they could use that as a reason to oppose a development because they would be looking down at the rooftop. He thought they had the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBR ARv 20. 2007 right intent, but didn't think they had the verbiage down right yet. Mr. Stendell concurred. Regarding the noticing, Commissioner Tschopp asked if the City pays that with the fees from the developer or the individual pays the City. Mr. Stendell explained that the applicant provides the City with an affidavit from a title company certifying certain standards that we set forth. In this case they now send us a letter with a 300-foot radius ring and all the labels. They give us all the labels and then we take care of the mailing costs and publish it in the newspaper. In this case, it would create quite a few more mailings, but from what he gathered, there were only 25-30 hillside lots in the western portion of the city and some he didn't think were developable. So they would come up occasionally. It would be the developer's obligation to provide them. They would have to agree on some way of coming up with the analysis of line-of- sight and it would have to be something between the engineer and staff. Then if staff feels more comfortable adding an additional amount of noticing, we can do that. Commissioner Tschopp said that was his next question. How do they determine the line-of-sight? Mr. Stendell said that in initial talks when this was first formulated, they talked about having the engineer of the project submit a line-of-sight. If they didn't agree with that, staff would add to the list. Staff has done that in the past. In the case with the grading and percolation, he added 500-600 feet of noticing just to make sure they got more. They always have the ability to add, which is a good thing. Commissioner Schmidt agreed that this was a good first attempt. She asked if they had any definition of what these hillside ridges are and what we're concerned about. She asked if there was a way to overlay on a map the area being discussed. Mr. Stendell said yes. Mr. Smith explained that we're only impacting the properties that are currently zoned HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) and that is a defined area on the zoning map. The area in question most specifically is the area west of the channel with that zoning. Mr. Stendell said there are also about a dozen lots within the Canyons of Bighorn that also fall within that zone. So they were talking about the area west of the storm channel and a few scattered lots within the Canyons of Bighorn. Commissioner Schmidt asked what was left around the Hagadone property. Mr. Stendell indicated that there are three or four more lots on that road, all of which are lower than the Hagadone property. He thought there was one higher up the road, but it was on the western side of that street, which falls on the lower side of the mountain, so they wouldn't have another ridge top there. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20 gnn� Commissioner Schmidt asked if the Hagadone property had been allowed under "D Exceptions." Mr. Stendell said yes, the entire project was an exception. After carefully reading the proposed resolution, Commissioner Schmidt had a couple of suggestions. She asked that "D" in the first paragraph of Exhibit B start with "All." She also wanted to better define the mailing of notices. She thought it was vague as to who does the mailing and it seemed to refer to"C" above it. The "not less than 10 nor more than 30 days" seemed boiler plate in publication. Then when they add "and mailing notices to people whose names appear" she thought they should really define it as United States mail • to all people whose names appear; pin it down. That would be her suggestion because this is what gets them in trouble, the vagueness of some of these definitions. Also, the word "provide" where it states development of parcels within the Hillside Planned Residential zone shall "provide" notice should be shall "re quire" notice to all. She would also add with D" that all hillside development sites shall conform to all regulations or requirements of this chapter. Further down under the second "D" she recommended starting the second sentence with the word "Building" to read, "Building pad elevations..." She asked for clarification for the real purpose of section "E." She also suggested adding in the word "building" before pads. Mr. Stendell said the "purpose of'E relates to what ro p bably started out as 25-30 lots within the Canyons of Bighorn that were approved under a pre-2004 ordinance and those homes have been subject to a lengthy review process. One of the reasons staff was inclined to use the review process is that through the approval process the City was able to get the energy efficiency standards on these larger homes; however, since then the citywide Energy Ordinance has been enacted so now they don't need the discretionary approval to add those as conditions. So in essence, to hold those larger lots that were approved previously that were under a certain expectation of a house size, then in 2004 we said they were no longer entitled to that house size, only 4,000 square feet of house, then every one of those homes started coming through as an exception. Now the energy efficiency standards are in place and kind of preempted the discussion at Council as to whether we really need to see each one. He thought the intent, since they were developed and approved under an older ordinance, had certain expectations. Now with the ordinance in place they didn't need the lengthy review, so let's allow them to get them going quicker. Commissioner Schmidt asked if someone wanted to step outside that prior approval, if a review would be required. Mr. Stendell said yes and they had 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBR I n 2007 a case in the past where a lot with prior approval wanted to increase the pad size with some extra land they were going to acquire from the golf course owner and in an instance like that, it would trigger a new exceptions section through the hillside zone and would require full public hearings. Commissioner Schmidt asked if that was articulated in this ordinance. Mr. Stendell said the pads are existing and approved. Any expansion is therefore considered an exception. Since the lots were already approved under an old tract map under an old ordinance, any change thereto would be an exception. It's implied in his opinion, but he would double check with the attorneys. Commissioner Schmidt would rather see it clearly stated rather than implied. She thought it was the biggest headache and if they could resolve it without much trouble she thought they should. She said it was a good start, though. Chairperson Campbell asked if the Commission felt comfortable approving the resolution with the changes or if they wanted staff to come back with the new verbiage. Mr. Smith recommended a continuance to March 20. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, by minute motion continuing Case No. ZOA 07-01 to March 20, 2007. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Potential Trip and Attendees Mr. Smith explained that the Agenda on March 6, 2007 would have a request for a proposed 782-unit two- and three-story apartment project at the northwest corner of Portola and Dinah Shore. The developer requested that staff try to arrange a tour for Planning Commissioners and City Council members. The proposed trip was tentatively scheduled for Monday and Tuesday next week, the 26th and 27th. Brown Act issues limit attendance to two members of each body in any one group. If there were more than two people from the Commission interested in the trip, then a second one would be scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, the 28th and the 1st. He asked if people wanted to indicate now or check their calenders and let Tony Bagato know in the next day, then staff could make the arrangements. He indicated that the developer has four or five projects of a similar nature in 18 I r WWI ft' Ft., 11FE Me JAR '' ter' ■ M�` y ? S IVA to ag `!'rVJ r•�• �� �17,�e .w, ••"� 1►r� 1U FI`�� .��(1'���1�� 1 f � N� .� � � ,< �',�►,�li�� �r yr` •�. . A1►. �1��•~��r 1r1�Ik1�I l�.f-�." Y < .� I r, o '� �yllk ` " rryc. �. 1 AA ff Lf yr ,�/�1��. SY/: , , �'�fM ` r r+ •ram.. , 1 11.., :,{.� .� -� elk I ' • �������'+�� •.``• • Vol oi , �1 �I,�• '�''� �' '•fli�,�I � ��rLrMK�'' 4' '1 I •iy1 i`� �y ���•r• �,•�' � •�.S�U'll�r�' �� it.�V" .���ar .'�.',' ,•, ,� •1 .�,. ' I "'�'4'r"�-u � l.1,. i:'! Ff' ter +�•? i t ".= Y `r��y µ' .�''1 �'' 1•wP� '�'��• '� .�. '� � !'�;fi �i see .�. IC ,�R �.�: �� � � •... !SIC +fir. i• ',J ' 1/�$`+! iiia.•;� " it MA-l-kil LIPv �� j 1���� ��•�1(�� ' ����{ �� •`:��x��v��' r �.�,������-�. ,�L1�_ 'I ,�p� �r��1 1� 1 T � � � ��� '� ����� � ��, •�� rf•�t � y� "''.����' '`•.� .l�1�� Tom` r IL 1� 1, �•`�' �1 qAFA �,� �. � �y�1�1 1� %•_/����1�', � �►' ..:�,, ,��J�''JJL� ��...���!l1111//.11� y��� �i ���� ��� , � � •�■•�� _ `"� r I •sen.••a • .� > � , •,,, ' om WIN IL Foggia - -, si _���A�':.�1 ��°�iEQi�aiQitr►- f. � k •.. :''.::, �• 14�a 611 ? ' �.. �� €� S ' �Y�,.�l i1R;t tf►i: �i►Aslot r -41 liar Lop or - •///"' WIT -..fib'.1� •w '�,= W. � � „- 1 1 K 1 �!. -�' _���■i�l�?IA�?M■'�� '����l���A�ii��li �� 6A-�It �.1�►�ft,�l�t���.+ �,� �I '��_���\ "% OWNS*VW ago WIN* 441140 AAA 1 1- R • 1 � �� 1�1eeeeeeee� � 1! � rat rF !1' �1 1 # ! . -' �t w +� _ it .•s ��"'��, �����'�7�' '��• },1���� /• ,`� .� ��';p irk MEN .R ..�.��: ._,.... •�- -�,,��,:- --I "'` , . 'I '� �' • ,r 'i `e '��e�d�H6f�k��M9�+y1fi610 qp JURY LOW Oil now gal ILI PER E. �onplm�,��� mill,� E ti�e'�' I� 'ietl t��1 !' m ' ' �t' '- -� 81L ' 1�' �IIl1�0t11.11/�• �f � �. .; i�!���� '� '�F;l�"�t.�' r �f'!� Rr 151 �.�►�MIN �FoIl �fs ���,Au. it,HI���! '� ` � � i� `��I>����i� 4'...`� �r� ��,, � "MW a'. �, 4O �R —'"W' �4 � ��► '';ice ?iet�sy �; ,� 1� ! '�'�� 1� sR�'�w� . •}19>e� ��, , 5. f► �` � � i a .! "Me ��►/�� �� r : ''i.! '�� /�'r TOO ME r�`i►� ir�' -'!�/�,.',,,..Y-'� `�`�'. -�� _•�'�••�J':�•yl� •�"a*'� .i � 4`���►�.'�p, '1 �1 ice' � is • ,r :.sdr vim./ `� ;�,� �F��.. � � --� KIM M, . r n .t 1.' tl,�. �,. � ,•�' 1 , i :.,Z} ''' Si •_ `irl/�' 1t��`i�Q� ',��1`. ' �111�MItiflt! / i�' `., xl lF" r��1,� �► ��, ��� � �. M�M9 _ �u A T '. i:, ^�, ,',, � 1 � r� • ,;� � � +" }gip loon WER Sig WE 6— 'hf ; 4 Pro erarrzrrw•.. a s+�>...sa...c..aa>R.s+�oer-*ss'r-tr ...