HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 970 ZOA 00-04 Detached Accessory Buildings Ordinance No. 970
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
I. TO: Honorable Mayor And City Council
II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
IV. CASE NO: ZOA 00-04
V. DATE: October 12, 2000
VI. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Ordinance No. 970
D. Planning Commission Minutes for Case No. ZOA 00-04
E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016
F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 19, 2000
G. Related maps and/or exhibits
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 970 to second reading.
B. DISCUSSION:
1 . BACKGROUND:
June 8, 2000 City Council adopted an urgency ordinance amending Municipal
Code Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
The previous code provision allowed for detached accessory buildings in rear
yards. Until recently, few people took advantage of this code section and
those that did usually put in 100 square foot metal tool sheds which they
purchased at Home Depot.
At this time several tract developers are offering detached accessory buildings
(bonus rooms) as an option in their developments. These buildings are proving
to be a popular item.
(Wp\sr\zoa00-04.cc)
Ordinance No. 970
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
OCTOBER 12, 2000
The code allowed these structures to be located within five feet of side and
rear property lines with a maximum height of 14 feet. These buildings are
limited in size but they can be quite large (300-400 square feet).
As a result of complaints about some of these structures, staff took the matter
to ZORC. At its meeting of April 19, 2000 ZORC concluded that current
provisions for these buildings were far too liberal. The code allowed accessory
structures which are too large, too tall and too close to property lines.
At subsequent ZORC meetings it arrived at a consensus to amend the
ordinance. The suggested amendment allows persons with lots larger than
12,000 square feet to apply through a conditional use permit process for
accessory buildings in the required rear yard.
Standards for lots between 12,000 square feet and 40,000 square feet will
limit height to 14 feet, coverage to 25% of the required rear yard and be
setback from property lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots of 40,000 square feet or more the standards change to 18 feet in
height with minimum setbacks from property lines equal to building height.
On lots less than 12,000 square feet ZORC recommended that storage sheds
of 100 square feet or less with a maximum height of eight feet be permitted
with minimum setback of eight feet from any property line with approval of
ARC.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of 10 feet
are permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
height subject to approval by ARC.
ZORC felt that habitable structures did not generally belong in the setback
areas.
On lots less than 12,000 square feet, habitable structures (bonus rooms) shall
not be permitted in the required rear or side yard.
ZORC discussed at length the merits of allowing bonus rooms on lots of less
than 12,000 square feet in new tract projects where the developer identifies
the lots at time of map approval and only on non-perimeter lots. Purchasers
would be advised in advance which lots would have these extra structures.
Ultimately ZORC decided that such a provision to treat new developments
(Wp\sr\zoa00-04.cc) 2
Ordinance No. 970
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
OCTOBER 12, 2000
different from existing homes was unfair on its face and therefore the
provision is not in your draft ordinance.
Planning Commission considered this amendment at its September 19, 2000
meeting and on a 5-0 vote recommended approval as forwarded by ZORC (i.e.,
without a provision allowing new tract developers to identify lots at time of
map approval).
2. CEQA REVIEW:
The proposed amendment is a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of
CEQA and no further documentation is necessary.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved:
STAVE SMITH PHILIP DRELL
PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Review and Concur Review and Concur:
RI HARD J. LKERS CARLOS L. ORTEGA
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER/RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
/tm
MEETING DATE 0— 12-60
❑ CONTINUED TO _l
(g-PASSED TO 2ND READING I b la-CX.1
I
(W p\sr\zoa00-04.cc) 3
MINUTES r '` SUBJECT TO
INCOMMISSION { '� REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANN G C
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 � i
appropriate shade trees along the west side. Additional landscaping as
required by ARC would be required on the east elevation. Commissioner
Campbell also read that it would probably be necessary to remove the most
northerly parking stall at this location to accommodate the landscaping. Mr.
Alvarez felt that should be asked of the applicant but pointed out the planter
in question and explained that it had been reduced and showed up on the
revised site plan. That was because of the alignment of the driveway for
Village Center Drive.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Suite A in Palm Desert,
stated that he was in agreement with all the conditions and comments
made by staff. They added three planters as requested by ARC.
Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION
to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015, approving PP 00-18,
subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Drell recommended that the commission hear Public Hearing Item D before Item B since
they were directly related. Commission concurred.
D. Case No. ZOA 00-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for recommendation to City Council of approval of an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.56.280
Detached Accessory Buildings.
Mr. Smith explained that the zoning ordinance amendment before commission
related to detached accessory buildings in the rear yards of residential units.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION r‘ Fis3
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT TO
' } REVISION
There was a moratorium in place, then an interim ordinance in place which
only allowed persons on lots of 40,000 square feet or more to apply for these
structures. That interim ordinance was still in place. After discussing this
issue, Zoning Ordinance Review Committee made a recommendation that
would create for permanent purposes an ordinance that allowed persons with
property of 12,000 square feet or more to apply. They had then separated out
standards for those requests. On lots of 40,000 square feet or more they
could go to a maximum of 18 feet in height with a 1 :1 setback and a
maximum coverage of 25% of the rear yard. With lots between 12,000 and
40,000 square feet, maximum height would be limited to 14 feet with the
same 25% limit and 1 :1 height to setback ratio. The proposed ordinance
would also provide for storage sheds of 100 square feet or less regardless of
lot size. Open non-habitable gazebo-like structures were permitted. ZORC
discussed subsection "E" which was highlighted on page two. Subsection E
did not show up in the draft resolution for the ordinance. They were looking
at creating an opportunity for new tracts of homes to be able to pre-identify
lots within the tract, but not on the perimeter of the tract where regardless of
the size of the lots, these detached structures would be acceptable. Ultimately
ZORC chose not to include that subsection feeling that they were precluding
existing residences from having it and treating new tracts in a different fashion
and didn't feel that was reasonable so it did not appear. If commission felt the
provision had merit, it could be added to the draft resolution. The proposed
amendment was a Class 5 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes and no
further documentation was necessary. Staff recommended that Planning
Commission recommend approval to City Council.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to
address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the
public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Finerty moved for approval, Commissioner Campbell seconded
it. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on this public hearing
process. It was publicly noticed for Planning Commission and then it would
be publicly noticed before City Council. Mr. Smith said that was correct.
Chairperson Beaty called for a vote.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
6
0
FT
MINUTES SUBJECT TO
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION dirrY � REVISION
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016, recommending to City
Council approval of ZOA 00-04. Motion carried 5-0.
B. Case No. CUP 00-12 - RALENE SHIMON, Applicant
Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 2,100
square foot 18 feet high detached accessory building in the
required rear yard (15 feet setback from rear property line) of the
property at 77-905 Delaware Place, APN 637-180-034.
Mr. Smith stated that the request was to permit a 2,100 square foot 18 foot
high accessory building in the rear yard of the property at 77-905 Delaware
Place. Plans were on display and copies were also provided in commission
packets. Mr. Smith explained that the main home on the site had been
previously approved through Architectural Review. It was his understanding
at this point in time building permits on that dwelling had not been taken out
from the Building Department. As noted previously, there was an urgency
ordinance in place which allowed persons possessing property of 40,000
square feet or more to make application. That was the process that this
applicant was going through. As noted in the review of the previous zoning
ordinance amendment, it would comply with the new ordinance as well,
subject to them moving the building. The building was currently sited 15 feet
from the side and 15 feet from the rear. The ordinance the commission just
recommended to the City Council would require minimum 18 feet from the
side and from the rear. He said there was plenty of room to accomplish that,
so staff's recommendation was approval of the conditional use permit subject
to it being relocated to 18 and 18. He noted that condition 7 was added to
the resolution which stated that they wanted to see some substantial headway
with the main dwelling on the property before the building permit was taken
out on this structure so that they could be assured that they weren't just left
with an accessory structure.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished
to address the commission. She spoke up from the audience and said no.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was the commission's desire to have the
application comply with the new ordinance with the 18 foot setbacks, if that
would create a design issue for the applicant.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER
25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 19th day of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory
Buildings; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its recommendation as described
below:
1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected specific plans; and
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached
Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.56.280.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 19th day of September, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, JONATHAN, LOPEZ, BEATY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
PAUL R. BEATY, Chairpe on
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 1 That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall be
subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required yard
except a rear yard. Accessory buildings not located in any required yard shall not be subject
to this section.
