Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZOA 87-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1987
w '1 CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER 1 . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council 11 . SUBJECT: Consideration of possible amendments to development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones. Ill . CASE NO: ZOA 87-1 V. DATE: August 13, 1987 V1 . CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 87-I . D. City Council Report dated February 26, 1987. E. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 5, 1987 and June 16, 1987. F. Related maps and/or exhibits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the city council receive the report and that no further action be taken. B. DISCUSSION: During the early part of 1987 there was considerable comment received on a two story development under construction at San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. The February 26, 1987 report (copy attached) outlined the process that this particular development went through and recommended that in addition to the usual noticing requirements that applicants be required to install public notice signs on the property. This requirement became effective May I , 1987 and has been positively received by the public. The direction from city council on February 26, 1987 was for staff to conduct a study and recommend changes to the zoning ordinance to assure compatibility of new developments with existing neighborhoods. May 5, 1987 staff submitted a report to planning commission outlining a series of six options available and recommending implementation of 3 of the options. These matters are fully delineated on page 5 of the May 5, 1987 staff report to planning commission. Commission heard from two people in opposition to this ordinance amendment and decided to continue , the matter. Commission at that time took the position that rather than amend some of the standards applicable to the R-2 and R-3 zones it would like to consider down zoning R-3 property to R-2. Staff, at that time, f y CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ZOA 87-1 AUGUST 13, 1987 was instructed to conduct a survey of the R-3 zoned properties to determine how much was available for development. The staff report of June 16, 1987 indicated that on the south side of Highway Ill there are 11 vacant R-3 zoned lots of which only eight are available for development. The other three are used for parking purposes by adjacent properties. The report also indicated that three pending R-3 projects which had been held up for several months had been approved by the city council May 14, 1987. The minutes of the June 16, 1987 planning commission meeting (copy attached) indicate that considering that there were only eight developable lots remaining on the south side of the highway and considering the landmark Supreme Court decision regarding property owner's rights, the commission felt this issue should be terminated. Commission, on a 4-0 vote directed that the matter be ended and that a report be submitted to the city council outlining the decision and the reasons pertaining thereto. Prepared by: 4zu i Reviewed and Approved by: /tm 2 U lL 0 l7 v 1• V o U) o m 3 l to LL a cr J31 . f d ` vnV Nf NVI [C y 111 - i �v Inonev I tfl� W ✓ I .. gvU f U N \1 YlC: .) " � ,. Cs:b L'Y6Vtl'4Jv,9 i°Y3AvU 4 ]rvn tlFvl Ntl'' dro LiJ I �U Ntl a a -' r e d5 E ZI -' 1QL, a•, I $ 0 I M]'^ ry0'I:,,)w MTro 1 16 etofo — __ # a � pp i o 11 x b to ( M16A ; '1 1 ._r�r.)'•• ss�.: srn , n nr a 4WD V d rn i Tt o d ha .v M+tl z a. M1e Nrs c Yv) M1 ', � ri u ' O p __W > s. w _ ,IlVd .30100 1 4: 4 c N 3 Mr, r 000 . (Oa rn I U ` r . p d O� )ry 1�' 0 4 "O 1` a p W 1 •' S Z� 40 pa ry . o z u $fbli� 00 QZ s y ° (A 1/) f S M N -N 4 fL dr 0 d 1 b1 m D AE 4 C ACrAA cn O;r2. 0 R-I 1 000R SP R 2 S. P. R 2 I 0 1 - DO n 0 1 B E 0 AVE. 3 1 . DI .. X. �m ' rDO I .I Ltd — m Z z ° y F v m c05 AVE. — _ D Q Ej 1 ❑ _ I 4-1 � U I ' ' .i IR _ Z— G) m SAN ANSELMO AVENUE 1. '99 c — V m m r y 1 S,MATE V, m - � yl AVENUE 21 .� �; N r� . p PAB lO AVENUE _ .. ... _ .._ ._ .. .e P Sy i Mx tia 5 —� '(rn/ (t d N D I • JfL AVENUE f A jj A V ..I � o V !.. � y� A i .D f/ rqt 1 L+ -T�1 0 cl• \ r J mi —{ � I . 1 `J W It 1 \ — . ry7E .:L EV •E 1 m 1 iL 'OT i ©o ,I0 x* AV NI'• S7 ILr,EN�'ts_ 1 1 tttl (1 f \ F s.wr uic�V } PONi01 V N e0A i0LA AVE m f O N 'Y'I4L" n E I - t K W �r m 10, 1'�1 ✓ _ —�Q O - d3 A EFOGE WAY < k fTt I -E ! - BUTTONWOOD DR, M 0.pP uv t. C E - 4 T O y SILN 1NEE +M . C0.HPON 03 00.m DEEP CANYON ROAD < Ir. . X m Z i I i'i;0 '�__ l c 1 1 Z = EMI m+Q . 1 �_ _ l�� Ch UI 71 is y Z A CaCl i N A 11 r _ D, �.. r -1 12. 0 R-1 I 000 -- R SP R 2 S. P. ��. MOclEHEY AVENUE �/ i Rp I 1 9 ME 0 AVE. — - �L — A m t6E ,„ c05 AVE.IHZ �, - _ r fi A N Snn qN5 ElM0 AVENUE 0 - r y 111 Sn.MaIEV AVE IIUC — - — . '.1 ' N — — _ _ - •y � III L 11 UI, < PA HLO AVENUE jg tl 4VENUE � i A . �ry G -D 1 :N (jS SiI 'l.. 1 AV N•, UE A - Ou+ o T�J7 r ■O —L �/ 1 I Ay NI i A _ _ p POHiOi V N n0A TOLA /AVE in e Aq Y `, P G r r E i� r • f — -- ' - �71 c- nC .Es- S 0 VI F C OGE wAY HUITOHw000 OR . FIORI.f AVE _ � U t s 4 Y" 11 O — A — • SILM THEE lv . 03 CANYON •!OAC DEEP CANYON HOAR rJ . a _ A ' L i � (y � li Uj C➢ I IU) QM. UZ O:Q OVOa NO+x al •� d330 ,1 J3] i0 f O In i1ON , 351NNI5 K, I "� � 1 (� NI•IMn nVHf.NVI E 0 w _ I In Ilan. , a v�Noa etl ¢ , ly ..,a I yIa HSnG BllanD 3 l .. w r o �. c,: a c:esva� >tDa,a I . � — `\' iON3AV ' S ]Itl° OMa1Nal i a 6 m (L v V � , Ny" Nl,i r...nw to . rl- a 0 0 . o ioa-t s . cn 9 1G ' QO O 0 m u m ,VS Ce c) n c0 N N JV a cD _ W o cnr-�� a M m!;1 Lla li 1� a oo < y. I — O O _ ,Alva 4a'. ,^ M N O r = s — . f ,Xr, Doi Nvoloo _ M -tF• O N , Hrl � ray U •y a I 1�1' Xv- f3 It Q00 / ocy O. _.'Q t - 1 / CL / H I Ir bQ0 Oa, / a,p ' N U �fblij. 00 Q On rI 111ZIOOO`91 f ° _ �'� i �r■ NO NO w SO IN IN� IN NINE .■ IN [7 IN ■ ..MM ■ IN .F c�--s pprvrvCCY MJ • pp�� ■' y�`5 f'i� .■■ 1 � ar�,1■■1 r�31 Maine ,.. , , a �s Y Mom SO mm El S _ ��J r•J i/ _ r�r: ■w,�w Wia■tw■■ . wIH a uw h �1�1W:3 NO v I. IN IN Ml mm • w= w■ ww Wl ME SO Wl ON IN .SO IS Ml .■ ww ww ■■ NOS w■ ■. ww .■ Wl IN ■C wWE ■.■. .w . R■ ■w o-FM rl■ ■;a is -ua. ■+ar' �� o .■ ■.Nuum ■u■ �. RI is WE .. s■ na rr Wom (-1■ ww w■ .■ ■ u■ ww ■■w . ■ .. ■. . ■. . MINE INMORE ■■ ■■ ■ ■■ w■ ■ �� d\ ■■ \ll nWIN ■�.■w T pR. +o >, AT m t7 JCnyEDNA L, `` .p` 1 l0 4 t v 00 2p f I, p /H / ./,j OE 0 /v��4 R oo� J �r4 C1 I' _ AN AA: O+U, oAYP OV N/ OO a 0 — n O b Do ao: •oho- . o . PDp r .. LAME [ 1 -o l Ha . i � ;o GOLDEN SOD LAME t` _ - a N W ID n [2].p p _AS PALMP $ 0 0 00 * W 400.x ' : V I n "PYAAY`PL o N L a Q - w I QoIU N p p F P 4✓Ue LAYS = ' 2E C. w1 IIII Cyh O � t •A lJ •Y 0 W s F C.0 P t x AN �I - vSqN I V $ .ZI i A "i rR;JeC Fu'F RRLr _ L dG"A W A n - lb MD"•1'�AIN +:EM1' 4v[N6 AM s ' I •�_,� � v • 0. L .- Irk'Ax / LANtAN4 A!E W t, ' AVENU 1 S PLPCN^PA 99: t•C � m 1 O � N :D ° +. 1- �� Lid. r . ° a DUAILe9UsX N E s N + AN ABRON'A TRAIL N' v 'A1 1 n w I I a ; POPV' A ! W , P IANUPAUA DR F 1 R ;, ILA 1 W SU R LP iH 8 RE� rDEP LA NY DN DZ1 0 AI f OW y��OW HIL..'v RO 2 — f W W O O ,YI 0 p r? 0 Q m p O En 0 . p r 0 I _ p ° Ov v q d Q u o w N U Oro O r U M a M 3 iNy I C .. U U: au ,IN N M � 7 I lY Q: 1 l d meal U(n s ru, JVOtl NO.Htl, i dJJO .I M 1 O 1 p = d�> Ny, )SINNnS M • yp VNf.Nyl � ' O) I a as 4Y a , Y:nvS '1 ° a,Nou a ¢ 11VH1 I? 'li�'y:lb`.v11 B,ltlnO :aa VN>>•]tl,B w ¢ I — 70N]FV 4 '. s -' 'IV a tlFtll Ntl' i CL � ! 5 � I v i •. —I V I _ _ nT Jn ]nv N3!• rvlo!r...nw N. >a In I Q r rnIL 10 - ti era Y i JLv, I Nn.isv xe] Q Q Q _ ti a - Q ct n t I a ' O n. I. Nz tl Nu a 1 u I O O Cl; I , 2 {' �.. 'ndo, 0 0 . p . p ..O I O NJaiao 1 J 4n' IL { Ntl Va a OOO ,oa I . — FO 1, u Opd.'p 4(�O' j. N a m r O a _ s' 11I❑''I I Op Z/ �- p40� ,l"� a C 8 0 w tlVH - U y u .. �'fbJtij. �I pp ' 0�e 1' s .I O U vl 1 a ` ITI Ij OV°tl NOA NtlJ d330 ]YO:. NOiNtlJ ' ' Yl 33N1 MLS _ - lf' N O I I m• tl,N N vl . 'Ya OOO.N011n Om . n VA V . O — — .. ,.• y n K 01 m AVM IJo3]1 6' . 9, Oy n t ( ! 1 p — s ui . IAtl ♦101 YO N A IC!u0d 5 I Inv `(K , 00 y 1 1 a N • 1 1 Yy \ M r-��'p Y rA•r .,. .. t: (/j d..N A- rbOelF 'ya Y wM 4 I m In I r,N l AV DIBVd V n ]IVry uS la A rKLd ' N 3nu3ntl Ory 13SUY IlvS � T I LL O ,'�{1A III 1II w a o F E z — I I Ll LJ �1 lAI w — 0 LU Ir -3AV C 310 6 Iry - - _ 1 Za InNIAV A 3::IV YI -: -- a s. z a s a 1 000 I I-tl 0 'ZI 1- ll' I tl r Y a i y - n N _ o' O ti oti � tt—. a i 0 . l 1 IV z fj avou NOANVO d330 :tl0:. NOAHV3 ' '� el 3301 .115 O ° � 4: N Q1 1 'YO 0001 N011ne a 1- — ,; .it, A, AVM P un O N — w ., 1 . % Of ' 30p3jfne W. 43Ir E of J 1` o - 3AV P101 YOd N A IO!NOd M,i.t rw', \ 1 qq yl 3db Id. ' � t I .. �V'LJ¢ / it b a ^"S2_ T _ O' • ¢� v tN3 H, . . I II O 'I . . I a.v 3f N3�4 O1BVd tl ' I � F c 3nN 3A, .-- N 3 �.n 31vry uS Itl J w > 0 3nN3nV OWUSNV Nv5 / 1 • 'Illlllll L cr _ ' �� '� 3 — — _ 'inn 500 Lr a �V C 3q S1401 IC — I — a •d'p InN3AV A3 Y 3::+un as a IJII 000 I -a 0 zl I- A VI b d n. • � Q. � A � A N C3 o n cc � � . (Y. O w vi tL 4 00 O ,0' UO M M 3 a atl , w N M - - N V(n � i �. NVOtl NO,NVt , d3,0 .I 433 .. , lY3 l p t a v n M � � � Ntlt 351HNI1$ M , ) NIrINII VY,V Nf.NVI ITr • u. K < '" v 1: ° M tlroN, Y Notla , n z v•. In 4. w 3+n Nsnca,rono . . U �' rc l Cv% h :Bfi vtl,�MJalO 3nN3AV ]!'/a OFVI HVI i L:j NOICL Y r d nn s t ds '£ a � V I, � a ,a I _ IIFT 9 3AV M3a NM C..OW M - OL vs ,�•, � , °� y o to- �r ° O 0 to L Nvs ! ui 11 , a cn ]NY, tl n N q S Y tl v l Q pp u � U (J p• P l0 c -mT-}� O� •J 1 W 4. y� Y u oo,o m in ° 1ll ,lA �aMAtl u O O O O 8 a y...YWIVd SV — a o 1 �✓ ' oMNs O � r ` 3Nn oov N)o,00 , a 7 s \/ . )N Y, 1 U I O U -_ - _ 0ro I J iL V p.O °Od.`p Oqp` !. Phi•/, / O �© I O O0 04010 bo ti a o w rvv N U� 1 `S'f b F! Op a� ; '' � N ` . IQP "' it u, a ds01a /£J 00-0- k!o i Npl- a 0. ,•�� 1 m CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council 11 . REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to zoning ordinance chapter 25.24 Planned Residential District limiting permitted uses to residential developments, country clubs,and other directly related assessory uses . Other listed uses Including community facilities, recreation, related institutional facilities, resort hotels and utility facilities shall be made subject to a conditional use permit. III . APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT IV. CASE NO: ZOA 87-1 V. DATE: September 24, 1987 VI . CONTENTS: A. Staff recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Ordinance No. D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 87- I . E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1249 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September I , 1987 G. Related maps and/or exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: Currently the PR zone contains the following section describing "permitted uses". 25.24.020 Uses Permitted by Approved Precise Plan Permitted uses in a PR district are as follows: ZOA 87-1 TRANSMITTAL LETTER A. Community facilities B. Open Space C. Other uses or mixtures of residential with country club related commercial uses as designated on an approved precise plan D. Recreational uses E. Related institutional facilities F. Related accessory uses G. Residential real estate developments as defined in the business and professions code H. Resort hotels with a maximum of eighteen units to the gross acre, and related auxiliary commercial uses I . Utility facilities Generally, uses listed in "permitted" sections are considered to be allowed as a matter of right. The precise plan requirement is a discretionary review relating to the design of the project. We are now receiving an increasing number of development requests for non-residential uses within the PR zone; many of which fit the list of "permitted uses" but might not be appropriate for a particular location. Under the current ordinance it is difficult to deny an inappropriate "permitted use". To clarify the situation we are proposing that the current list be divided into permitted and conditional uses. Permitted uses would Include residential developments , country clubs and other directly related accessory uses. Community facilities. recreation, related institutional facilities, resort hotels and utility facilities would be made subject to a conditional use permit which could be denied if a particular proposal was found to be unacceptable regardless of design. The conditional use permit process will provide greater control over potentially undesirable development. In unanimously recommending approval of the amendment, the planning commission deleted open space from the list of permitted uses. Preparedc oy v Reviewed and Approved by _ /dig 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.24 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING COMMUNITY FACILITIES, RECREATION RELATED INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES, RESORT HOTELS AND UTILITY FACILITIES AS CONDITIONAL USES. CASE NO: ZOA 87-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 24th day of September, 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to chapter 25. 24 (Planned Residential Distr) of the zoning ordinance. 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 to exist to justify the recommendation of approval . 1 . The proposed amendment will provide the city with greater control in regulating uses potentially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council 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 ZOA 87-1 Exhibit "A" is hereby approved. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this day of 1987 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "A" AMEND 25.24.020 TO READ: 25.24. 020 USES PERMITTED BY APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN A. Residential real estate developments as defined in Business and Profession Code. B. Mixtures of residential with country club related commercial uses. C. Related accessory uses. 25.24.025 CONDITIONAL USES The following uses may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit: A. Community facilities. B. Commercial recreational uses not directly related to a permitted residential development. C. institutional facilities. D. Resort hotel with a maximum eighteen units per gross acre, and related commercial uses. E. Utility facilities. CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER 1. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council If . REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to zoning ordinance chapter 25.24 Planned Residential District limiting permitted uses to residential developments , country clubs ,and other directly related assessory uses. Other listed uses including community facilities , recreation, related Institutional facilities , resort hotels and utility facilities shall be made subject to a conditional use permit. III. APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT IV. CASE NO: ZOA 87-1 V. DATE: September 24, 1987 VI . CONTENTS: A. Staff recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Ordinance No. D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 87-I . E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1249 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 1 , 1987 G. Related maps and/or exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: Currently the PR zone contains the following section describing "permitted uses". 25.24.020 Uses Permitted by Approved Precise Plan Permitted uses in a PR district are as follows: ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT W AMEND 25.24.020 TO READ: 25.24.020 USES PERMITTED BY APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN A. Residential real estate developments as defined in Business and Profession Code. 8. Mixtures of residential with country club related commercial uses. C. Related accessory uses. 25.24. 025 CONDITIONAL USES The following uses may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit: A. Community facilities. B. Commercial recreational uses not directly related to a permitted residential development. C. Institutional facilities. D. Resort hotel with a maximum eighteen units per gross acre, and related commercial uses. E. Utility facilities. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.24 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING COMMUNITY FACILITIES, RECREATION RELATED INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES, RESORT HOTELS AND UTILITY FACILITIES AS CONDITIONAL USES. CASE NO: ZOA 87-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 24th day of September, 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to chapter 25. 24 (Planned Residential Distr) of the zoning ordinance. 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 to exist to justify the recommendation of approval . 1 . The proposed amendment will provide the city with greater control in regulating uses potentially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council 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 ZOA 87-1 Exhibit. "A" is hereby approved. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California. is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this day of , 1987 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California ZOA 87-1 TRANSMITTAL LETTER A. Community facilities B. Open Space C. Other uses or mixtures of residential with country club related commercial uses as designated on an approved precise plan D. Recreational uses E. Related institutional facilities F. Related accessory uses G. Residential real estate developments as defined In the business and professions code N. Resort hotels with a maximum of eighteen units to the gross acre, and related auxiliary commercial uses 1 . Utility facilities Generally, uses listed in "permitted" sections are considered to be allowed as a matter of right. The precise plan requirement is a discretionary review relating to the design of the project. We are now receiving an increasing number of development requests for non-residential uses within the PR zone; many of which fit the list of "permitted uses" but might not be appropriate for a particular location. Under the current ordinance it is difficult to deny an inappropriate "Permitted use". To clarify the situation we are proposing that the current list be divided into permitted and conditional uses. Permitted uses would include residential developments , country clubs and other directly related accessory uses . Community facilities, recreation, related institutional facilities, resort hotels and utility facilities would be made subject to a conditional use permit which could be denied if a particular proposal was found to be unacceptable regardless of design. The conditional use permit process will provide greater control over potentially undesirable development. In unanimously recommending approval of the amendment, the planning commission deleted open space from the list of permitted uses. Prepared Reviewed and Approved by /dig 2 1 4ue4au0aS 'ZVIO 'V NOWVN :IS311V uewu!pgO 'OOOM81 OdVH318 :NIVIS9V :1N3S9V :S30N :SIAV :31M 04 'aloA 6ulMollod aq3 Aq L961 `aagwa�as 30 ARP 3sl s144 u0 play 'uolsslwwoO 6uluueld luasa0 wied aql 3o 6ul4aaw uelnbau e 3e 031d00V Pup 03AOtdddV '03SSVd ' Ilounoo Allo o4 lenoudde u04 papuawwooau Agaua4 s! „V„ glgl4x3 Z-L8 VOZ legl Z •aseo slgq ul uolsslww03 a44 30 s6ulpul3 a44 a4n4l4suoo pup 4oauuoo pup anu3 aue suol4e4l3a.1 8n0ge a44 1pgl ' 1 :sM01104 se leluuo3lleO -4Jasa0 wled 3o A410 aql 3o uolsslwwoO 6uluueld aqq Aq 03AlOS28 11 39 '32i0332d3H1 'MON •aue31aM leuaua6 pup A3a4es lg4ieaq olignd aql o; lequawiulap Allel4ualod sasn 6ulgelnbau ul loj4uoo ua3eau6 g4fm A410 aql apinoud IIIM 4uawpuawe pasodoud aql ' 1 • lenoudde 3o uollepuawwooaa a43 A313snF 04 4slxa 04 s43e3 6ulMo1103 a43 pu14 PIP u0lsslwwoa 6uluueld pies •puea4 aq o4 6ululsap suosuad palsauaqul Ile 30 'Aue 31 ls4uawn6.1e pup Auowl4sal Ile 6u1uapIsuoo pup 6ulueaq uodn IBulueaq ollgnd pies )e 'SV383HM •aoueulpuo 6uluoz a44 30 (u4sl0 lelluapisaa pauueld) VZ'SZ ua4dego o4 quawpuawe up uaplsuoo 04 6uluea4 0l ignd peol;ou Alnp e PI0q L861 `uagwaldaS 4o Aep 4sl a44 uo plp -eluuodlleO -Iuasa0 wied 3o A4t0 a44 30 u0lss1ww03 6uluueld aq4 'SV3831AM Z-L8 VOZ :ON 3SVO 'S3Sn IVNOIIIONOO SV S3111113V3 AlIllln ONV S1310H 1?JO938 'S31111IOV3 lVNO11n1I1SN1 031V138 N011V38038 'S3111113V3 AIINnWWOO 9NIA31SSV1O38 3ONVNIOHO JNINOZ 3H1 JO (lOI81S10 IVlIN301S3d 03NNVId) 4Z'SZ d3ldVH3 01 1N3WON3WV NV 30 IIONnOo Al1O 01 1VAOdddV 9NION3WWO03N 'VIN2l0311VO 'i83S30 WIVd d0 A113 3H1 d0 NOISSIWWOO 9NINNVId 3Hl d0 NOI1nlOS3N V 'ON NounlOS38 NOISSIWWOO 9NINNVId PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" AMEND 25.24.020 TO READ: 25.24.020 USES PERMITTED BY APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN A. Residential real estate developments as defined in Business and Profession Code. B. Mixtures of residential with country club related commercial uses. C. Open Space. D. Related accessory uses. 25.24.025 CONDITIONAL USES The following uses may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit: A. Community facilities. B. Commercial recreational uses not directly related to a permitted residential development. C. Institutional facilities. D. Resort hotel with a maximum eighteen units per gross acre, and related commercial uses. E. Utility facilities. , 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September I , 1987 CASE NO: ZOA 87-2 APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to zoning ordinance chapter 25.24 PR Planned Residential District limiting permitted uses to residential developments, country clubs, open space and other directly related assessory uses. Other listed uses including community facilities , recreation related institutional facilities, resort hotels and utility facilities shall be made subject to a conditional use permit. I. BACKGROUND: Currently the PR zone contains the following section describing "permitted uses". 