�- - - — - — - f�' - r .rS ,.��F" rt •-,F�1,' • ~'`: -� r, ' . i �,�' j ' OFF__ �,, i `� ,A► 1'� � � FI � a i� .�,+-'n'I�R��• �, � ;���r ��{�' � � • • I , J } r gal V, r Fil �,r;� - :* .ins, _ `v "#. • • — • 1r ���1y�1; . �7,yy 11j� 4 k 1 i u _ y „ , 9 r - ,y m 5 e .. A I 1'i 1, irl , a� , h , 4 e _ „ , .. h �lw ram. s 7 N r i , " Y + , "r : V 1193 IMF u ' ^�4 r ,? s r _J s r !I , • 'J :I II , r I l �L r' , 1 x y r 1 N 1 F , { 1 4�A,Y,. - 1 i . ztt M11 ly WEST t N r 1 I +5 r� n �r 1 t ; ^ ra r' , , 1 f F SIDE • PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL �nTHE CANYONSBIGHORN hr- The Palm Desert Cross Ridges Ridges Protected Lands Protected Lands Parcels Parcels City Boundary 1 inch equals 200 feet THIS IS NOT SURVEY ACCURATE 1 inch zt " , N w • equals11 feet THIS IS NOT SURVEY ACCURATE TALU NO Lw O \i. F � L•f 0% INFORM .. r I' VT M _�., TERRA DEL ORO � GREENE WA.� ; Mp r T r m AGUq r , 1. : T , M , r Y yP , , i , j I a o , a pa.. � � 2 i ,N NACLE�G a 1 Icy010 �.�. . " a m, 1�■ N : . �i J i PER � 4 � • ,a W A W O I Q4 4 A O • PPE _ , • co J W Y W J n J HA PE�- „ .. 02 y �M j4I a.: V 1110° w O M WEST SIDE OF Q - THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN ) PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL a e Palm Desert Cross _„, � , Ridges Ridges Protected Lands Protected Lands Parcels Q Parcels ? City Boundary o� M�Rq 1 inch equals 200 feet �FR ' S 1 inch equals 200 feet I IIIS IS No SURVEY ACCURAI l- flllti I NOf SURVEY ACC UItAfI _ t ,V � Man �� fi�•gw. ���/'��''+ ' � . G AL or ti y1 iF' 'y , m �Z v � rn' is ti r ,41 1�4 I + Y0 �N , *1N, - P , to t�1 i ■ '"N A 7*E4to�15 GAD �F 1�■ Ia■ NR , 4.: aft iRaj r � 11V _. Qu J i i ' h W —— — * ,�`/ a Y S.�„, F. �� ,"d'"A'� .tit,.,`1 � l�V•�,' y GA Q 41 • ..� w GOL ., 1tibdr Ijr .d y 40 i i' 'O ►Q 2 , U .. O WEST SIDE OF t o l y► �. THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNIT U The Palm Desert Cross Ridges Ridges � � �� o � k Protected Lands &PPER 52 a Parcels Protected Lands Parcels �, City Boundary M : y �1 1 inch equals 200 feet �o o-7 P 1 Inch equals 200 feet III IJ l> SURVEY Ultnl I -- - - I N I I E Y A C THIti IS NC��I- SURVEY ACCURATE L pAI.111 >' o r G P ♦ /��M I p ` • u ' rRIP- all - ton— lit WORI4A r vq db n. ANaDE DE AGUA R � � «q � I, I � � o 1 R Z - p. ��1 �f � •• ■f r/ ■• rf •■ rr • 71 AN Ir •� • � f U■ Eli V �, ''� '� r• Imo`".4/S. 1.• �� '1 r.�rr...I.,.y ..»--w.. ��.eb �� Ir Mul I , 4 . y Ge ` G y Z . 1 a t y w y t d W J r ..'C•naw Airo7.:t,':r;:2w"Afv4Me•1 d'f!I.: :I� W W J , 0. RACY Nam,,..:•,-. 4'Is� r N 2 t mom UNFISPAP LU .. U Uj SENSE _ IHannon r Rr 080261 ar Rig, C • MIRADER ,�0a' ,a„wr':+mr�gCr¢ .;.:,,+•...e , a, @n O I ¢W 1.q 1w a , , ikAw ENE a w, moll � NONE. c • I I r y • r •' » a. 1 M R , • • AM a , p , n •' I , '. �`.. is C ,. • p - y ek � qa t*t�v �IW4 ik ^•,, 1 1 a'+pF'� .� + � I � � ^.+� � A , e r I, �M yy ii „ y: P 17 IN IN M ' go M. NN' ' W 1 �' H, , 0 ,v 1'�'.: 'p r �• 7 � ate. 1 ` 9 WEST SIDE OF :� ,M , '. ,,�„�;r r� :�' i► THE NYONS AT BIGHORN PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL `3 y The Palm Desert Cross �1 '` . ,: Ridges Protected Lands ..��.� Ridges - I ' Protected Lands Parcels Parcels ` '� �• City Boundary M 4' 4 4 I vL. 1I C «� y @• NIA i 1 inch equals 300 feet r �' 1 inch a 200 feet equals THIS IS NOT SURVEY ACCURATE kk„' " " " "" THIS IS NOT SURVEY ACCURATE