B. On lots having 12,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard upon approval of a conditional
use permit by Planning Commission and approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Said detached accessory building shall not exceed one story or 14 feet in height and may
not occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard and shall be set back from the property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more, the maximum height
shall be one story and 18 feet provided the structure is setback from property line a
distance equal to its height.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission or City
Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section 25.73.013 "Approval
or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
C. On lots having less than 12,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or less of floor
area with a maximum height of eight feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of
eight feet from any property line upon approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of
10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
building height upon approval of Architectural Review Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings and
the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building coverage
allowed by the zone is exceeded."
3
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 19, 2000
CASE NO: ZOA 00-04
REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.56.280
Detached Accessory Buildings
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
BACKGROUND:
June 8, 2000 City Council adopted an urgency ordinance amending Municipal Code
Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
The previous code provision allowed for detached accessory buildings in rear yards.
Until recently, few people took advantage of this code section and those that did
usually put in 100 square foot metal tool sheds which they purchased at Home Depot.
At this time several tract developers are offering detached accessory buildings (bonus
rooms) as an option in their developments. These buildings are proving to be a popular
item.
The code allowed these structures to be located within five feet of side and rear
property lines with a maximum height of 14 feet. These buildings are limited in size but
they can be quite large (300-400 square feet).
As a result of complaints about some of these structures, staff took the matter to
ZORC. At its meeting of April 19, 2000 ZORC concluded that current provisions for
these buildings were far too liberal. The code allowed accessory structures which are
too large, too tall and too close to property lines.
At subsequent ZORC meetings it arrived at a consensus to amend the ordinance. The
suggested amendment allows persons with lots larger than 12,000 square feet to apply
through a conditional use permit process for accessory buildings in the required rear
yard.
Standards for lots between 12,000 square feet and 40,000 square feet will limit height
to 14 feet, coverage to 25% of the required rear yard and be setback from property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots of 40,000 square feet or more the standards change to 18 feet in height with
minimum setbacks from property lines equal to building height.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
On lots less than 12,000 square feet ZORC recommended that storage sheds of 100
square feet or less with a maximum height of eight feet be permitted with minimum
setback of eight feet from any property line with approval of ARC.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of 10 feet are
permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of height
subject to approval by ARC.
ZORC felt that habitable structures did not generally belong in the setback areas.
On lots less than 12,000 square feet, habitable structures (bonus rooms) shall not be
permitted in the required rear or side yard.
ZORC discussed at length the merits of allowing bonus rooms on lots of less than
12,000 square feet in new tract projects where the developer identifies the lots at time
of map approval and only on non-perimeter lots. Purchasers would be advised in
advance which lots would have these extra structures. Ultimately ZORC decided that
such a provision to treat new developments different from existing homes was unfair
on its face and therefore the provision is not in your draft ordinance. If Planning
Commission feels this provision has merit it can be added as subsection E and would
read as follows:
E. Notwithstanding the above provisions at the time of tentative tract
map approval, the Planning Commission may approve accessory
buildings in rear yards where said structures would not be visible
from the perimeter of said tract.
II. CEQA REVIEW:
The proposed amendment is a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and
no further documentation is necessary.
III. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to amend the Detached Accessory Buildings
provisions.
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
Prepared by � �
S ve Smith
Planning Manager
Reviewed and Approved by
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
/tm
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NU.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER
25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 19th day of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory
Buildings; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its recommendation as described
below:
1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected specific plans; and
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached
Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.56.280.
PLANNING COMMISSION rttsOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 19th day of September, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION rstSOLUTION No.
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 1 That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall be
subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required yard
except a rear yard. Accessory buildings not located in any required yard shall not be subject
to this section.
B. On lots having 12,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard upon approval of a conditional
use permit by Planning Commission and approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Said detached accessory building shall not exceed one story or 14 feet in height and may
not occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard and shall be set back from the property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more, the maximum height
shall be one story and 18 feet provided the structure is setback from property line a
distance equal to its height.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission or City
Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section 25.73.013 "Approval
or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
C. On lots having less than 12,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or less of floor
area with a maximum height of eight feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of
eight feet from any property line upon approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of
10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
building height upon approval of Architectural Review Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings and
the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building coverage
allowed by the zone is exceeded."