25 24.020 Uses permitted by approved precise plan. Permitted uses in a PR district are as follows: A. Community Facilities B. Open Space C. Other uses or mixtures of residential with country club related commercial uses as designated on an approved precise plan. D. Recreational Uses E. Related institutional Facilities F. Related accessory uses G. Residential real estate developments as defined in the Business and Professions Code. H. Resort hotels with a maximum of eighteen units to the gross acre, and related auxiliary commercial uses. 1 . Utility Facilities Generally, uses listed in "permitted" sections are considered to be allowed as a matter of right. The precise plan requirement is a discretionary review relating to the design of the project. We are now receiving an increasing number of development requests for non-residential uses within the PR zone; many of which fit the list of "permitted uses" but might not be appropriate for a particular location. Under the current ordinance it is difficult to deny an inappropriate "permitted use". ZOA 87-2 STAFF REPORT To clarify the situation we are proposing that the current list be divided into permitted and conditional uses. Permitted uses would include residential developments, country clubs, open space and other directly related assessory uses . Community facilities, recreation related institutional facilities, resort hotels and utility facilities would be made subject to a conditional use permit which could ebe denied if a particular proposal was found to be unacceptable regardless of design. The conditional use permit process will provide greater control over potentially undesirable development. ll . RECOMMENDATION: Approve findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending approval of ZOA 87-2 to city council . 0 Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /dlg 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.24 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING COMMUNITY FACILITIES, RECREATION RELATED INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES, RESORT HOTELS AND UTILITY FACILITIES AS CONDITIONAL USES. CASE NO: ZOA 87-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the Ist day of September, 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to chapter 25.24 (Planned Residential Distr) of the zoning ordinance. 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 to exist to justify the recommendation of approval . 1 . The proposed amendment will provide the city with greater control in regulating uses potentially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: I . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That ZOA 87-2 Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended for approval to city council . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of September, 1987 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" AMEND 25.24.020 TO READ: 25.24.020 USES PERMITTED BY APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN A. Residential real estate developments as defined in Business and Profession Code. B. Mixtures of residential with country club related commercial uses. C. Open Space. D. Related accessory uses. 25.24.025 CONDITIONAL USES The following uses may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit: A. Community facilities. B. Commercial recreational uses not directly related to a permitted residential development. C. Institutional facilities. D. Resort hotel with a maximum eighteen units per gross acre, and related commercial uses. E. Utility facilities. 2 `w sl PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1249 ' A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.24 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING COMMUNITY FACILITIES, RECREATION RELATED INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES, RESORT HOTELS AND UTILITY FACILITIES AS CONDITIONAL USES. CASE NO: ZOA 87-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the Ist day of September, 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to chapter 25.24 (Planned Residential Distr.) of the zoning ordinance. 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 to exist to justify the recommendation of approval . 1 . The proposed amendment will provide the city with greater control in regulating uses potentially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. ' 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 ZOA 87-2 Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended for approval to city council . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this Ist day of September, 1987 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, LADLOW, RICHARDS, WHITLOCK 8 ERWOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE RICHARD ERWOOD; Chairman ATT � RAMON A. DIAZ, Secret y 1 f PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1249 EXHIBIT "A" AMEND 25.24.020 TO READ: 25.24.020 USES PERMITTED BY APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN A. Residential real estate developments as defined in Business and Profession Code. B. Mixtures of residential with country club related commercial uses. C. Related accessory uses. 25.24.025 CONDITIONAL USES The following uses may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit: A. Community facilities. B. Commercial recreational uses not directly related to a permitted residential development. C. Institutional facilities. , D. Resort hotel with a maximum eighteen units per gross acre, and related commercial uses. E. Utility facilities. r 2 i I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 September 4, 1987 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 87-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to zoning ordinance chapter 25.24 PR Planned Residential District limiting permitted uses to residential develop- ments, country clubs and other directly related recreation or other assessory uses. Other listed uses including community facilities, related institutional facilities, resort hotels and utility facilities shall be made subject to a conditional use permit. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, September 24, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. 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 city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk September 12, 1987 City of Palm Desert, California 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 August 14, 1987 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 87-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to zoning ordinance chapter 25. 24 PR Planned Residential District limiting permitted uses to residential developments, country clubs, open space, recreation and other directly related assessory uses. Other listed uses including community facilities, related institutional facilities , resort hotels and utility facilities shall be made subject to a conditional use permit. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 1 , 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. 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 city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary August 21 , 1987 Palm Desert Planning Commission f INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DATE: MARCH 26, 1987 SUBJECT: HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2 AND R-3 ZONES Background: Counci I at its February 26, 1987, meeting discussed a report on the 20 unit development at San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. Comments of council members seemed to indicate that the specific development in question, notwithstanding that it complied with all ordinance requirements, was not compatible with existing development in the area. The criticisms seemed to center as follows: i ) project is too dense Ill project is too crowded III ) project is too high IV) project is too close to the street. Development Standards:- - '- ` -- -- - - -- R-3 (3) Requirements Sanborn-Rylee Pro.iect Density 1 unit per 3000 sq. ft. of lot area I unit per 3000 sq. ft. of lot area 14.52 du/acre 14.52 du/acre Height (pitched roof) 24 ft./2 story 22 1/2 ft./2 story Front setbacks 15 ft. 15 ft. Street side yard 10 ft. 15 ft. Interior side yard 8 ft. 11 ft. Unit sizes (2 bdrm) 800 sq. ft. minimum 1264 sq. ft. Required Group Open 300 sq. ft./unit x 20 tennis 7200, pool 2400 Space 6000 total 9600 sq. ft. Parking Spaces (condo stds 2 1/2/unit 50 spaces 50 spaces •Note: On this development there is no rear yards, if there was its setback would be 10 feet. The above chart delineates that this project in all respects met or exceeded all the minimum standards and yet it is not felt to be compatible with existing development in the area. The question becomes why is this project unacceptable (not compatible) . a. If it is too dense then the means to make it less dense is quite evident. The density at one unit per 3000 square feet is 14.52 units per acre. T CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 ZONES MARCH 26, 1987 Basic R-2 zoning allows one unit per 4000 square feet or 10.89 units per acre. Would this density have made for an acceptable project? 19. If the project is too crowded then there are several possible means of making it less crowded. One would be to reduce the density. A second way would be to reduce the size of the units ( 1264 square feet, two bedroom units take up considerably more ground area than 850-9Q0 square foot two bedroom units which are more typical ) . A�Y If the site is too crowded, is it so because more open space 'is required? The ordinance presently has two means of requiring open space. First there are the required setbacks as delineated in the above chart. Secondly, for each dwelling unit 300 square feet of group usable open I space must be provided. This development has considerably more than the required 6000 square feet (300 square feet times 20 units) . It might be argued that the tennis court area could have been put to a more usable area but the owner felt that this could be an important element in the plan. If the group usable open space requirement (presently 300 square feet gerunit) were changed to require an area equal to 50 f each unit In this case aye obtained a minimum of 12,640 square feet or basically twice the present amount required. A requirement for open space tied directly to the size of the units might encourage development of smaller units . Smaller units would result in the project being less crowded although the density could be the same. C. If the project Is too high, what are the possible options? This project is two story and 22 1/2 feet in height. It is felt that we have reduced the height limit about as much as possible. In 1976 the city established a 30 foot height limit. This limit was then reduced after public hearings before planning commission and city council to 24 feet or 22 feet for flat roofs. Single story development would be limited to 18 feet. If it is the desire of council to reduce the height limit to single story ( 18 feet in height) , this could be accomplished by placing the Scenic Preservation (S.P. ) designation on appropriate R-3 zoned areas. Staff would question whether the gain of 4 1/2 feet ( i .e. difference between 18 feet and 22 1/2 feet) would be significant seeing that this is an area of flat roofed structures built with total heights in the 8-10 foot range. At the planning commission public hearing of March 3, 1987, other property owners in the same block expressed concern with having two story development next door to their single story facilities. However, they indicated in discussions with staff that by the same token they felt that 2 r CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 ZONES MARCH 26, 1967 the area should remain zoned for two stories. This of course would put the city in the position of creating a "viscous circle." If we require single story- in the area now, those property owners will be coming to our public hearings in the future when the existing developments request permission to redevelop with two story projects. In the matter of the two development proposals currently before the planning commission there is sufficient vacant land around each of the two sites to allow the two story portion of the projects to be located there and only single story adjacent to the existing developments. d. Is the project too close to the streets? The specific development fronts on three streets and in 'all three cases is setback 15 feet from the property line. Total distance from the curbline to the buildings varies due to changes in the parkway width. On Shadow Mountain the parkway (distance from curb to property line) is 10 feet. Therefore, the building setback from the curb is 25 feet while on San Luis Rey the parkway is eight feet wide and, therefore, setback from curbline is 23 feet. Staff questions whether increasing the building setback would achieve the desired affect. In looking at other two story developments in the area, specifically El Paseo Village on Shadow Mountain at San Pablo the setbacks are similar. What is different is that there is no wall on the property , line. This allows for a feeling of openness and takes away the prison-like streetscape created by six foot high block walls. Of course there is something to be said for a secure private development environment, however, this should be weighed with the aesthetic quality of the project and its impact on the neighborhood. In certain instances ( i . e. around swimming pools and spas) fences are mandatory, however, nothing says they must be solid wood, stucco or masonry. Conclusion: The development in question meets or exceeds all of our present development standards. At this point in time it is not yet completed and given a few more weeks it should be. At this time we have a series of four issues which are of concern to some people. There does not appear to be any consensus as to which of these issues or combination of issues are responsible for the problem. There would appear to be a series of possible options available to the council : i ) Reduce the zoning density from R-3 (3) to R-2 ( 14.5 units per acre to 10.9 units per acre) . 3 CITY COUNCIL i HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 ZONES MARCH 26, 1987 ii ) Limit the size of the units on both the minimum and maximum ends of qPC the range. 1*• iii ) Change the group usable open space requirement from 300 square feet per unit to require a group usable open space equal to 50% of the area of each unit. (This would serve to limit dwelling unit size. ) iv) Reduce the permitted height from two story to one story with a maximum 18 feet in height. This could be accomplished by means of adding the Scenic Preservation S.P. designation to the R-3 areas. v) Increase the required setbacks for two story projects from the P G present 15 feet to 20 or 25 feet. Q. vi Restrict the location of solid walls and/or fences. If security is a goal , then we could encourage the us of wrought iron to retain .ice the feels g ofHsh „] Vw4 If it is city unci saddress one or more of the problem areas, then they should be identified and the appropriate option(s) selected. The matter would then be referred to the planning commission for hearing and action. Following that action the matter would be returned to city council for hearing and final action. Another area of concern expressed by council was the number of garages being constructed facing a scenic corridor (Highway 74) . If it is the desire of council the ordinance could be changed to prohibit or limit the number of garage doors which face onto scenic corridors. PART 11 Also at the February 26, 1987, meeting Mrs. Henderson expressed concerns relative to the project under construction at San Luis Rey, Shadow Mountain and Larrea. As was explained to Mrs. Henderson when she visited this department on March 3, 1987, the project has frontage on three streets. The circulation pattern submitted by the applicant provided for access on both Larrea and Shadow Mountain. This provides two advantages: i ) it allows for disposal of traffic from the site from two points; ii ) it allows fire trucks an easy means of egress should they enter the site. The site is surrounded by a sidewalk on all three sides. The color of the building along with the other features of the architecture were approved by both the Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee as well as the city architectural commission. 1"VV' CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 ZONES MARCH 26, 1987 The chimneys referred to by Mrs. Henderson actually serve wood burning fire places which are provided in each unit. Hence the need for 20 chimneys. All air conditioning units are roof-mounted below the top line of the shed roofs. RAMON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY VELOPMENT/PLANNING RAD/SRS/tm 5 � INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: HONORABLE:MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1987 SUBJECT: 20 UNIT CONDO DEVELOPMENT - SAN LUIS REY AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN & LARREA (SANBORN & RYLEE APPLICANTS CASE NOS: PP 85-14, TT 20919 and 290 MF BACKGROUND: February 12, 1987, Mrs. Henderson addressed city council under the oral communications portion of the agenda. As a result of Mrs. Henderson's comments staff was directed to prepare a report on the review process used for the above noted cases. In addition, staff was directed to outline similarly zoned properties still available for development and discuss the merits of requiring that properties subject to public hearing for city review be appropriately signed to that affect. REVIEW PROCESS FOR CASES PP 85-14, TT 20919, & 290 MF May I , 1985 - Applicant received preliminary approval for 20 unit development from Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee. May 3, 1985 - Applicant submitted application for precise plan review with planning department. . .May 31 , 1985 - Notices of hearing mailed to property owners within 300 feet of subject property. June 7, 1985. - Notices of hearing published in Desert Post. June 18, 1985 - Public hearing held by planning commission - Resolution Nos. 1054 and 1055 adopted, approving project subject to conditions. t June 25, 1985 - Received preliminary architectural approval from city's architectural review commission. September 10, 1985 - received final architectural approval from city's architecturai review commission subject to two conditions: 1 . No tennis court lighting approved at this time.. 2. Staff to review buildings for adequate ,screening of roof-mounted equipment at time of building final . J PP 85-14, TT 20919 AND 290 MF CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 1967 September 11 , 1985 - Received final approval of Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee. September 10, . 