3
2- 1;_U1tt
Chapter 25.73 ( 1 he plan of the proposed parking area for the
devel(h :rent to which the parking is accessory: the plan
PRECISE PLAN shall bi drawn to an engineering scale of sufficient size
to cleai IN indicate the proposed development including
Sections: location size,shape,design,curb cuts,lighting,drainage,
25.73.010 When required. paving,parking stalls,landscaping,and other features and
25.73.011 Contents. appurtenances of the proposed parking lot;
25.73.012 Approval or rejection of precise D. The location,dimensions and method of improve-
plan. ment of all property to be dedicated to the public or to
25.73.013 Approval or rejection public utilities;
considerations. E. Examples of proposed architectural treatment in
25.73.014 Approval subject to condition. the form of perspectives and elevations and such other data
25.73.015 Compliance required. as may be required by the planning commission, design
25.73.016 Continuance of existing plans. review board or environmental services director in evaluat-
25.73.017 Distinction from other precise ing the proposed development shall be required and become
plans. an integral part of such a submittal;
25.73.018 Street frontage requirements. F. In all zones other than single-family residential or
25.73.019 Failure to utilize a precise plan. for any use specifically permitted in said zones,or for any
25.73.020 Amendment to a precise plan. use for which a conditional use permit is required the
general location, area, and type of landscaping;
25.73.010 When required. G. General nature of the proposed use.(Ord.299(part),
A. No person shall commence any use for which a 1982)
conditional use permit is required or any use not permitted
in either the R-1,RE zone, and no building permit shall 25.73.012 Approval or rejection of precise
be issued for any structure to be used for or in conjunction plan.
with any such use,until a precise plan of design covering Any such precise plan of design may be rejected, ap-
the parcel or parcels to be so used shall be approved and proved, modified and approved, or approved subject to
adopted as provided in this chapter. The precise plan of conditions.Any such precise plan of design after approval,
design may be filed and approved as a part of the condition- may be amended, in the same manner as a precise plan
al use permit procedure. of design is first approved under this chapter. (Ord. 299
B. Notwithstanding any provision of the Uniform (part), 1982)
Building Code, no grading permit shall be issued for the
grading or excavation of any land,until a precise plan of 25.73.013 Approval or rejection
design,tentative tract map,or tentative parcel map covering considerations.
the property proposed to be graded or excavated has been A. In the approval or rejection of a precise plan of
approved and adopted as provided in this chapter. design,consideration shall be given and restrictions shall
This subsection shall not apply to the grading or excava- be imposed to the extent necessary, in view of the size
tion required in connection with: and shape of the parcel and the present and proposed zoning
1. The construction of a swimming pool on property and use of the subject property and the surrounding proper-
in the residential zone; or ty,to permit the same degree of enjoyment of the subject
2. The movement of less than fifty cubic yards of earth; property, but subject to the same degree of protection of
or adjoining properties, as would be accorded in normal
3. The grading of any parcel of property outside of circumstances by the standard restrictions imposed by this
the hillside overlay zone so as to improve the land for chapter.The standard restrictions imposed in the various
emergency drainage purposes. (Ord. 299 (part), 1982) zones by this chapter relating to the subjects mentioned
in Section 27.73.011 are intended as minimum restrictions
25.73.011 Contents. necessary in normal circumstances to prevent substantial
Such precise plan of design shall specify and include: depreciation of property values in the vicinity,unreasonable
A. The location,size,height,and type of all structures interference with the use and enjoyment of
including signs, walls and fences;
B. The location,size and dimensions of all yards and
setbacks and all spaces between structures;
460-3 (Palm Desert 7-95)
5.73.013
property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for 25.73.016 Continuance of existing plan,..
lawful purposes and the protection of the public peace, Any precise plan previously approved and in effect,
health, safety and general welfare. "Normal circum- shall remain in effect regardless of any changes to
stances"are intended to refer to the case of a permitted zoning regulations subsequently adopted unless the
case upon a lot of a normal size and shape surrounded precise plans are made null and void or amended at the
by property in the same zone as the lot in question. time of adoption.(Ord.299(part),1982)
B. If the proposed precise plan of design would
substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity 25.73.017 Distinction from other precise plans.
or would unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoy- The precise plans of design referred to in this chap-
ment of property in the vicinity by the occupants ter are not to be confused with or considered to be
thereof for lawful purposes or would endanger the precise plans as referred to in the Government Code of
public peace, health, safety or general welfare, such the state.(Ord.299(part),1982)
plan shall be rejected or shall be so modified or condi-
tioned before adoption as to remove said objections. 25.73.018 Street frontage requirements.