1986 - Building permit obtained. AVAILABLE SIMILARLY ZONING PROPERTIES ' The property in question is zoned R-3 which permits a maximum height of 24 feet . for 'a pitched roof and 22 feet for a flat roofed two story structure. This present height limit has been in effect since September, 1985. Prior to September, 1985, the height limit had been, as established by the original zoning ordinance in December 1975, 1130 feet or two stories whichever is less." it is interesting to note that the draft zoning ordinance presented to the public in January 1975 had proposed a 40 foot height limit with a maximum of three stories. It is important to note that the Sanborn-Rylee project complies with current code in all respects (i .e. ,-. two story; 22` 1/z feet high with a pitched roof) . in . fact this project was' used as an example of a reason why 30 feet was excessive In that this was approved prior to the hearings on reducing the height . limit from 30 feet to 24 feet. The map attached delineates the areas zoned R-2 and R-3 which would permit two story development and which are still vacant. Council should be aware that the planning commission will review two 13 unit projects in this same area at its March 3, 1987 meeting. Each of these projects will contain a mix of one and two story structures up to 23 feet in height. SHOULD THE CITY EXPAND ITS PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENT Presently the city malls, by regular first class mail , notice of public hearings to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The city also places the notice of hearing, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, in the Desert Post. Finally, the agenda of planning commission is published In the Desert Post the Friday before the Tuesday meeting. Staff is familiar with cities that require signs) be posted on properties which are involved with precise plan requirements, zone changes, general` plan changes, etc. These signs were four -,feet by four feet plywood signs, black lettering on white background and required to be installed on all frontages. These signs contained prescribed information. such as: i 2 PP 85-14, TT 20919 AND 290 MF CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, '1987 PUBLIC NOTICE Be advised that this property is subject to a precise plan application under review by the City of Palm Desert. The request Is for a 20 unit residential development involving the construction of two story structures no higher than 23 feet . Additional information is available by called Community Development/Planning at City Hall at 346-0611 , please reference Case No. _ This sign would be required to be in place on the site within 10 days of the filing of the application; otherwise, staff would put the case .on hold until said sign is Installed. CONCLUSION We trust that this is the information which was requested. Should city council wish to proceed with the additional noticing requirements ( i .e. placing signs on the subject property) then council could by minute motion direct staff to hold the necessary public hearings and add these signs to the requirements for filing applications with the city. MON A. DI DIRECTOR OF COMMUNI Y DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAD/tm j 3 ORDINANCE NO. 516 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.24 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING COMMUNITY FACILITIES. RECREATION RELATED INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES, RESORT HOTELS AND UTILITY FACILITIES AS CONDITIONAL USES. CASE NO: ZOA 87-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 24th dayof September, 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider P Y an amendment to chapter 25.24 (Planned Residential Distr) of the zoning ordinance. 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 to exist to Justify the recommendation of approval . 1 . The proposed amendment will provide the city with greater control in regulating uses potentially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council 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 ZOA 87-1 Exhibit "A" is hereby approved. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance In the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this 8th day of October, 1987 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON. CRITES, SNYDER, WILSON 8 KELLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NO RIC ARD S. KELLY, Mayor A TEST a SHEILA R. GIL GAN, Cit Jerk City of Palm Desert, C fornia MINUTES. PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMIS51ON SEPTEMBER 1 , 1987 Commissioner Richards provided background information on the original rezoning. Mr. Connor suggested that since this item is involved in litigation, additional information could be provided by the attorneys, possibly in a study session. Staff noted that the public hearing did not have to be reopened. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, continuing C/Z 87- 10 to September 15 , 1987. Carried 4- 1 (Commissioner Downs voted no. ) F. Case No. ZOA 87-1 CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to zoning ordinance chapter 25.24 PR Planned Residential District limiting permitted uses to residential developments , country clubs , open space, recreation and other directly related accessory uses. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report. He explained that as a result of enquiries from medical offices, that those type of uses should be subject to a conditional use permit for compatibility. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Richards expressed concern regarding uses allowed in open space zoning. Commission felt that Exhibit A #C should be deleted. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1249, recommending approval of ZOA 87-2 to city council as amended. Carried 5-0. 9 r CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER 1 . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council AUG 1 7 1987 11 . SUBJECT: Consideration of possible ame�Omens;Lapirevea opment standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones. CITY OF PALM,, DESERT CITY COUNCIL ACTION: III . CASE N0: ZOA 87-1. � APPROVED DENIED RECEIVED 0:13�2 V. DATE: August 13, 1987 MEETING DAZE — — - Vl . CONTENTS: AXES: _ NOES: --- A. Staff Recommendation. ABSENT: __ -- B. Discussion. ABSTAIN: C. Planning Commission MinutppjijTvofyviLng:Ca No—ZOA-89mi . — D. City Council Report dat�clr�e�brtda Ft9 ry�?6. D?•with. City ' E. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 5, 19B7 and Junee 9, s 19 7.f. F. Related maps and/or exhibits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the city council receive the report and that no further action be taken. B. DISCUSSION: During the early part of 1987 there was considerable comment received on a two story development under construction at San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. The February 26, 1987 report (copy attached) outlined the process that this particular development went through and recommended that in addition to the usual noticing requirements that applicants be required to install public notice signs on the property. This requirement became effective May 1 , 1987 and has been positively received by the public. The direction from city council on February 26, 1987 was for staff to conduct a study and recommend changes to the zoning ordinance to assure compatibility of new developments with existing neighborhoods. May 5, 1987 staff submitted a report to planning commission outlining a series of six options available and recommending implementation of 3 of the options. These matters are fully delineated on page 5 of the May 5, 1987 staff report to planning commission. Commission heard from two people in opposition to this ordinance amendment and decided to continue the matter. Commission at that time took the position that rather than amend some of the standards applicable to the R-2 and R-3 zones it would like to consider down zoning R-3 property to R-2. Staff, at that time, CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ZOA 87-1 AUGUST 13, 1987 was instructed to conduct a survey of the R-3 zoned properties to determine how much was available for development. The staff report of June 16, 1987 indicated that on the south side of Highway III there are 11 vacant R-3 zoned lots of which only eight are available for development. The other three are used for parking purposes by adjacent properties. The report also indicated that three pending R-3 projects which had been held up for several months had been approved by the city council May 14, 1987. The minutes of the June 16, 1987 planning commission meeting (copy attached) indicate that considering that there were only eight developable lots remaining on the south side of the highway and considering the landmark Supreme Court decision regarding property owner's rights, the commission felt this issue should be terminated. Commission, on a 4-0 vote directed that the matter be ended and that a report be submitted to the city council outlining the decision and the reasons pertaining thereto. Prepared by: r Reviewed and Approved by: /tm 6�0 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 1987 i j V1 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 67-7 - DAVE JENKINS, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver assigning two feet along southerly property line. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0. VI1 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No.(ZOA 87lI_�-) CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of possible amendments to some of the development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report. He noted that on May 14, 1987, city council approved some pending R-3 lots. Mr. Smith indicated that if commission still wished to consider down-zoning, staff would send notices to all R-3 residences. Otherwise, staff would prepare a report for city council . Commissioner Richards noted that there had been a recent Supreme Court landmark decision effecting rights of property owners and felt that with only eight lots In the city zoned R-3 this issue should be ended. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Chairman Erwood concurred with Commission Richards apd staff. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commission Richards, directing staff to prepare a report for city council outlining commission's decision for no action. Carried 4-0. 2 f �1 ! I, k CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT �I TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 16. 1987 CASE NO: ZOA 87-1 REQUEST: Consideration of possible amendments to some of the development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert 1. BACKGROUND: This matter was before Planning Commission at its May 5. 1987 meeting when it was continued to allow staff to further review the extent of the undeveloped R-3 land. The consensus of Commission seemed to be that if there was a significant amount of R-3 zoned property remaining to be developed then it could be down-zoned to R-2 and give the ultimate developer of the property the opportunity to request an up-zoning to R-3 at time of precise plan review. Other items discussed are delineated in the minutes of May 5. 1987, (copy attached). 11. DISCUSSION: Staff have conducted a survev of the R-3 zoned property in the City. On the south side of Highway III there are 11 undeveloped R-3 properties (see the attached maps) . Three of the 11 lots are parking lots serving other projects. On the north side of Highway III there are 12 vacant R-3 parcels. In both areas there are additional older. under utilized sites which could be reasonably expected to be improved at some point in the future. Of course. there is also the possibility that many of these under utilized lots may remain as such for many years. Staff as a result of the following factors decided to return the matter to Plannina Commission without renoticing the public hearing and notifying all the R-3 zoned property in the Citv: 1 . Given that the staff survey of R-3 zoned lots revealed that only 8 vacant R-3 lots remain on the south side of the highway, we felt it Prudent to return this information to the Commission to discuss further the alternatives. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT - JUNE 16. 1987 2. The R-3 property on the north side of the highway was established only two years aao. We are now seeing building activity and improvement in an area that had been stagnant for years. 3. May 14. 1987 City Council approved the 3 pending R-3 projects which had been held up for several months. Ail three projects had some 2 story elements and were at the upper end of the R-3 density range. Not wishing to stir up a hornets nest, perhaps unnecessarily, we did not notify the owner of R-3 zoned properties. if it is still the desire of Planning Commission to down-zone the R-3 property to R-29 given this new Information. then staff will set the matter for hearing and notify R -3 property owners as well as property owners within 300 feet. The other issue discussed by Commission related to garages facing scenic corridors. There were 2 schools of thought. One that from an aesthetic point of view garages should not be permitted to face onto "scenic corridors", while the other point of view was that since Highway 74 was a "scenic corridor" then the garages offered a much needed noise buffer. Staff continues to recommend that this issue should be handled by the Architectural Commission on a case by case basis. CONCLUSION The staff recommendation of May 5. 1987 had been to refine some of the development standards in the R-3 zone. Commission took the position that It wishes to consider taking the more drastic action of down-zoning the R-3 property. Given the limited affect. a down-zoning would have ( i .e. : only 8 remaining vacant lots on the south side of Highway 111 ) staff feels that the appropriate course of action is to take no action relative to amending the zoning ordinance. Commission could direct staff to prepare a report for City Council outlining the extent of the review undertaken by Commission and the basis for deciding that no action is necessary. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved byPy /hs 2 I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY S, 1987 for the PR-7 zoned property located within Shadow Mountain Resort. Mr. Diaz explained that there was an irregularity on the mailing list provided to the applicant by the title company which would require a renotice of the case and recommended a continuance to June 2, 1987. Chairman Erwood asked counsel if the public hearing needed to be opened and Mr. Erwin stated no. I Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, continuing TT 22446 and TT22447.. to June 2, 1987. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Whitlock abstained) . F. Case No. ZOA 87-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of possible amendments to some of the development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones. ' Mr. Smith explained that the intent was to generate discussion to determine what should be developed in the R-2 and R-3 zones in terms of setbacks, height, garage doors facing the scenic corridors, density, and unit size and followed up with suggestions for mitigating these concerns. Commissioner Downs felt that the rules were overdone already and felt that it would make projects unfeasible to build. Chairman Erwood noted that staff was carrying out the wishes of council and Indicated that economic feasibility was not a factor. Mr. Diaz noted that there was a notable lack people present to speak regarding this Issue and indicated that staff was proposing an increase in open space and a elimination of a corridor. Commissioner Richards felt that the R-3 zone was the problem. Commissioner Downs suggested down zoning the property and then the developer could request a higher density. Commissioner Richards also noted that smaller, new projects would not be able to bring down housing costs. Commissioner Whitlock asked about the second part of the recommendation relating to garages facing the street. Commissioner 8 x MINUTES + PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1987 Richards noted that one project on Highway 74 with garages facing the street was approved that way to offer a noise buffer. Mr. Diaz stated that property owners of R-3 lots should be contacted and the hearing continued to June 16. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. KEN STENDELL noted that people cited the Sanborn 8 Rylee project as part of this problem and noted that none of the people who spoke against it were present. He agreed with comments by Commissioner Downs relating to project costs, which keep rising. He stated that he saw the projects as being good for the community. He concurred with the additional criteria proposed by staff, noting that his project met most of them, and agreed that the corridor effect should be eliminated. MRS. VONNA WESTFALL expressed approval of staff's findings and agreed with comments made by Mr. Stendell . She also spoke regarding the hotel business and the smaller hotels being hurt by the newer, larger hotels. She felt that some of the older ' hotels/motels will eventually have to be torn down or renovated, and stated that they were looking to their initial investment and sees these projects as an asset to the city. Commission instructed staff to renotice the public hearing and notify all R-3 property owners in the city. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, continuing ZOA 87- 1 to June 16, 1987. Carried 5-0. [X. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMENTS None. 9 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I . TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 5. 1987 CASE NO: ZOA 87-1 REQUEST: Consideration of possible amendments to some of the development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I . BACKGROM: Throughout January and February 1987 city council received considerable comment concerning the 20 unit apartment project under construction at San Luis Rey. Larrea and Shadow Mountain. As a result staff prepared a report. dated February 26. 1987. copy attached. Council at its' February 26. 1987 meeting discussed the report on the 20 unit development at San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. Comments of council members seemed to indicate that the specific development in question, notwithstanding that it complied with all ordinance requirements, was not compatible with existing development in the area. The criticisms seemed to center as follows: i a) project is too dense b) project is too crowed c) project is too high d) project is too close to the street The purpose of this report then is to generate discussion on recent two story projects which have been built. What is wrong with them? How can their deficiencies be corrected in future projects? Do our existing development standards need to be revised? ll. DISCUSSION: We will begin with an analysis of the Sanborn-Rylee apartment project. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS R-3 (3) Requirements Sanborn-Rylee Project Density I unit/3000 sf of lot area I unit/3M sf of lot area ( 14.52 du/acre) ( 14.52 du/acre) Height (pitched roof) 24 ft/2 story 22-1/2 ft/2 story Front setbacks 15 feet 15 feet ti ZOA 87-1 STAFF REPORT Street Side Yard 10 feet 15 feet interior Side Yard 8 feet 11 feet Unit Sizes (2 bdrm) 800 sq. ft. minimum 1264 sq. ft. Required Group Open Space 300 sf/unit X 20 = 6000 tennis 7200, pool 2400 total 9600 sq. ft. Parking Spaces (condo 50 spaces standards 2-1/2/unit 50 spaces NOTE : On this development there is no rear yard. if there was its' setback would be 10 feet. The above chart delineates that this project in all respects met or exceeded all the minimum standards and yet it is not felt to be compatible with existing development in the area. The question becomes "why is this project unacceptable" (not compatible) . a. If it is too dense then the means to make it less dense is quite evident. The density at one unit per 3000 square feet. is 14.52 units per acre. Basic R-2 zoning a 1 l ows one unit per 4000 square feet or 10.89 units per acre. Would this density have made for an acceptable project? en there are ssible b if the project is too crowded of making It less crowded. One would be to reduce several the density. A second way would be to reduce the size of the units ( 1264 square feet, two bedroom units take up considerably more ground area than 850-900 square foot two bedroom units which are more typical ) . If the site is too crowded, is it so because more open space Is required? the ordinance presently has two means of requiring open space. First there are the required setbacks as delineated In the above chart. Secondly, for each dwelling unit 300 square feet of group usable open space must be provided. This development has considerably more than the required 6000 square feet (300 square feet times 20 units) . it might be argued that the tennis court area could have been put to a more usable area but the owner felt that this could be an important element In the plan. If the group usable open space requirement (presently 300 square feet per unit) were changed to require an area equal to 50% of the area of each unit then in this case we would have obtained a minimum of 12,640 square feet or basically twice the present amount required. A requirement for open space tied directly to the size of the units might encourage development of smaller units. Smaller units would result In the project being less crowded although the density could be the same. 2 2DA 87-1 STAFF REPORT P C. If the project is too high, what are the possible options? This Project is two story and 22-1/2 feet in height. It is felt that we have reduced the height limit about as much as possible, in 1976 the city established a 30 foot height limit. This limit was then reduced after public hearings before planning commission and city council to 24 feet or 22 feet for fiat roofs . Single story development would be limited to 18 feet. If it is the desire of the city to reduce the height limit to single story ( 18 feet in height) , this could be accomplished by placing the Scenic Preservation (S.P. ) designation on appropriate R-2 and R-3 zoned areas. Staff would question whether the gain of 4-1/2 feet ( le: difference between 18 feet and 22-1/2 feet) would be significant seeing that this is an area of flat roofed structures built with total heights in the 8-10 foot range. At the planning commission public hearing of March 3, 1987 other property owners in the same block expressed concern with having two story development next door to their single story facilities. However, they indicated in discussions with staff that by the same token they felt that the area should remain zoned for two stories. This of course would put the city in the position of creating a "viscous circle". if we required single story in the area now, those property owners will be coming to our public hearings in the future when the existing developments request permission to redevelop with two story projects. in the matter of two recent development proposals before the planning commission there was sufficient vacant land around each of the two sites to allow the two story portion of the projects to be located adjacent to vacant land and only single story adjacent to the existing developments. d. Is the project too close to the streets? The specific development fronts on three streets and in all three cases Is setback 15 feet from the property line. Total distance from the curb line to the buildings varies due to changes in the parkway width. On Shadow Mountain the parkway (distance from curb to property line) is 10 feet. Therefore, the building setback from the curb is 25 feet while on San Luis Rey the parkway is eight feet wide and, therefore. setback from curb line is 23 feet. Staff questions whether increasing the building setback would achieve the desired affect. In looking at other two story developments in the area. specifically El Paseo Village on Shadow Mountain at San Pablo the setbacks are similar. What is different 19 that there i s no wa 1 I on the property I i ne. This allows for a 3 2DA 87-1 STAFF REPORT feeling of openness and takes away the prison-like streetscape created by 51x foot high block walls. Of course there is something to be said for a secure private develop- ment environment, however, this should be weighed with the aesthetic quality of the project and its impact on the neighborhood. in certain instances Ile: around swimming pools and spas) fences are mandatory, however, nothing says they must be solid wood, stucco or masonry. CONCLUSION The development in question meets or exceeds all of our present development standards. At this time we have a series of four issues which are of concern to some people. There does not appear to be any consensus as to which of these issues or combination of Issues are responsible for the problem. There would appear to be a series of possible options available to the city. 1) Reduce the zoning density from R-3 (3) to R-2 ( 14.5 units per acre to 10.9 units per acre) . 2) Limit the size of the units on both the minimum and maximum ends of the range. 3) Change the group usable open space requirement from 300 square feet per unit to require a group usable open space equal to 50% of the area of each unit. This would serve to limit dwelling unit size. 4) Reduce the permitted height from two story to one story with a maximum 18 feet in height. This could be accomplished by means of adding the Scenic Preservation designation to the R-3 areas. 5) Increase the required setbacks for two story projects from the present 15 feet to 20 or 25 feet. 6) Restrict the location of solid walls and/or fences. If security Is a goal , then we could encourage the use of wrought iron to .retain the feeling of openness. Another area of concern expressed by council was the number of garages being constructed facing a scenic corridor (Highway 74) . If it is the desire of the city the ordinance could be changed to prohibit or limit the number of garage doors which face onto scenic corridors. 4 l TAFF REPORT Z1DA 87 1 S s There may be other areas of concern which commission may wish to discuss and still other may be brought up by the public. Ill. RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to prepare an ordinance amendment for presentation at the next meeting which would: 1 . Change .the group usable open space requirement in the R-2 and R-3 zones to be 50% of the area of each unit with a minimum of 300 square feet per unit provided. That the planning commission recommend to city council that the architectural commission be directed to formulate as a policy of that commission the following items: 1 . That the number of garage doors facing a designated scenic corridor be restricted to as few as are absolutely necessary. i 2. That walls and fences on property lines be designed in a manner to prevent monotony and boredom by means of undulation of walls and a Intermixing of wail materials ( le: masonry and wrought iron) . Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by/ /dlg II p J� � 5 F INTEROFFICE MEMORAN" City of Palm Desert TOs HONORABLE MAYOR AND CiTY COUNCIL FRONs DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DATE: FEBRUARY 26. 1987 SUBJECT: 20 UNIT CONDO DEVELOPMENT - SAN LUiS REY AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN 8 LARREA (SANBORN 8 RYLEE APPLICANTS CASE NOSt PP 85-14, TT 20919 and 290 MF BACKf>ROINIDs February 12, 1987, Mrs. Henderson addressed city council under the oral communt,cations portion of the agenda. As a result of Mrs. Henderson's comments staff was directed to prepare a report on the review process used for the above noted cases. in addition, staff was directed to outline similarly zoned properties still available for development and discuss the merits of requiring that properties subject to public hearing for city review be appropriately signed to that affect. REVIEW PROCESS FOR CASES PP 85-14 TT 20919. i 290 MF May 1, 1985 - Applicant received preliminary approval for 20 unit development from Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee. May 3, 1985 - Applicant submitted application for precise plan review with planning department. May 31 , 1985 - Notices of hearing mailed to property owners within 300 feet of subject property. June 7, 1985 - Notices of hearing published in Desert Post. June 18, 1985 - Public hearing held by planning commission - Resolution Nos. 1054 and 1055 adopted, approving project subject to conditions. June 25, 1985 - Received preliminary architectural approval from city's architectural review commission. September 10, 1985 - received final architectural approval from city's architectural review commission subject to two conditions: 1. No. tennis court lighting approved at this time. 2. Staff to review buildingf fof Adeduat'e S&#; en`M4 of roof-mounted equipment at time of building final.: —.._.._....__.. ,riginal on Filer)wi h C:itl Clerk' s Office PP 85-14, TT 20919 AND 290 CiTY COUNCIL s FEBRUARY 269 1987 September 11 , 1985 - Received final approval of Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Commtttee. September 10. 1986 - Building permit obtained. AVAILABLE SIMILARLY ZONING PROPERTIES The property in question is zoned R-3 which permits a maximum height of 24 feet for a pitched roof and 22 feet for a flat roofed two story structure. This present height limit has been In effect since September, 1985. Prior to ( i September. 1985, the height limit had been, as established by the original zoning ordinance In December 1975, 1130 feet or two stories whichever is less." It is Interesting to note that the draft zoning ordinance presented to the public in January 1975 had proposed a 40 foot height limit with a maximum of three stories. It Is important to note that the Sanborn-Rylee project complies with current code in all respects ( I .e. : two story, 22 1/2 feet high with a pitched roof). in fact this project was used as an example of a reason why 30 feet was excessive In that this was approved prior to the hearings on reducing the height limit from 30 feet to 24 feet. The map attached delineates the areas zoned R-2 and R-3 which would permit two story development and which are still vacant. Council should be aware that the planning commission will review two 13 unit projects in this same area at its March 3. 1987 meeting. Each of these projects will contain a mix of one and two story structures up to 23 feet in height. SmOe D THE CITY EXPAND ITS PUBLIC NOTICING REOUIREMENT Presently the city malls, by regular first class mail , notice of public hearings to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The city also places the notice of hearing, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, In the Desert Post. Finally, the agenda of planning commission is published in the Desert Post the Friday before the Tuesday meeting. Staff is familiar with cities that require sign(s) be posted on properties which are involved with precise plan requirements, zone changes, general plan changes, etc. These signs were four feet by four feet plywood signs, black lettering on white background and required to be installed on all frontages. These signs contained prescribed information such as: 2 l �i PP 85-14. TT 20919 AND 29P ' CITY CotKIL FEBVJW 26. 1987 PUBLIC NOTICE Be advised that this property is subject to a precise plan application under review by then City Of f the construction m Desert. hofrequest is for a two story structures unit no higher ttial han development 9 23 feet . Additional information is available by called Community Development/Planning at City Hall at 346-0611 , please reference Case No. This sign would be required to be in place on the site within 10 days of the filing of the application; otherwise, staff would put the case on hold until said sign is installed. OONCLUSION We trust that this Is the information which was requested. Should city council wish to proceed with the additional noticing requirements (i .e. placing signs on the subject property) then council could by minute motion direct staff to hold the necessary public hearings and add these signs to the requirements for filing applications with the city. p I MON A. DI DIRECTOR OF COMMUNE Y DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAD/tm 3 I ^ fY 0.LiCLL mag .or v• 1 - ' _ cz _a i �. . IC M 11 � u — _ e u u 1 a CL L' _ g , r10 o • s loa N N s -O t0 G N .. CL d .a II ae •• O O ? .T..�•IA _ v.r rj• fJl '1 ui 00 o _ Oo Oo O i . o g O - N N t: N I .I O N N U mo I •v.v. �i U 'L ° �/ — I r I l ) Y U by. r crI I 1•I ).. u � . 'ems ' OOd,p r (40' o 01. r.s T I r' G i� S flzr r'b Op'pa..I ,N 01.3 All t _ - I -LT i Vr i MH IN d. N t N4 0 a V N •1 A N O ` O — • •.A y A IS I"3, 0 � R S . ^[lln j Rt — O.P. G. P, L � Ol p eI f m � m rn •4i 1�1 fn91Nr — n` " A iA N JV A ' m o_ xv. . - - — Y I A.l S z nlJr f Y 1• .I .�.. .. - 0 ✓� [ n T . • • yr 1 T � � � T •; .� 1. jA1 Y ri is .. — ! •unave o ell . 1 1 I 1 •.C• O •x.0• Ilene ! I 1 ,,;,1 S,GC1:' 7a7�1�p•91..:U�'r:'j,4_1 . c 10fffllllll I _ 1 FEBRUARY 26, 1987 MUTES • • • r .GULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEEtIN • Upon motion by Snyder , second by Benson * this item was March 12 , 1987 , by unanimous vote of the ontinued to the meeting of ity Council - X. NEW BUSINESS OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY AREA TRANSPORTATION A. SYNOPS STUDY . report and study. noting Mr . Folkers reviewed the staff that since the traffic counts were done In 198A . traffic He offered to answer had increased substantially - Questions . sked why the "C" standard had been Councilman Crites a used in the study and how the standards were determined . Its Mayor Kelly explained that each communising°themld �etThis own committee dhad sset a standard o and conduct f "�„study No action was required or taken by the City Council . X1 . CONTINUED BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING Y NOELL ROBINSON A � O CT BUSH, AND TREE ORDINANCE MODIFICATION HEIGHTS AND ALLOWABLE THICKNESS OF BUSHED AREAS . Mr . Diazs reviewed ee a ne d to astaffmend theport and stated that staff did no he r C unc i maby WSnyder a dv receive f carried by unanimous mous vote I le tof they C I ty Motion was Council . DEVELOPMENT - APPLICANTS) . B, $RADON MON OUNTAIN S1 LARREAO OR LEESAN LU15 REY AN Mr . Diaz reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any Questions . 7 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CiTY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26. 1987 Councll Questions :_ II Bensons How many units in R- 2 and R-3 per, :acre? Mr. 1 Diaz responded that It depended on the number In parentheses as well as the size of the lots . Snyder .- Was there a density bonus for this project? How large Is the project? Mr . Diaz responded that there was no density bonus and that there were 20 units . Council Comments : Crltess One thing that should not get by again is the Idea of posting public slgnage on developments to allow public to know that something is happening. The signs . should be posted for a 14-day period. Mr . Diaz stated that staff could begin to administratively implement this type of slgnage while the policy changes were to process . Snyder : We need to somehow work the word "compatible" into approvals and get staff , Council , and Planning Commission to look at projects to assure compatibility with surrounding neighborhood . Crites : At the time the Planning Commission approved the project . It met every setback , was within the density and height limits , was approved by the property owners ' association , and no one came forward to protest . The Planning Commission had no basis to deny it . Bensons Agreed that there should be a way to assure compatibility. The height of this project Is not as bad as the density• Kellys The project Is too close to the road . It was approved because of the side yard setbacks : however , they actually front the street . Mr . Diaz stated that perhaps staff could look into this concern as well as the concerns of Mrs . Marian Henderson . Staff could do a study to determine how a single family residential feeling could be achieved with setbacks In a multiple residential density area . He added that the report could be ready In four to six weeks . Upon question 8 , Il MUTES FEBRUARY 26, 1987 G.LAR PAL" DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • • by Councllmember Benson , he said the two projects curfently going to the Planning Commission would be continued until the study was completed . I l Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion , direct staff to )nduct a study and recommend changes in the City' s code required to & sure compatibility of new development with existing eighb rh ods . >tion was ' seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous the iunci i . Mayor Kelly invited comments from Mrs . Henderson. MRS. MARIAN HENDERSON , 73-597 Pinyon Street, Palm Desert, stated she felt the issue of compatibility had been a part of the Clty' s code since the beginning and that if a structure was being built that was completely opposite from what was already there , it was not allowed. She felt that the development at San Luls Rey and Shadow Mountain & Larrea should have only one exit, and that should be onto Shadow Mountain, not Larrea. She stated she had looked at the original plans , which showed the development to have a sidewalk and that it was supposed to be flat . She also thought the trees were to start at ground level ; now they are on a large bank , which makes the project look even larger . She objected to the whiteness of the building and felt something should be done to make it darker . She also objected to what looked like fireplaces . She said they were actually only exhausts for the air conditioners , and she asked why they were permitted and why there were so many of them. Councllmember Benson moved to . by Minute Motion: 1 ) Direct taff to look Into the concerns expressed by Mrs . Henderson relative to Idewalks , the exits from the project , and the color of the buildings ; Ind 2 ) Direct staff to Include In Its report and recommendation the iosting of signs for a 14-day period in addition to mailing of notices . lotion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous. vote of the :ounc I 1 . Mr . Diaz stated that staff would immediately begin the practice of posting signs for a 14-day period in addition to mailing notices . 9 ,' Y N 20 . ° a OM. , °'p00 , fi9N ' tb oro ro O ZcTjj O p 00 rpF 'a W � N �. O O W y I . x w Of Ii'••ty k:j Li i •1N d' I O t. a� a W . Ty�X • � `tl � � s• 9 � \ . .b rb N• N W P � �. '. , • � R D• 5.0. r I • JMu W • •� � - 3 '• ,•[• •nee:" :•o [s. ® : A IL "ar . � i _ , v , r _ w..i• vt E W w 0 A x i _ O.P. V.► B •� ro n 61 .._If'I1 1f'1t Y.i Z �_ •y _ E m L� LJ I i p O _ 1,"I /A H x5 40 •v(xY( _ C Q � �. .. ^ - _ U m m } r( ,,. p u ( N i u � _ 111,0 T71 •Y(xY( � � CD o V ) W a1` > -_ _ t h ' - i- r - - x�J ... � ,:NY- _ ••�� 9�• it ip .;u N _ f113' [ear — c • 1 i i o :0 �p _ • N — — 0a NyD $ _ •x.a• >-o•" Oo[[r c•e,a. eaeo x � 1 . . A -___~� (w' ',� ^fro::N. ,'•Aii: < �� -M MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 1987 V1 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 87-7 - DAVE JENKINS, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver assigning two feet along southerly property line. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0. Vil . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No.L_ZOA 87-1 7 CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant � Request for consideration of possible amendments to some of the development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report. He noted that on May 14, 1987, city council approved some pending R-3 lots. Mr. Smith indicated that if commission still wished to consider down-zoning, staff would send notices to all R-3 residences. Otherwise, staff would prepare a report for city council . Commissioner Richards noted that there had been a recent Supreme Court landmark decision effecting rights of property owners and felt that with only eight lots in the city zoned R-3 this issue should be ended. Chairman Erwood opened the pb lir testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Chairman Erwood concurred with Commission Richards and staff. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commission Richards, directing staff to prepare a report for city council outlining commission's decision for no action. Carried 4-0. 2 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 1987 B. Case No. PP 87-7 - LAUREL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Applicant Request for reconsideration of a site plan, specifically circulation, on a 21 ,580 square foot retail building in the general commercial zone on the south side of Highway III at the city's western boundary. Ms. Sass reviewed the background and explained that on April 23, 1987, city council approved the plan with only the south curb cut. Staff felt that with the addition of a deceleration/acceleration lane the concerns would be mitigated. Applicant will present this request to the city council for review. Also, staff added a condition that a minimum of four feet of landscaping from the edge of the sidewalk to pavement along Highway III be provided. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHARLES MARTIN stated that enough landscaping would be provided to hide vehicles, plus they have an additional two feet. Commissioner Whitlock asked how many feet of landscaping was required. Mr. Diaz replied four feet minimum and they would have three or four after that. Commissioner Ladlow asked about the height of the landscaping. Mr. Martin replied that they did not have enough room for a berm and indicated that by code landscaping could be no higher than 30 inches. Commissioner Richards felt that hiding cars along Highway III was not a major concern. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting the findings presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting Amended Planning Commission Resolution No. 1206. Carried 4-0. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY S, ;987 for the PR-7 zoned property located within Shadow Mountain Resort. Mr. Diaz explained that there was an irregularity on the mailing list provided to the applicant by the title company which would require a renotice of the case and recommended a continuance to June 2, 1987. Chairman Erwood asked counsel if the public hearing needed to be opened and Mr. Erwin stated no. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlnw, continuing TT 22446 and TT22447 to June 2, 1987. Carrier) 4-0-1 (Commissioner Whitlock abstained) . F. Case No, Z0�7 1�— CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of possible amendments to some of the development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones. Mr. Smith explained that the intent was to generate discussion to determine what should be developed in the R-2 and R-3 zones in terms of setbacks , height , garage doors facing the scenic corridors , density, and unit size and followed up with suggestions for mitigating these concerns. Commissioner Downs felt that the rules were overdone already and felt that it would make projects unfeasible to build. Chairman Erwood noted that staff was carrying out the wishes of council and indicated that economic feasibility was not a factor. Mr. Diaz noted that there was a notable lack people present to speak regarding this issue and indicated that staff was proposing an increase in open space and a elimination of a corridor . Commissioner Richards felt that the R-3 zone was the problem. Commissioner Downs suggested down zoning the property and then the developer could request a higher density. Commissioner Richards also noted that smaller, new projects would not be able to tiring down housing costs. Commissioner Whitlock asked about the second part of the recommendation relating to garages facing the street. Commissioner 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION fMAY 5, 1987 1. Richards noted that one project on Highway 74 with garages facing the street was approved that way to offer a noise buffer. Mr. Diaz stated that property owners of R-3 lots should tie contacted ,nnd the hearing continued to June 16. Chairman Erwood opened the public, testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. KEN STENDELL noted that people cited the Sanhorn & Rylee project as part of this problem and noted that none of the people who spoke against it were present . He agreed with comments by Commissioner Downs relating to project costs, which keep rising. He stated that he saw the projects as being good for the community. He concurred with the additional criteria proposed by staff, noting that his project met most of them, and agreed that the corridor effect should be eliminated. MRS. VONNA WESTFALL expressed approval of staff's finding=, and agreed with comments made by Mr. Stendpll . She also spoke regarding the hotel business and the smaller hotels being hurt by the newer, larger hotels. She felt that some of the older hotels/motels will eventually have to be torn down or renovated, and stated that they were looking to their initial investment and sees these projects as an asset to the city. Commission instructed staff to renotice the public hearing and notify all R-3 property owners in the city. Action: Moved by Commissioner' Richards, seconded by Commissioner Whitlo'-k, continuing ZOA 87- 1 to June 16, 1981 . Carried -0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMENTS None. 9 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 5, 1987 CASE NO: ZOA 87-1 REQUEST: Consideration of possible amendments to some of the development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: Throughout January and February 1987 city council received considerable comment concerning the 20 unit apartment project under construction at San Luis Rey, Larrea and Shadow Mountain. As a result staff prepared a report, dated February 26, 1987, copy attached. Council at its' February 26, 1987 meeting discussed the report on the 20 unit development at San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. Comments of council members seemed to indicate that the specific development in question , notwithstanding that it complied with all ordinance requirements, was not compatible with existing development in the area. The criticisms seemed to center as follows: a) project is too dense b) project is too crowed c) project is too high d) project is too close to the street The purpose of this report then is to generate discussion on recent two story projects which have been built. What is wrong with them? How can their deficiencies be corrected in future projects? Do our existing development standards need to be revised? I1. DISCUSSION: We will begin with an analysis of the Sanborn-Rylee apartment project. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS R-3 (3) Requirements Sanborn-Rylee Project Density 1 unit/3000 sf of lot area 1 unit/3M sf of lot area ( 14.52 du/acre) ( 14.52 du/acre) Height (pitched roof) 24 ft/2 story 22-1/2 ft/2 story Front setbacks 15 feet 15 feet , ZOA 87-1 STAFF REPORT Street Side Yard 10 feet 15 feet Interior Side Yard 8 feet 11 feet Unit Sizes (2 bdrm) 800 sq. ft. minimum 1264 sq. ft. Required Group Open Space 300 sf/unit X 20 = 6000 tennis 7200, pool 2400 total 9600 sq. ft. Parking Spaces (condo standards 2-1/2/unit 50 spaces 50 spaces NOTE: On this development there is no rear yard, if there was its' setback would be 10 feet. The above chart delineates that this project in all respects met or exceeded all the minimum standards and yet it is not felt to be compatible with existing development in the area. The question becomes "why is this project unacceptable" (not compatible) . a. If it is too dense then the means to make it less dense is quite evident. The density at one unit per 3000 square feet is 14.52 units per acre. Basic R-2 zoning allows one unit per 4000 square feet or 10.89 units per acre. Would this density have made for an acceptable project? b. If the project is too crowded then there are several possible means of making it less crowded. One would be to reduce the density. A second way wou 1 d be to reduce the size of the units ( 1264 square feet, two bedroom units take up considerably more ground area than 650-900 square foot two bedroom units which are more typical ) . If the site is too crowded, is it so because more open space is required? the ordinance presently has two means of requiring open space. First there are the required setbacks as delineated in the above chart. Secondly, for each dwelling unit 300 square feet of group usable open space must be provided. This development has considerably more than the required 6000 square feet (300 square feet times 20 units) . It might be argued that the tennis court area could have been put to a more usable area but the owner felt that this could be an important element in the plan. If the group usable open space requirement (presently 300 square feet per unit) were changed to require an area equal to 50% of the area of each unit then in this case we would have obtained a minimum of 12,640 square feet or basically twice the present amount required. A requirement for open space tied directly to the size of the units might encourage development of smaller units. Smaller units would result in the project being less crowded although the density could be the same. 2 ZOA 87-1 STAFF REPORT C. If the project Is too high, what are the possible options? This project is two story and 22-1/2 feet in height. It is felt that we have reduced the height limit about as much as possible. In 1976 the city established a 30 foot height limit. This 1 imit was then reduced after public hearings before planning commission and city council to 24 feet or 22 feet for flat roofs. Single story development would be limited to 18 feet. If it Is the desire of the city to reduce the height limit to single story (18 feet in height) , this could be accomplished by placing the Scenic Preservation (S.P. ) designation on appropriate R-2 and R-3 zoned areas. Staff would question whether the gain of 4-1/2 feet ( le: difference between IB feet and 22-1/2 feet) would be significant seeing that this is an area of flat roofed structures built with total heights in the 8-10 foot range. At the planning commission public hearing of March 3, 1987 other property owners in the same block expressed concern with having two story development next door to their single story facilities. However, they indicated in discussions with staff that by the same token they felt that the area should remain zoned for two stories. This of course would put the city in the position of creating a "viscous circle". If we required single story in the area now, those property owners will be coming to our public hearings in the future when the existing developments request permission to redevelop with two story projects. In the matter of two recent development proposals before the planning commission there was sufficient vacant land around each of the two sites to allow the two story portion of the projects to be located adjacent to vacant land and only single story adjacent to the existing developments. d. Is the project too close to the streets? The specific development fronts on three streets and in all three cases is setback 15 feet from the property line. Total distance from the curb line to the buildings varies due to changes in the parkway width. On Shadow Mountain the parkway (distance from curb to property line) is 10 feet. Therefore, the building setback from the curb is 25 feet while on San Luis Rey the parkway is eight feet wide and, therefore, setback from curb line is 23 feet. Staff questions whether increasing the building setback would achieve the desired affect. In looking at other two story developments in the area, specifically El Paseo Village on Shadow Mountain at San Pablo the setbacks are similar. What is different is that there is no wall on the property line. This allows for a 3 ZOA 87-1 STAFF REPORT feeling of openness and takes away the prison-like streetscape created by six foot high block walls. Of course there is something to be said for a secure private develop- ment environment, however, this should be weighed with the aesthetic quality of the project and its impact on the neighborhood. In certain instances (ie: around swimming pools and spas) fences are mandatory, however, nothing says they must be solid wood, stucco or masonry. CONCLUSION The development in question meets or exceeds all of our present development standards. At this time we have a series of four issues which are of concern to some people. There does not appear to be any consensus as to which of these issues or combination of issues are responsible for the problem. There would appear to be a series of possible options available to the city. 1 ) Reduce the zoning density from R-3 (3) to R-2 ( 14.5 units per acre to 10.9 units per acre) . 2) Limit the size of the units on both the minimum and maximum ends of the range. 3) Change the group usable open space requirement from 300 square feet per unit to require a group usable open space equal to 50% of the area of each unit. This would serve to limit dwelling unit size. 4) Reduce the permitted height from two story to one story with a maximum 18 feet in height. This could be accomplished by means of adding the Scenic Preservation designation to the R-3 areas. 5) Increase the required setbacks for two story projects from the present 15 feet to 20 or 25 feet. 6) Restrict the location of solid walls and/or fences. If security is a goal , then we could encourage the use of wrought iron to retain the feeling of openness. Another area of concern expressed by council was the number of garages being constructed facing a scenic corridor (Highway 74) . If it is the desire of the city the ordinance could be changed to prohibit or limit the number of garage doors which face onto scenic corridors. 4 ZOA 87-1 STAFF REPORT There may be other areas of concern which commission may wish to discuss and still other may be brought up by the public. III. RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to prepare an ordinance amendment for presentation at the next meeting which would: 1 . Change the group usable open space requirement in the R-2 and R-3 zones to be 50% of the area of each unit with a minimum of 300 square feet per unit provided. That the planning commission recommend to city council that the architectural commission be directed to formulate as a policy of that commission the following items: 1 . That the number of garage doors facing a designated scenic corridor be restricted to as few as are absolutely necessary. 2. That walls and fences on property lines be designed in a manner to prevent monotony and boredom by means of undulation of walls and intermixing of wall materials ( ie: masonry and wrought iron) . Prepared by e Reviewed and Approved by /dig 5 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1987 SUBJECT: 20 UNIT CONDO DEVELOPMENT - SAN LUIS REY AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN & LARREA (SANBORN & RYLEE APPLICANTS CASE NOS: PP 85-14, TT 20919 and 290 MF BACMGROUND: February 12, 1987, Mrs . Henderson addressed city council under the oral communications portion of the agenda. As a result of Mrs. Henderson's comments staff was directed to prepare a report on the review process used for the above noted cases. In addition, staff was directed to outline similarly zoned properties still available for development and discuss the merits of requiring that properties subject to public hearing for city review be appropriately signed to that affect. REVIEW PROCESS FOR CASES PP 85-14, TT 20919, & 290 MF May 1 , 1985 - Applicant received preliminary approval for 20 unit development from Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee. May 3, 1985 - Applicant submitted application for precise plan review with planning department. May 31 , 1985 - Notices of hearing mailed to property owners within 300 feet of subject property. June 7, 1985 - Notices of hearing published in Desert Post. June 18, 1985 - Public hearing held by planning commission - Resolution Nos. 1054 and 1055 adopted, approving project subject to conditions. June 25, 1985 - Received preliminary architectural approval from city's architectural review commission. September 10, 1985 - received final architectural approval from city's architectural review commission subject to two conditions: 1 . No tennis court lighting approved at this time. 2. Staff to review building' Ifo� ,�pecluat'e-s8 ti°K4 of roof-mounted equipment at time of bui ldin9 fine ------- ==baIE.D —�Ct ',fERIFZED i - �jriginai on Fia cai h City Clerk' s Office PP 85-14, TT 20919 AND 290 MF i CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 1967 September 11 , 1985 - Received final approval of Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee. September 10, 1986 - Building permit obtained. AVAILABLE SIMILARLY ZONING PROPERTIES The property in question is zoned R-3 which permits a maximum height of 24 feet for a pitched roof and 22 feet for a flat roofed two story structure. This present height limit has been in effect since September, 1985. Prior to September, 1985, the height limit had been, as established by the original zoning ordinance in December 1975, 1130 feet or two stories whichever is less." It is interesting to note that the draft zoning ordinance presented to the i public in January 1975 had proposed a 40 foot height limit with a maximum of three stories. i it is important to note that the Sanborn-Rylee project complies with current code in all respects ( i .e. : two story, 22 112 feet high with a pitched roof) . In fact this project was used as an example of a reason why 30 feet was excessive in that this was approved prior to the hearings on reducing the i height limit from 30 feet to 24 feet. The map attached delineates the areas zoned R-2 and R-3 which would permit two story development and which are still vacant. Council should be aware that the planning commission will review two 13 unit projects in this same area at its March 3, 1987 meeting. Each of these projects will contain a mix of one and two story structures up to 23 feet in height. SHOULD THE CiTY EXPAND iTS PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENT Presently the city mails, by regular first class mail , notice of public hearings to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The city also places the notice of hearing, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, In the Desert Post. Finally, the agenda of planning commission is published in the Desert Post the Friday before the Tuesday meeting. Staff is familiar with cities that require sign(s) be posted on properties which are Involved with precise plan requirements, zone changes, general plan changes, etc. These signs were four feet by four feet plywood signs, black lettering on white background and required to be installed on all frontages. These signs contained prescribed information such as: 2 PP 85-14, TT 20919 AND 290 W CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 1987 PUBLIC NOTICE Be advised that this property is subject to a precise plan application under review by the City of Palm Desert. The request is for a 20 unit residential development involving the construction of two story structures no higher than 23 feet . Additional information is available by called Community Development/Planning at City Hall at 346-0611 , please reference Case No. This sign would be required to be in place on the site within 10 days of the filing of the application; otherwise, staff would put the case on hold until said sign is installed. CONCLUSION We trust that this is the information which was requested. Should city council wish to proceed with the additional noticing requirements (i .e. placing signs on the subject property) then council could by minute motion direct staff to hold the necessary public hearings and add these signs to the requirements for filing applications with the city. MEN A. DI DIRECTOR OF COMMUNI Y DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAD/tm 3 o .0: — cr 1 � N c cc M I I N 0.' ¢ � a 7 1, a u u k S OL CL s t• 'd's I , k a i II l/ Ix 11 — I •:.b0� . M f � y to xx I ti +K w N ¢a M \( a O O U N ° F Il a o o _u_ p ri x a ` ¢ N r� M ?' 0 0 .. 0 0 p se: �� O O ° N i I x ._1 �• O Ell 000 100 B9B @ O. 1. UI $'f 61y f10p !/ . x , e �cv y• J Hp/H -lia ¢ vi bl �N� A( I� 2, 0 R-I I 000 t— 'CPLJ AVExUL "M O.P. O. P. COS A�L A r cl ml n = I N Sn rr An3ELu0 >VEn VE p rn '7 41 Sn MATE V 11" zl V 1 rj r 2 I AVExuL =J i o 2 - - I m PABLO AVENVL _ P i i c co TF,• n O I � N < a• d'i LI v " IL INY 1 I a \ m j0 \,. .�1. N Al 1 I� I W A N A 5.1. (XCE IP l: (AMiOX I'0A� OpECP CAM co 1 MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 1987 REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Upon motion by Snyder , second by Benson , this item was continued to the meeting of March '12 , 1987 , by unanimous vote of the City Councl .l . X. NEW BUSINESS A. SYNOPSIS OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY . Mr . Folkers reviewed ' the staff report and study, noting that since the traffic counts were done in 1984 , traffic had increased substantially . He offered to answer questions . Councilman Crites asked why the "C" standard had been used In the study and how the standards were determined. Mayor Kelly explained that each community could set its own standards and conduct the study using them. This committee had set a standard of "C" . No action was required or taken by the City Council . X1 . CONTINUED BUSINESS A . REQUEST BY NOELL ROBINSON FOR CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATION TO RESTRICT WALL , BUSH, AND TREE HEiGHTS . AND ALLOWABLE THICKNESS OF BUSHED AREAS . Mr . Diaz reviewed the staff report and stated that staff did not see a need to amend the ordinance . Councilman Wilson moved to receive and file the report . Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote of the City Council . B . REPO T ON SHADOW MOUNTAIN 81 CONDO LARREA ( SANBORNP SEAPPLICANTS) ,I RYLEE , ANO Mr . Diaz reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions . 7 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 1987 Councll Questions :_ Benson : How many units In R-2 and R-3 :per, .;acre? Mr. Diaz responded that it depended on the number in parentheses as well as the size of the lots . Snyder : Was there a density bonus for this project? How large is the project? Mr . Diaz responded that there was no density bonus and that there were 20 units . Council Comments : Crites : One thing that should not get by again is the Idea of posting public slgnage on developments to allow public to know that something is happening. The signs should be posted for a 14-day period. Mr . Diaz stated that staff could begin to administratively implement this type of slgnage while the policy changes were in process . Snyder : We need to somehow work the word "compatible" into approvals and get staff , Council , and Planning Commission to look at projects to assure compatibility with surrounding neighborhood. Crites : At the time the Planning Commission approved the project , It met every setback , was within the density and height limits , was approved by the property owners ' association , and no one came forward to protest . The Planning Commission had no basis to deny It . Benson : Agreed that there should be a way to assure compatibility. The height of this project is not as bad as the density. Keliv : The project 1s too close to the road . it was approved because of the side yard setbacks ; however , they actually front the street . Mr . Diaz stated that perhaps staff could look Into this concern as well as the concerns of Mrs . Marian Henderson. Staff could do a study to determine how a single family residential feeling could be achieved with setbacks In a multiple residential density area . He added that the — report could be ready In four to six weeks . Upon question 8 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 1987 by Councllmember Benson , he said the two projects currently going to the Planning Commission would be ''•'continued until the study was completed. Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to conduct a study and recommend changes In the City' s code required to assure compatibility of new development with existing neighborhoods . Motion was seconded by Crites and car,rled by unanimous vote of the Council . Mayor Kelly invited comments from Mrs . Henderson. MRS . MARiAN HENDERSON , 73-597 Pinyon Street, Palm Desert , stated she felt the issue of compatibility had been a part of the City' s code since the beginning and that if a structure was being built that was completely opposite from what was already there , It was not allowed. She felt that the development at San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain & Larrea should have only one exit, and that should be onto Shadow Mountain , not Larrea . She stated she had looked at the original plans , which showed the development to have a sidewalk and that it was supposed to be flat . She also thought the trees were to start at ground level ; now they are on a large bank , which makes the project look even larger. She objected to the whiteness of the building and felt something should be done to make it darker . She also objected to what looked like fireplaces . She said they were actually only exhausts for the air conditioners , and she asked why they were permitted and why there were so many of them. Councllmember Benson moved to , by Minute Motion : 1 ) Direct staff to look into the concerns expressed by Mrs . Henderson relative to sidewalks , the exits from the project , and the color of the buildings ; and 2 ) Direct staff to include in its report and recommendation the posting of signs for a 14-day period An addition to mailing of notices . Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote of the Council . Mr . Diaz stated that staff would Immediately begin the practice of posting signs for a 14-day period in addition to mailing notices . 9 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT 1 TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 16, 1987 CASE NO: ZOA 87-1 REQUEST: Consideration of possible amendments to some of the development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert 1. DACKGROUND: This matter was before Planning Commission at its May 5. 1987 meeting when it was continued to allow staff to further review the extent of the undeveloped R-3 land. The concensus of Commission seemed to be that if there was a significant amount of R-3 zoned property remaining to be developed then it could be down-zoned to R-2 and give the ultimate developer of the property the opportunity to request an up-zoning to R-3 at time of precise plan review. Other items discussed are delineated in the minutes of May 5, 1987, (copy attached) . 1I. DISCUSSION: Staff have conducted a survey of the R-3 zoned property in the City. On the south side of Highway III there are_ 11 undeveloped R-3 properties (see the attached maps) . Three of the 11 lots are parking lots serving other projects. On the north side of Highway III there are 12 vacant R-3 parcels. In both areas there are additional older, under utilized sites which could be reasonably expected to be improved at some point in the future. Of course, there is also the possibility that many of these under utilized lots may remain as such for many years. Staff as a result of the following factors decided to return the matter to Planning Commission without renoticing the public hearing and notifying all the R-3 zoned property in the City: I . Given that the staff survey of R-3 zoned lots revealed that only 8 vacant R-3 lots remain on the south side of the highway, we felt it prudent to return this information to the Commission to discuss further the alternatives. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT - JUNE 16, 1987 2. The R-3 property on the north side of the h i ghway was established only two years ago. We are now seeing building activity and improvement in an area that had been stagnant for years. 3. May 14, 1987 City Council approved the 3 pending R-3 projects which had been held up for several months. All three projects had some 2 story elements and were at the upper end of the R-3 density range. Not wishing to stir up a hornets nest, perhaps unnecessarily, we did not notify the owner of R-3 zoned properties. If it is still the desire of Planning Commission to down-zone the R-3 property to R-2, given this new information. then staff will set the matter for hearing and notify R -3 property owners as well as property owners within 300 feet. The other issue discussed by Commission related to garages facing scenic corridors. There were 2 schools of thought. One that from an aesthetic point of view garages should not be permitted to face onto "scenic corridors", while the other point of view was that since Highway 74 was a "scenic corridor" then the garages offered a much needed noise buffer. Staff continues to recommend that this issue should be handled by the Architectural Commission on a case by case basis. CONCLUSION The staff recommendation of May 5, 1987 had been to refine some of the development standards in the R-3 zone. Commission took the position that it wishes to consider taking the more drastic action of down-zoning the R-3 property. Given the limited affect a down-zoning would have ( i .e. : only 8 remaining vacant lots on the south side of Highway 111 ) staff feels that the appropriate course of action is to take no action relative to amending the zoning ordinance. Commission could direct staff to prepare a report for City Council outlining the extent of the review undertaken by Commission and the basis for deciding that no action is necessary. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /hs 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1987 for the PR-7 zoned property located within Shadow Mountain Resort. Mr. Diaz explained that there was an irregularity on the mailing list provided to the applicant by the title company which would require a renotice of the case and recommended a continuance to June 2, 1987. Chairman Erwood asked counsel if the public hearing needed to be opened and Mr. Erwin stated no. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, continuing TT 22446 and TT22447._ to June 2, 1987. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Whitlock abstained) . F. Case No. ZOA 87-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of possible amendments to some of the development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones. ' Mr. Smith explained that the intent was to generate discussion to determine what should be developed in the R-2 and R-3 zones in terms of setbacks , height , garage doors facing the scenic corridors, density, and unit size and followed up with suggestions for mitigating these concerns. Commissioner Downs felt that the rules were overdone already and felt that it would make projects unfeasible to build. Chairman Erwood noted that staff was carrying out the wishes of council and indicated that economic feasibility was not a factor. I Mr. Diaz noted that there was a notable lack people present to speak regarding this issue and indicated that staff was proposing an increase in open space and a elimination of a corridor. I Commissioner Richards felt that the R-3 zone was the problem. Commissioner Downs suggested down zoning the property and then the developer could request a higher density. Commissioner Richards also noted that smaller, new projects would not be able to bring down housing costs. Commissioner Whitlock asked about the second part of the recommendation relating to garages facing the street. Commissioner t 8 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1987 Richards noted that one project on Highway 74 with garages facing the street was approved that way to offer a noise buffer. Mr. Diaz stated that property owners of R-3 lots should be contacted and the hearing continued to June 16. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. KEN STENDELL noted that people cited the Sanborn 8 Rylee project as part of this problem and noted that none of the people who spoke against it were present. He agreed with 1 comments by Commissioner Downs relating to project costs, which keep rising. He stated that he saw the projects as being good for the community. He concurred with the additional criteria proposed by staff, noting that his project met most of them, and agreed that the corridor effect should be eliminated. MRS. VONNA WESTFALL expressed approval of staff's findings and agreed with comments made by Mr. Stendell . She also spoke regarding the hotel business and the smaller hotels being hurt by the newer, larger hotels. She felt that some of the older hotels/motels will eventually have to be torn down or renovated, and stated that they were looking to their initial investment and sees these projects as an asset to the city. Commission instructed staff to renotice the public hearing and notify all R-3 property owners in the city. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, continuing ZOA 87-1 to June 16, 1987. Carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMENTS None. 9 i CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 5, 1987 CASE NO: ZOA 87-1 REQUEST: Consideration of possible amendments to some of the development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert 1. BACKGROUND: Throughout January and February 1987 city council received considerable comment concerning the 20 unit apartment project under construction at San Luis Rey, Larrea and Shadow Mountain. As a result staff prepared a report, dated February 26, 1987, copy attached. Council at its' February 26, 1987 meeting discussed the report on the 20 unit development at San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. Comments of council members seemed to indicate that the specific development in question , notwithstanding that it complied with all ordinance requirements, was not compatible with existing development in the area. The criticisms seemed to center as follows: a) project is too dense b) project is too crowed c) project is too high d) project is too close to the street The purpose of this report then is to generate discussion on recent two story projects which have been built. What is wrong with them? How can their deficiencies be corrected in future projects? Do our existing development standards need to be revised? 11. DISCUSSION: We will begin with an analysis of the Sanborn-Rylee apartment project. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS R-3 (3) Requirements Sanborn-Rylee Project Density 1 unit/3000 sf of lot area I unit/3M sf of lot area ( 14.52 du/acre) ( 14.52 du/acre) Height (pitched roof) 24 ft/2 story 22-1/2 ft/2 story Front setbacks 15 feet 15 feet ZOA 87-1 STAFF REPORT Street Side Yard 10 feet 15 feet Interior Side Yard B feet 11 feet Unit Sizes (2 bdrm) 800 sq. ft. minimum 1264 sq. ft. Required Group Open Space 300 sf/unit X 20 = 6000 tennis 7200, pool 2400 total 9600 sq. ft. Parking Spaces (condo standards 2- 1/2/unit 50 spaces 50 spaces NOTE: On this development there is no rear yard, if there was its' setback would be 10 feet. The above chart delineates that this project in all respects met or exceeded all the minimum standards and yet it is not felt to be compatible with existing development in the area. The question becomes "why is this project unacceptable" (not compatible) . a. If it is too dense then the means to make it less dense is quite evident. The density at one unit per 3000 square feet is 14.52 units per acre. Basic R-2 zoning allows one unit per 4000 square feet or 10.89 units per acre. Would this density have made for an acceptable project? b. If the project is too crowded then there are several possible means of making it less crowded. One would be to reduce the density. A second way would be to reduce the size of the units ( 1264 square feet, two bedroom units take up considerably more ground area than 850-900 square foot two bedroom units which are more typical ) . If the site is too crowded, is it so because more open space Is required? the ordinance presently has two means of requiring open space. First there are the required setbacks as delineated In the above chart. Secondly, for each dwelling unit 300 square feet of group usable open space must be provided. This development has considerably more than the required 6000 square feet (300 square feet times 20 units) . it might be argued that the tennis court area could have been put to a more usable area but the owner felt that this could be an important element in the plan. If the group usable open space requirement (presently 300 square feet per unit) were changed to require an area equal to 50% of the area of each unit then in this case we would have obtained a minimum of 12,640 square feet or basically twice the present amount required. A requirement for open space tied directly to the size of the units might encourage development of smaller units. Smaller units would result in the project being less crowded although the density could be the same. 2 ZOA 87-1 STAFF REPORT C. If the project is too high, what are the possible options? This project is two story and 22-1/2 feet in height. It is felt that we have reduced the height limit about as much as possible. In 1976 the city established a 30 foot height limit. This limit was then reduced after public hearings before planning commission and city council to 24 feet or 22 feet for flat roofs . Single story development would be limited to 18 feet. If it is the desire of the city to reduce the height limit to single story ( 18 feet in height) , this could be accomplished by placing the Scenic Preservation (S.P. ) designation on appropriate R-2 and R-3 zoned areas. Staff would question whether the gain of 4-1/2 feet lie: difference between 18 feet and 22-1/2 feet) would be significant seeing that this is an area of flat roofed structures built with total heights in the 8-10 foot range. At the planning commission public hearing of March 3, 1987 other property owners in the same block expressed concern with having two story development next door to their single story facilities. However, they indicated in discussions with staff that by the same token they felt that the area should remain zoned for two stories. This of course would put the city in the position of creating a "viscous circle". If we required single story in the area now, those property owners will be coming to our public hearings In the future when the existing developments request permission to redevelop with two story projects. In the matter of two recent development proposals before the planning commission there was sufficient vacant land around each of the two sites to allow the two story portion of the projects to be located adjacent to vacant land and only single story adjacent to the existing developments. d. Is the project too close to the streets? The specific development fronts on three streets and in all three cases is setback 15 feet from the property line. Total distance from the curb line to the buildings varies due to changes in the parkway width. On Shadow Mountain the parkway (distance from curb to property line) is 10 feet. Therefore, the building setback from the curb is 25 feet while on San Luis Rey the parkway is eight feet wide and, therefore, setback from curb line is 23 feet. Staff questions whether increasing the building setback would achieve the desired affect. In looking at other two story developments in the area, specifically El Paseo Village on Shadow Mountain at San Pablo the setbacks are similar. What is different Is that there is no wa i t on the property line. This allows for a 3 ZOA 87-1 STAFF REPORT feeling of openness and takes away the prison-like streetscape created by six foot high block walls. - Of course there is something to be said for a secure private develop- ment environment, however, this should be weighed with the aesthetic quality of the project and its impact on the neighborhood. In certain instances ( ie: around swimming pools and spas) fences are mandatory, however, nothing says they must be solid wood, stucco or masonry. CONCLUSION The development in question meets or exceeds all of our present development standards. At this time we have a series of four issues which are of concern to some people. There does not appear to be any consensus as to which of these issues or combination of issues are responsible for the problem. There would appear to be a series of possible options available to the city. 1 ) Reduce the zoning density from R-3 (3) to R-2 ( 14.5 units per acre to 10.9 units per acre) . 2) Limit the size of the units on both the minimum and maximum ends of the range. 3) Change the group usable open space requirement from 300 square feet per unit to require a group usable open space equal to 50% of the area of each unit. This would serve to limit dwelling unit size. 4) Reduce the permitted height from two story to one story with a maximum 18 feet in height. This could be accomplished by means of adding the Scenic Preservation designation to the R-3 areas. 5) Increase the required setbacks for two story projects from the present 15 feet to 20 or 25 feet. 6) Restrict the location of solid .walls and/or fences. If security is a goa 1 , then we could encourage the use of wrought iron to retain the feeling of openness. Another area of concern expressed by council was the number of garages being constructed facing a scenic corridor (Highway 74) . If it is the desire of the city the ordinance could be changed to prohibit or limit the number of garage doors which face onto scenic corridors. 4 ZDA 87-1 STAFF REPORT There may be other areas of concern which commission may wish to discuss and still other may be brought up by the public. Ill . RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to prepare an ordinance amendment for presentation at the next meeting which would: . I . Change the group usable open space requirement in the R-2 and R-3 zones to be 50% of the area of each unit with a minimum of 300 square feet per unit provided. That the planning commission recommend to city council that the architectural commission be directed to formulate as a policy of that !, commission the following items: I . That the number of garage doors facing a designated scenic corridor + be restricted to as few as are absolutely necessary. 2. That walls and fences on property lines be designed In a manner to prevent monotony and boredom by means of undulation of walls and intermixing of wall materials lie: masonry and wrought iron) . Prepared by A��Reviewed and Approved by/ /dig 3 x j1o;' r, 5 INTEROFFICE 14EWMANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1987 SUBJECT: 20 UNIT CONDO DEVELOPMENT - SAN LUIS REY AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN 8 LARREA (SANBORN & RYLEE APPLICANTS CASE NOS: PP 85- 14, TT 20919 and 290 MF BACKGROUND: February 12, 1987, Mrs . Henderson addressed city council under the oral communications portion of the agenda. As a result of Mrs. Henderson's comments staff was directed to prepare a report on the review process used for the above noted cases. In addition, staff was directed to outline similarly zoned properties still available for development and discuss the merits of requiring that properties subject to public hearing for city review be appropriately signed to that affect. REVIEW PROCESS FOR CASES PP 85-14, TT 20919, 8 290 11F May 1 , 1985 - Applicant received preliminary approval for 20 unit development from Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee. May 3, 1985 - Applicant submitted application for precise plan review with planning department. May 31 , 1985 - Notices of hearing mailed to property owners within 300 feet of subject property. June 7, 1985 - Notices of hearing published in Desert Post. June 18, 1985 - Public hearing held by planning commission - Resolution Nos. 1054 and 1055 adopted, approving project subject to conditions. June 25, 1985 - Received preliminary architectural approval from city's architectural review commission. September 10, 1985 - received final architectural approval from city's architectural review commission subject to two conditions: 1 . No tennis court lighting approved at, .this time. 2. Staff to review building�:.'fpf 9deduate sCf��Kd of roof-mounted equipment at time of building final.:. --- - ---- -"aIFO —------- ------ VERIFIED— --- ,riginai on Fil 1ai -1 ( ill Clerk' s Offic� i PP 85-14, TT 20919 AMD 290 MF CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 1987 September 11 , 1985 - Received final approval of Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee. September 10, 1986 - Building permit obtained. AVAILABLE SIMILARLY ZONING PROPERTIES The property in question is zoned R-3 which permits a maximum height of 24 feet for a pitched roof and 22 feet for a flat roofed two story structure. This present height limit has been in effect since September, 1985. Prior to September, 1985, the height limit had been, as established by the original zoning ordinance in December 1975, 1130 feet or two stories whichever is less." it is interesting to note that the draft zoning ordinance presented to the public in January 1975 had proposed a 40 foot height limit with a maximum of three stories. It is important to note that the Sanborn-Rylee project complies with current code in all respects ( i .e. : two story, 22 112 feet high with a pitched roof) . in fact this project was used as an example of a reason why 30 feet was excessive in that this was approved prior to the hearings on reducing the height limit from 30 feet to 24 feet. The map attached delineates the areas zoned R-2 and R-3 which would permit two story development and which are still vacant. Council should be aware that the planning commission will review two 13 unit projects in this same area at its March 3, 1987 meeting. Each of these projects will contain a mix of one and two story structures up to 23 feet in height. SHOULD THE CITY EXPAND ITS PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENT Presently the city mails, by regular first class mail , notice of public hearings to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The city also places the notice of hearing, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, In the Desert Post. Finally, the agenda of planning commission is published In the Desert Post the Friday before the Tuesday meeting. Staff Is familiar with cities that require sign(s) be posted on properties which are involved with precise plan requirements, zone changes, general plan changes, etc. These signs were four feet by four feet plywood signs, black lettering on white background and required to be installed on all frontages. These signs contained prescribed information such as: 2 PP 85-14, TT 20919 ANO 290 NF CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 1987 PUBLIC NOTICE Be advised that this property is subject to a precise plan application under review by the City of Palm Desert. The request is for a 20 unit residential development involving the construction of two story structures no higher than 23 feet . Additional information Is available by called Community Development/Planning at City Hall at 346-0611 , please reference Case No. _ This sign would be required to be in place on the site within 10 days of the filing of the application; otherwise, staff would put the case on hold until said sign is installed. CONCLUSION We trust that this Is the information which was requested. Should city council wish to proceed with the additional noticing requirements ( i .e. placing signs on the subject property) then council could by minute motion direct staff to hold the necessary public hearings and add these signs to the requirements for filing applications with the city. MON A. DI DIRECTOR OF COMMUNI Y DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAO/tm 3 t _ 14 1• •J �:' 1 a L3 1• Off u - m u 1 IL a (L , a• U Nx p o .o rInE 1 0 T _ n p1 N \ 11 rt t� 't 0 5+ 4 U Iri a 0 0 p a ry ' O -O O a R O N a 1 — N — ��.� ID I T T ) rdn.• � ' 9a no N GA a OO 0 O I.`—O _ a Q Np •�• "r oo" n)arao W ) 1 / N up )" � U .�na u � _� - lam,/• . . _ Ci 000oa. �.b.) . t 1 ' 000. ago, s �» a oe,ta_ I - o 0 O o r� _ UI $"f bl'. S of a00000a••( +�` l0 ' 4 fx Oa � rp0 ir a. I vi1 _r d 1 � . 0. Ol e mo 0 0, A -1 Z, 0 P-I I 000 R S p — 0.P. U. P. D _ _ 0 O e m - a IC'�I it Z y 'O O J r _ £ rn rn ^ '1 ��= D [ui ♦x5[.u0 •ulna[ z N � __ n N i11 �I s... — _ — m ;u u _ � T e I J ' � c m A 0 n I I I f � 1Y X V[ 1 l.i I I ! o io w D w� 2 evr roxv000 ox 471. .... �W,�i sY"�•:r,�s — — O�j T. I = 1 . . O m A •.snv X! . uxvox ,pox: o0[[r cxxiox xoxo ! + �I MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 1987 REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • • • i i • • • • • Upon motion by Snyder , second by Benson , this item was continued to the meeting of March 12 , 1987 , by unanimous vote of the City Council . X. NEW BUSINESS OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY AREA TRANSPORTATION A. SYNOPSIS STUDY . Mr . Folkers reviewed the staff report and study, noting raffic that since the traffic counts were He°^offered8to tanswer had increased substantially . questions . Councilman Crites asked why the " C" standard had been used in the study and how the standards were determined . Its Mayor Kelly explained that each study community could This own standards and conduct the study committee had set a standard of "C No action was required or taken by the City Council . X1 . CONTINUED BUSINESS A . ORDiNANCEYMODIFICATBONNOEL-LROINSON FOR TO RESTRIOCTIW SH, ANDOTREE ING HEIGHTS AND ALLOWABLE THICKNESS OF BUSHED AREAS . did notzs reviewed ee a need toeamenditheport and ordinancetated that staff ve and le he Councilman W 1 1 son moved to rece unanimousf vote tof they City Motion was seconded b y Snyder and carried by Council . B. SHADOW MOUNTAIN 8I LARREAO( SANBORN & RYLEE , APPLICANTS ) ,IEY ANO Mr . Diaz reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions . 7 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 1987 Council Questions :_ Benson : How many units In R- 2 and R-3 pen .:acre7 Mr. Diaz responded that It depended on the number In parentheses as well as the size of the lots . Snyder : Was there a density bonus for this project? How large is the project? Mr . Diaz responded that there was no density bonus and that there were 20 units . Council Comments : Crites : One thing that should not get by again is the Idea of posting public signage on developments to allow public to know that something is happening. The signs should be posted for a 14-day period . Mr . Diaz stated that staff could begin to administratively implement this type of signage while the policy changes were In process . Snyder : We need to somehow work the word "compatible" into approvals and get staff , Council , and Planning Commission to look at projects to assure compatibility with surrounding neighborhood . Crites : At the time the Planning Commission approved the project , it met every setback , was within the density and height limits , was approved by the property owners ' association , and no one came forward to protest . The Planning Commission had no basis to deny it . Benson : Agreed that there should be a way to assure compatibility. The height of this project Is not as bad as the density. i Kelly : The project is too close to the road . it was approved because of the side yard setbacks ; however , they actually front the street . Mr . Diaz stated that perhaps staff could look into this concern as well as the concerns of Mrs . Marian Henderson . Staff could do a study to determine how a single family residential feeling could be achieved with setbacks In a multiple residential density area . He added that the report could be ready in four to six weeks . Upon question 8 IIMUTES FEBRUARY 26, 1987 2EGULAR PALM DESERT CiTY COUNCIL MEETING • • • • • • • • • by CouncIImember Benson , he said the two projects curfently going to the Planning Commission would be continued until the study was completed . I ' rct staff to Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motioy• cadeerequired to conduct a study and recommend changes in the Clty assure compatibility of new development with u ng neighborhoods . nani Motion was • seconded by Crites and carried by unanmous vote of the I Council . Mayor Kelly Invited comments from Mrs . Henderson . MRS . MARIAN HENDERSON , 73-597 Pinyon Street , Palm Desert, stated she felt the issue of compatibility had been a aartru strut ofcture was being built Cy ' s code thatce wase ciompletely opposite ng and that If from what was already there , it was not allowed. She felt that the s Rey and adow Mountain & Larreashould development t San c have only one exit, andhthat should be onto Shadow Mountain , not Larrea . She stated she had looked at the original plans , which showed the development to have a sidewalk and that It was supposed to be flat . She also thought the trees were to start at ground level ; now they are on a large bank , which makes the he whiteness of ct k even larger . r h objected f thebui ldingandfelt somethingsh uldtbe eced to doneo mIt Sher . She saidlstheyJwe are actually onoked ly exhausts for the air conditioners , and she asked why they were permitted and why there were so many of them. Councilmember Benson moved to , by Minute Motion : 1 ) Direct staff to look Into the concerns expressed by Mrs . Henderson relative to sidewalks , the exits from the project , and the color of the buildings ; de In report posting ofr signs tfor a / 4�dayuperiod its addition tod mailing recommendation of notices . Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote of the Council . egin the Mr . Diaz stated that staff signs for a would 14-day period inbaddition practice of posting to mailing notices . 9 " ' vl 3 !80°O(3 war E, oil . c , 1 - » �l rh .. O b nq x r 000 -� !2 00 S o Y. ao i ro6a.- o'000 A < '. _ •.. Ip P lic I •'`_ _ .�.� - _ � ' 11 D_ A xJ N'� �' -_ _ COLOR" ROD u%EE Q- O O - - ,x4 O O ' O O O �. N LLU 11 Jp y 00 N � -A W ' � N 1 I' t •� .a t ' Ot d � C) tail � O. TO 0 O O �'8 g O W• n '-' •�' s..E sn 7. 21 O •\ fl ° p N I —�- n 1 II u : i a i .. � .1. O..0 near .O •`• -[_ �a w ' '+ � a ue. _ :as ' � Ou Ee' x `E y � A I AIL .e. I I T W A T a o EEr I oIEF x.O nano -•• Wo t. z y 112 D P-I I 000 R S . 2 ° S.P --- -- - [faf. avf Xvf �� ' P z Q I I � m LJ L Hi 1 I >I C09 E. _ — A �] ❑ I-1: r .... }} N GXSCl40 PV[NYL f] . ...hn 1 2 vLXxE -� y r KIELO rEx•�L d ;VCN f m o D) 777 `°f S It 711 LL ,.Ttf Vf PJ.I nox101, LYE tI`J r < E ro io 16 O,_ � IrA.. „� _ SR3 1 o ta! °LxL EecE m W 1- A00+' O m A ;snx rae[ Ir cexrox -Jlc o[zv unibx aJno 11 ul j5i CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 5, 1987 CASE NO: ZOA 87-1 REQUEST: Consideration of possible amendments to some of the development standards in the R-2 and R-3 zones. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: Throughout January and February 1987 city council received considerable comment concerning the 20 unit apartment project under construction at San Luis Rey, Larrea and Shadow Mountain. As a result staff prepared a report, dated February 26, 1987, copy attached. Council at its' February 26, 1987 meeting discussed the report on the 20 unit development at San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. Comments of council members seemed to indicate that the specific development in question, notwithstanding that it complied with all ordinance requirements, was not compatible with existing development in the area. The criticisms seemed to center as follows: a) project is too dense b) project is too crowed c) project is too high d) project is too close to the street The purpose of this report then is to generate discussion on recent two story projects which have been built. What is wrong with them? How can their deficiencies be corrected in future projects? Do our existing development standards need to be revised? II. DISCUSSION: I We will begin with an analysis of the Sanborn-Rylee apartment project. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS R-3 (3) Requirements Sanborn-Rylee Protect Density 1 unit/3000 sf of lot area I unit/3M sf of lot area ( 14.52 du/acre) ( 14.52 du/acre) Height (pitched roof) 24 ft/2 story 22-1/2 ft/2 story Front setbacks 15 feet 15 feet ZOA 87-1 STAFF REPORT Street Side Yard 10 feet 15 feet Interior Side Yard 8 feet 11 feet Unit Sizes (2 bdrm) 800 sq. ft. minimum 1264 sq. ft. Required Group Open Space 300 sf/unit X 20 = 6000 tennis 7200, pool 2400 total 9600 sq. ft. Parking Spaces (condo standards 2-1/2/unit 50 spaces 50 spaces NOTE : On this development there is no rear yard, if there was its' setback would be 10 feet. The above chart delineates that this project in all respects met or exceeded all the minimum standards and yet it is not felt to be compatible with existing development in the area. The question becomes "why is this project unacceptable" (not compatible) . a. If it is too dense then the means to make it less dense is quite evident. The density at one unit per 3000 square feet is 14.52 units per acre. Basic R-2 zoning allows one unit per 4000 square feet or 10.89 units per acre. Would this density have made for an acceptable project? b. If the project is too crowded then there are several possible means of making it less crowded. One would be to reduce the density. A second way would be to reduce the size of the units ( 1264 square feet, two bedroom units take up considerably more ground area than 850-900 square foot two bedroom units which are more typical ) . If the site is too crowded, is it so because more open space is required? the ordinance presently has two means of requiring open space. First there are the required setbacks as delineated in the above chart. Secondly, for each dwelling unit 300 square feet of group usable open space must be provided. This development has considerably more than the required 6000 square feet (300 square feet times 20 units) . It might be argued that the tennis court area could have been put to a more usable area but the owner felt that this could be an important element in the plan. If the group usable open space requirement (presently 300 square feet per unit) were changed to require an area equal to 50% of the area of each unit then in this case we would have obtained a minimum of 12,640 square feet or basically twice the present amount required. A requirement for open space tied directly to the size of the units might encourage development of smaller units. Smaller units would result in the project being less crowded although the density could be the same. 2 ZOA 87-1 STAFF REPORT C. If the project is too high, what are the possible options? This project is two story and 22-1/2 feet in height. It is felt that we have reduced the height limit about as much as possible. In 1976 the city established a 30 foot height limit. This limit was then reduced after public hearings before planning commission and city council to 24 feet or 22 feet for flat roofs . Single story development would be limited to 18 feet. If it is the desire of the city to reduce the height limit to single story ( 18 feet in height) , this could be accomplished by placing the Scenic Preservation (S.P. ) designation on appropriate R-2 and R-3 zoned areas. Staff would question whether the gain of 4-1/2 feet Ile: difference between 18 feet and 22-1/2 feet) would be significant seeing that this is an area of flat roofed structures built with total heights in the 8-10 foot range. At the planning commission public hearing of March 3, 1987 other property owners in the same block expressed concern with having two story development next door to their single story facilities. However, they indicated in discussions with staff that by the same token they felt that the area should remain zoned for two stories. This of course would put the city in the position of creating a "viscous circle". If we required single story in the area now, those property owners will be coming to our public hearings in the future when the existing developments request permission to redevelop with two story projects. In the matter of two recent development proposals before the planning commission there was sufficient vacant land around each of the two sites to allow the two story portion of the projects to be located adjacent to vacant land and only single story adjacent to the existing developments. d. Is the project too close to the streets? The specific development fronts on three streets and in all three cases Is setback 15 feet from the property line. Total distance from the curb line to the buildings varies due to changes in the parkway width. On Shadow Mountain the parkway (distance from curb to property line) is 10 feet. Therefore, the building setback from the curb is 25 feet while on San Luis Rey the parkway is eight feet wide and, therefore, setback from curb line is 23 feet. Staff questions whether increasing the building setback would achieve the desired affect. In looking at other two story developments in the area, specifically El Paseo Village on Shadow Mountain at San Pablo the setbacks are similar. What is different Is that there is no wa I l on the property line. This allows for a 3 . l j ZOA 87-1 STAFF REPORT feeling of openness and takes away the prison-like streetscape created by six foot high block walls. Of course there Is something to be said for a secure private develop- ment environment, however, this should be weighed with the aesthetic quality of the project and its impact on the neighborhood. In certain instances ( ie: around swimming pools and spas) fences are mandatory, however, nothing says they must be solid wood, stucco or masonry. CONCLUSION The development in question meets or exceeds all of our present development standards. At this time we have a series of four issues which are of concern to some people. There does not appear to be any consensus as to which of these issues or combination of issues are responsible for the problem. There would appear to be a series of possible options available to the city. 1 ) Reduce the zoning density from R-3 (3) to R-2 ( 14.5 units per acre to 10.9 units per acre) . 2) Limit the size of the units on both the minimum and maximum ends of the range. 3) Change the group usable open space requirement from 300 square feet per unit to require a group usable open space equal to 50% of the area of each unit. This would serve to limit dwelling unit size. 4) Reduce the permitted height from two story to one story with a maximum 18 feet in height. This could be accomplished by means of adding the Scenic Preservation designation to the R-3 areas. 5) Increase the required setbacks for two story projects from the present 15 feet to 20 or 25 feet. 6) Restrict the location of solid walls and/or fences. If security is a goal , then we could encourage the use of wrought iron to retain the feeling of openness. Another area of concern expressed by council was the number of garages being constructed facing a scenic corridor (Highway 74) . if it is the desire of the city the ordinance could be changed to prohibit or limit the number of garage doors which face onto scenic corridors. 4 1 ZDA 87-1 STAFF REPORT There may be other areas of concern which commission may wish to discuss and still other may be brought up by the public. 111. RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to prepare an ordinance amendment for presentation at the next meeting which would: 1 . Change the group usable open space requirement in the R-2 and R-3 zones to be 50% of the area of each unit with a minimum of 300 square feet per unit provided. That the planning commission recommend to city council that the architectural commission be directed to formulate as a policy of that commission the following items: 1 . That the number of garage doors facing a designated scenic corridor be restricted to as few as are absolutely necessary. 2. That walls and fences on property lines be designed in a manner to prevent monotony and boredom by means of undulation of walls and intermixing of wall materials ( ie: masonry and wrought iron) . Prepared by A�1— Reviewed and Approved by {p' /dlg co INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert M: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM% DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1987 SUBJECT: 20 UNIT CONDO DEVELOPMENT - SAN LUIS REY AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN & LARREA (SANBORN & RYLEE APPLICANTS CASE NOS: PP 85-14, TT 20919 and 290 MF BACMGROUNO: February 12, 1987, Mrs. Henderson addressed city council under the oral communications portion of the agenda. As a result of Mrs. Henderson's comments staff was directed to prepare a report on the review process used for the above noted cases. In addition, staff was directed to outline similarly zoned properties still available for development and discuss the merits of requiring that properties subject to public hearing for city review be appropriately signed to that affect. REVIEW PROCESS FOR CASES PP 85-141 TT 20919, 8 290 If May 1 , 1985 - Applicant received preliminary approval for 20 unit development from Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee. May 3, 1985 - Applicant submitted application for precise plan review with planning department. May 31, 1985 - Notices of hearing mailed to property owners within 300 feet of subject property. June 7, 1985 - Notices of hearing published in Desert Post. June 18, 1985 - Public hearing held by planning commission - Resolution Nos. 1054 and 1055 adopted, approving project subject to conditions. June 25, 1985 - Received preliminary architectural approval from city's architectural review commission. September 10, 1985 - received final architectural approval from city's architectural review commission subject to two conditions: 1 . No tennis court lighting approved at this time. 2. Staff to review buildingj"'Fof.6deouat'e st'�e�en`�`Ag of roof-mounted equipment at time of building final_: i �a.e<v.,Y'N-fad C� . . .....'