C. In addition to the foregoing grounds of rejection, No building or other structure to be used for any
the planning commission and city council,as the case business or commercial purpose shall hereafter be
may be, may also consider and take into account the erected unless the frontage of the lot,or parcel of land
exterior architectural design,general exterior appear- upon which such building or structure is erected,abuts
on one side of a public street between two intersecting
ances, landscape, color, texture of surface materials
and exterior construction, shape and bulk and other streets and unless the front of such building or structure
physical characteristics including location and type of abuts on and faces such public street; provided,how-
public utility facilities, and if it is found that the pro ever, that when practical difficulties or unnecessary
posed precise plan of design, including the considera hardships result through the strict and literal interpre-
tation and enforcement of the provisions of this chap-
tions enumerated in this chapter would interfere with ter,the planning commission or city council may,upon
the orderly development in the vicinity of the precise the adoption of a precise plan of design for the devel-
plan area,or with the existing or proposed use thereof, opment of a particular lot or parcel of land and upon
such precise plan of design shall be rejected or shall be such conditions as it may establish, expressly vary or
so modified or conditioned before approval as to re- waive the requirements of this section.(Ord.299(part),
move the objections.(Ord.299(part), 1982) 1982)
25.73.014 Approval subject to condition. 25.73.019 Failure to utilize a precise plan.
A precise plan of design may be approved subject to A. Failure to utilize a precise plan within one year
the granting of a change of zone, a conditional use of its effective date (unless extended by action of the
permit,a variance or the approval of a final subdivision planning commission)will automatically void such pre-
map,and the planning commission or city council may cise plan. In the event construction work is involved,
require such a precise plan of design to be submitted such work must actually commence within the stated
prior to the granting or recommending of a zone period and be diligently pursued.If the city should fmd
change,variance or conditional use permit. (Ord.299 that there has been no construction of substantial char-
(part),1982) acter taken or if such construction should lapse for
more than six months,the precise plan shall be void.
25.73.015 Compliance required. B. Extension of time up to a maximum one year may
No person shall violate or fail to comply with any be granted from the date of expiration of the precise
plan by the planning commission when extenuating
approved precise plan of design or any conditions or circumstances can be clearly shown by the applicant_
provisions thereof nor shall a building permit be issued The request for same shall be submitted to the planning
for any structure which would violate or fail to comply commission in writing prior to the expiration date and
with any approved precise plan of design for the parcel shall clearly state the reasons why construction has not
or parcels on which such structure is to be located.In commenced.
the event any such permit is issued,it shall be null and C. The commission may grant additional time ex-
void and have no further effect.(Ord.299(part),1982) tensions up to a maximum of one year providing that
461
•
ORDINANCE NO. 948
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T1-IL CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, Government Code § 36937 (B) authorizes the City Council to adopt an
urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety so
long as the ordinance contains a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency, and so
long as the ordinance is passed by a four-fifths vote of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public safety, health and welfare, the City desires
to amend the Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings; and
WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or
welfare in that approval of detached accessory buildings in rear yards of residential lots
would result in a threat to the public health, safety or welfare; and
`WHEREAS, the Municipal Code does not adequately restrict development, placement,
size and height of detached accessory buildings.
°NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
as follows:
Section 1 . That the Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall
be subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required
yard setback except a rear yard setback. Accessory buildings not located in
any required yard setback shall not be subject to this section.
B. On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard setback upon
approval of a conditional use permit by Planning Commission and approval by
Architectural Review Commission.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission
or City Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section
25.73.013 "Approval or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
ORDINANCE NO. 948
C. On lots having less than 40,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or
less of floor area with a maximum height of 8 feet shall be permitted with a
minimum setback of 8 feet from any property line upon approval of
Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum
height of 10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of
setback for each foot of building height upon approval of Architectural Review
Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings
and the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard setback.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building
coverage allowed by the zone is exceeded."