_�_ C�ic��_�SF�` o•.w�.0 Gx�4.Y':.it4 VERIFIE-i --- .riginai on Fila�wi h City Cl©rk ' s Cffic� PP 85-14, TT 20919 AND 290 MF CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 1987 i September 11 , 1965 - Received final approval of Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee. September 10, 1986 - Building permit obtained. AVAILABLE SIMILARLY ZONING PROPERTIES The property in question is zoned R-3 which permits a maximum height of 24 feet for a pitched roof and 22 feet for a flat roofed two story structure. This present height limit has been in effect since September, 1985. Prior to September, 1985, the height limit had been, as established by the original zoning ordinance in December 1975, "30 feet or two stories whichever is less." j It is interesting to note that the draft zoning ordinance presented to the public in January 1975 had proposed a 40 foot height limit with a maximum of three stories. It Is important to note that the Sanborn-Rylee project complies with current code in all respects ( i .e. : two story, 22 112 feet high with a pitched roof) . In fact this project was used as an example of a reason why 30 feet was excessive in that this was approved prior to the hearings on reducing the height limit from 30 feet to 24 feet. The map attached delineates the areas zoned R-2 and R-3 which would permit two story development and which are still vacant. Council should be aware that the planning commission will review two 13 unit projects in this same area at its March 3, 1987 meeting. Each of these projects will contain a mix of one and two story structures up to 23 feet in height. SHOULD THE CITY EXPAND ITS PUBLIC NOTICING REQUIREMENT Presently the city mails, by regular first class mail , notice of public hearings to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The city also places the notice of hearing, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, in the Desert Post. Finally, the agenda of planning commission Is published In the Desert Post the Friday before the Tuesday meeting. Staff is familiar with cities that require sign(s) be posted on properties which are involved with precise plan requirements, zone changes, general plan changes, etc. These signs .were four feet by four feet plywood signs, black lettering on white background and required to be installed on all frontages. These signs contained prescribed information such as: 2 PP 85-14, TT 20919 AND 290 MF CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 1987 PUBLIC NOTICE Be advised that this property is subject to a precise plan application under review by the City of Palm Desert. The request is for a 20 unit residential development involving the construction of two story structures no higher than 23 feet . Additional information is available by called Community Development/Planning at City Hall at 346-0611 , please reference Case No. This sign would be required to be in place on the site within 10 days of the filing of the application; otherwise, staff would put the case on hold until said sign is installed. CONCLUSION We trust that this is the information which was requested. Should city council wish to proceed with the additional noticing requirements (i .e. placing signs on the subject property) then council could by minute motion direct staff to hold the necessary public hearings and add these signs to the requirements for filing applications with the city. MON A. DI DIRECTOR OF COMMUNI Y DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAD/tm ?9 �\ 3 4 b U o o w Eol h UN 1 •Ivoe a xa, I) x. Y6 V3 r M U Yf rill UI a ).Y xsn_e, ono ; U y 1 ? Isb ° �Q5 Rl O o o 10 in N rc (n U a — N 1 ♦. N7"`�1 M i ION 1 9 -U,_1 am Ct m 00 b l U z Is"o t) 0 o d N N _ e}I' ixYi a0Y xiO10a tp N 00 of 000, Ds on a r oqo, Y,Ya M1„ ,a O ul U 'SY b/iy�^ S Fl 0p !-0 Ode '1tN 11 N N eld /F0p0 9l E i I Q I Vf•— i 113. AV, h�lk , Vl +W� I Y m N A �N 3l w E-- d '[X(r vEn of IF I . MIN P'Z — O.P. Z 0 17 1. L m - . o Z yIM rn + H'19 a s+u +nsaeo ,v[nvf 0 m r ' 2 m K a o � iIIVV\\ m c m 7 A a r` I t FP [/I,(r` M 10 CA ID <i X--� rOx .0 IIfOI. Yfy ' E O f.p h= Z n o ' � — us ronw000 ow. A p Co I Co I _ A a[ . unrox o+: oc[r c.xibx co..o Ir - r ijA pp Z f 11 f to ' z - -----, z I , MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 1987 REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Upon motion by Snyder , second by Benson , is item was of the continued to the meeting of March 12 , 1987 , by unanimous City Councl .l . X. NEW BUSINESS A. SYNOPSIS OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY . Mr . Folkers reviewed the staff report and study, noting that since the traffic counts were He eone in 198 , traffic raffic had increased substantially . questions . Councilman Crites asked why the "C" standard had been used In the study and how the standards were determined. Mayor Kelly explained that each community could set Its own standards and conduct the study using them. This committee had set a standard of "C" . No action was required or taken by the City Council . Xi . CONTINUED BUSINESS A . REQUEST BY NOELL ROBINSON FOR CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATION TO RESTRICT WALL , BUSH, AND TREE HEIGHTS AND ALLOWABLE THICKNESS OF BUSHED AREAS . Mr . Diaz reviewed the staff report and stated that staff did not see a need to amend the ordinance . Councilman Wilson moved to receive and file the report . Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote of the City Council . B. REPORT ON 20- UNIT CONDO DEVELOPMENT - SAN LUiS REY AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN & LARREA ( SANBORN & RYLEE , APPLICANTS) . Mr . Diaz reviewed the staff report and offered to answer any questions . 7 • r MINUTES ' REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 1987 Council Questions : Benson : How many units in R-2 and R-3 pert :acre? Mr. DI az responded that it depended on the number In parentheses as well as the size of the lots . Snyder : Was there a density bonus for this project? How large is the project? Mr . Diaz responded that there was no density bonus and that there were 20 units . Council Comments : Crites : One thing that should not get by again is the Idea of posting public stgnage on developments to allow public to know that something is happening. The signs should be posted for a 14-day period. Mr . Diaz stated that staff could begin to administratively Implement this type of stgnage while the policy changes were in process . Snyder : We need to somehow work the word "compatible" into approvals and get staff , Council , and Planning Commission to look at projects to assure compatibility with surrounding neighborhood . Crites : At the time the Planning Commission approved the project , It met every setback , was within the density and height limits , was approved by the property owners ' association , and no one came forward to protest . The Planning Commission had no basis to deny it . Benson_ Agreed that there should be a way to assure compatibility. The height of this project is not as bad as the density. Kelly : The project is too close to the road. it was approved because of the side yard setbacks ; however , they actually front the street . Mr . Diaz stated that perhaps staff could look Into this concern as well as the concerns of Mrs . Marian Henderson . Staff could do a study to determine how a single family residential feeling could be achieved with setbacks in a multiple residential density area . He added that the — report could be ready In four to six weeks . Upon question 8 MINUTES •'REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 1987 by Councl ] member Benson , he said the two projects cur :` ently going to the Planning Commission would be continued until the study was completed . i Councilman Snyder moved to, by Minute Motion , direct staff to conduct a study and recommend changes in the City' s code required to assure compatibility of new development with existing neighborhoods . Motion was - seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote of the Council . i Mayor Kelly invited comments from Mrs . Henderson . MRS. MARIAN HENOERSON , 73-597 Pinyon Street , Palm Desert , stated she felt the issue of compatibility had been a part of the City' s code since the beginning and that if a structure was being built that was completely opposite from what was already there, It was not allowed. She felt that the development at San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain & Larrea should have only one exit , and that should be onto Shadow Mountain, not Larrea . She stated she had looked at the original plans , which showed the development to have a sidewalk and that it was supposed to be flat . She also thought the trees were to start at ground level ; now they are on a large bank , which makes the project look even larger. She objected to the whiteness of the building and felt something should be done to make it darker . She also objected to what looked like fireplaces . She said they were actually only exhausts for the air conditioners , and she asked why they were permitted and why there were so many of them. Councilmember Benson moved to , by Minute Motion: 1 ) Direct staff to look into the concerns expressed by Mrs . Henderson relative to sidewalks , the exits from the project , and the color of the buildings ; and 2 ) Direct staff to Include in - Its report and recommendation the posting of signs for a 14-day period in addition to mailing of notices . Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by unanimous vote of the Council . Mr . Diaz stated that staff would immediately begin the practice of posting signs for a 14-day period in addition to mailing notices . 9 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DATE: MARCH 26, 1987 SUBJECT: HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2 AND R-3 ZONES Background: Council at Its February 26, 1987, meeting discussed a report on the 20 unit development at San Luis Rey and Shadow Mountain. Comments of council members seemed to indicate that the specific development in question, notwithstanding that it complied with all ordinance requirements, was not compatible with existing development in the area. The criticisms seemed to center as follows: 1 ) project is too dense if ) project is too crowded III ) project is too high Iv) project is too close to the street Development Standards: R-3 (3) Requirements Sanborn-Rvlee Prolect Density 1 unit per 3000 sq. ft. of lot area 1 unit per 3000 sq. ft. of lot area 14.52 du/acre 14.52 du/acre Height (pitched roof) 24 ft./2 story 22 1/2 ft./2 story Front setbacks 15 ft. 15 ft. Street side yard 10 ft. 15 ft. Interior side yard 8 ft. 11 ft. Unit sizes (2 bdrm) 800 sq. ft. minimum 1264 sq. ft. Required Group Open 300 sq. ,ft./unit x 20 tennis 7200, pool 2400 Space 6000 total 9600 sq., ft. Parking Spaces (condo stds 2 1/2/unit 50 spaces 50 spaces 'Note: On this development there is no rear yards, if there was its setback would be 10 feet. The above chart delineates that this project In all respects met or exceeded all the minimum standards and yet it is not felt to be compatible with existing development in the area. The question becomes why is this project unacceptable (not compatible) . a. If it is too dense then the means to make it less dense is quite evident. The density at one unit per 3000 square feet is 14.52 units per acre. CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 ZONES MARCH 26, 1987 Basic R-2 zoning allows one unit per 4000 square feet or 10.89 units per acre. Would this density have made for an acceptable project? b. If the project is too crowded then there are several possible means of making it less crowded. One would be to reduce the density. A second way would be to reduce the size of the units ( 1264 square feet, two bedroom units take up considerably more ground area than 850-900 square foot two bedroom units which are more typical ) . If the site is too crowded, is it so because more open space is required? The ordinance presently has two means of requiring open space. First there are the required setbacks as delineated In the above chart. Secondly, for each dwelling unit 300 square feet of group usable open space must be provided. This development has considerably more than the required 6000 square feet (300 square feet times 20 units) . It might be argued that the tennis court area could have been put to a more usable area but the owner felt that this could be an important element in the plan. If the group usable open space requirement (presently 300 square feet per unit) were changed to require an area equal to 50% of the area of each unit then In this case we would have obtained a minimum of 12,640 square feet or basically twice the present amount required. A requirement for open space tied directly to the size of the units might encourage development of smaller units . Smaller units would result in the project being less crowded although the density could be the same. C. If the project is too high, what are the possible options? This project Is two story and 22 1/2 feet In height. It is felt that we have reduced the height limit about as much as possible. In 1976 the city established a 30 foot height limit. This limit was then reduced after public hearings before planning commission and city council to 24 feet or 22 feet for flat roofs. Single story development would be limited to 18 feet. If it is the desire of council to reduce the height limit to single story ( 18 feet in height) , this could be accomplished by placing the Scenic Preservation (S.P. ) designation on appropriate R-3 zoned areas. Staff would question whether the gain of 4 1/2 feet ( i .e. difference between 18 feet and 22 1/2 feet) would be significant seeing that this is an area of flat roofed structures built with total heights in the 8-10 foot range. At the planning commission public hearing of March 3, 1987, other property owners in the same block expressed concern with having two story development next door to their single story facilities. However, they Indicated in discussions with staff that by the same token they felt that 2 CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/11-3 ZONES MARCH 26, 1987 the area should remain zoned for two stories. This of course would put the city In the position of creating a "viscous circle." If we require single story. in the area now, those property owners will be coming to our public hearings in the future when the existing developments request permission to redevelop with two story projects. In the matter of the two development proposals currently before the planning commission there is sufficient vacant land around each of the two 1 sites to allow the two story portion of the projects to be located there and only single story adjacent to the existing developments. d. Is the project too close to the streets? The specific development fronts ; on three streets and in all three cases Is setback 15 feet from the property line. Total distance from the curbline to the buildings varies due to changes in the parkway width. On Shadow Mountain the parkway (distance from curb to property line) is 10 feet. Therefore, the building setback from the curb is 25 feet while on San Luis Rey the parkway is eight feet wide and, therefore, setback from curbline is 23 feet. Staff questions whether increasing the building setback would achieve the desired affect. in looking at other two story developments In the area, specifically El Paseo Village on Shadow Mountain at San Pablo the setbacks are similar. What Is different is that there is no wall on the property line. This allows for a feeling of openness and takes away the prison-like streetscape created by six foot high block walls. Of course there is something to be said for a secure private development environment, however, this should be weighed with the aesthetic quality of the project and its impact on the neighborhood. in certain instances ( i .e. around swimming pools and spas) fences are mandatory, however, nothing says they must be solid wood, stucco or masonry. Conclusion: The development in question meets or exceeds all of our present development standards. At this point in time it Is not yet completed and given a few more weeks It should be. At this time we have a series of four issues which are of concern to some people. There does not appear to be any consensus as to which of these issues or combination of issues are responsible for the problem. There would appear to be a series of possible options available to the council : 1 ) Reduce the zoning density from R-3 (3) to R-2 ( 14.5 units per acre to 10.9 units per acre) . 3 CiTY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 ZONES MARCH 26, 1987 10 Limit the size of 'the units on both the minimum and maximum ends of the range. ifi ) Change the group usable open space requirement from 300 square feet per unit to require a group usable open space equal to 50% of the area of each unit. (This would serve to limit dwelling unit size. ) IV) Reduce the permitted height from two story to one story with a maximum 18 feet in height. This could be accomplished by means of adding the Scenic Preservation S;P. designation to the R-3 areas. v) Increase the required setbacks for two story projects from the present 15 feet to 20 or 25 feet. vf ) Restrict the location of solid walls and/or fences. if security Is a goal , then we could encourage the use of wrought iron to retain the feeling of openness. If it is city council 's wish to address one or more of the problem areas, then they should be Identified and the appropriate option(s) selected. The matter would then be referred to the planning commission for hearing and action. Following that action the matter would be returned to city council for hearing and final action. Another area of concern expressed by council was the number of garages being constructed facing a scenic corridor (Highway 74) . if it is the desire of council the ordinance could be changed to prohibit or limit the number of garage doors which face onto scenic corridors. PART 11 Also at the February 26, 1987, meeting Mrs. Henderson expressed concerns relative to the project under construction at San Luis Rey, Shadow Mountain and Larrea. As was explained to Mrs . Henderson when she visited this department on March 3, 1987, the project has frontage on three streets. The circulation pattern submitted by the applicant provided for access on both Larrea and Shadow Mountain. This provides two advantages: i ) it allows for disposal of traffic from the site from two points; ii ) it allows fire trucks an easy means of egress should they enter the site. The site is surrounded by a sidewalk on all three sides. The color of the building along with the other features of the architecture were approved by both the Palm Desert Property Owners Association Architectural Committee as well as the city architectural commission. 4 CITY COUNCIL HEIGHT LIMITS IN R-2/R-3 ZONES MARCH 26, 1987 The chimneys referred to by Mrs. Henderson actually serve wood burning fire places which are provided in each unit. Hence the need for 20 chimneys. All air conditioning units are roof-mounted below the top line of the shed roofs. RAMON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUN6YVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAO/SRS/tm i � I t 5 C C AK17 �� C 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 April 10, 1987 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 87-1 NOTICE OF HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider potential amendments to some of the development standards in R-2 and R-3 zones. Said amendments may include but not be limited to any or all of the following: 1 . Reduce the density permitted in the R-2 8 R-3 zones. 2. Restrict the size of dwelling units by establishing a minimum required size and a maximum permitted size. 3. Increase the amount of required group usable open space. 4. Reduce the permitted height in the zone from two story to one story. 5. Increase the required setback for two story structures from 15 feet to 25 feet. 6. Restrict the location of solid wails and/or fences. 7. Restrict the number of garages which may face a designated scenic corridor. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 5, 1987 at 7:00 in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. 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 city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary April 17, 1987 Palm Desert Planning Commission