Section 3. This ordinance is passed as an urgency measure pursuant to Government
Code, Section 36937, in the interest of public health, safety and welfare.
Section 4. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure and to be
in full force and effect immediately upon passage by a 4/5 vote of the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert, California, pursuant to Government Code Section 36934.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 8th day
of June, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Benson, Kelly, Spiegel, Crites
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ferguson
ABSTAIN: None e/e-
BUF D A. CRITES, Mayor
ATTEST:
tio*- -' 0
,s:s-,.. .
RA ELLE KLASSEN, Acting City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
APPROV RM:
DAVID J. WIN, City Attorney
City of Palm Desert, California
2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
APRIL 19, 2000
MINUTES
Member Foxx suggested limiting the hours of deliveries.
The members voted unanimously to include in the O.P. zone as a conditional use
interior design showrooms.
Whereupon Member Campbell joined the meeting.
3. O.P. - Discussion on maximum length of buildings/ 1 to 1 setback/ height
ratio, etc.
Mr. Drell explained that there has been some concern about large buildings set
very close to the street, and indicated that the medical office building on the
southwest corner of Fred Waring and San Pascual has been described as a long,
monolithic structure.
Member Foxx disagreed that the building is a long, monolithic structure because it
has a break in the middle and undulation throughout the front elevation.
Members Bartlett and Vuksic also commented favorably on the building and felt that
there is no problem.
The consensus of the Committee was that this matter is the purview of the
Architectural Review Commission, and there is no need to develop a standard.
Whereupon Member Benson joined the meeting.
4. Discussion of accessory buildings in residential districts
Member Smith reported that there have been complaints about accessory buildings
being too close to the rear and side property lines, and noted that the code as
written currently allows a maximum 14-foot structure within five feet of the property
line.
Member Campbell suggested limiting the number of accessory structures to one per
lot.
2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
APRIL 19, 2000
MINUTES
Member Foxx felt that it does not matter it there is one such structure in the front
yard and one in the back, as long as the one in the front does not encroach into the
setback.
Member Bartlett suggested limiting the height to six feet if the location is five feet
from the property line, and that the height be allowed to increase by one additional
foot for every additional foot the structure is away from the property line.
Member Vuksic believed no structures over six feet in height should be allowed
within the entire setback, with which Member Goodman agreed.
Mr. Drell suggested allowing a maximum height of eight feet for an enclosed
structure eight feet from the property line, and a maximum height of 10 feet for an
open structure 10 feet from the property line, and restricting the gross floor area to
120 square feet.
Member Goodman felt that the members should be given additional time to consider
this issue, and the other members concurred.
Member Foxx suggested that a moratorium be imposed in the interim, and the other
members concurred.
5. ADJOURNED: 4:15 PM
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
STEPHEN R. SMITH
PLANNING MANAGER
3
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MAY 10, 2000
MINUTES
***************************************************************************************************,
. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.
Present: Tim Bartlett, Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Jim Foxx, Steve Smith,
Phil Drell
2. Accessory buildings in residential districts
Mr. Smith reported that the City Council imposed a moratorium on the issuance of
building permit for accessory structures within setbacks on residential properties,
and noted that the moratorium will expire tomorrow; so staff has recommended a
30-day extension. It has become evidence that there are two separate issues, i.e.,
the issue of 8,000 to 10,000 square foot lots and the issue of very large (acre) lots.
The consensus of the Committee was to extend the moratorium.
Member Foxx commented that it is ridiculous to allow a habitable structure within
five feet of the property line, especially since a house is not allowed in that area.
He suggested that habitable accessory structures not be allowed within the setback,
but that a non-habitable structure such as a gazebo or pool changing room would
be okay.
Member O'Donnell agreed with Member Foxx and commented that the problem with
habitable accessory structures so close to the property line is that factors such as
noise creates an impact on neighbors' privacy.
Member Foxx felt that the current 50-foot rear yard setback for RE lots is excessive,
and stated that he would be comfortable with a 20-foot setback for primary
structures on these lots.
Mr. Drell explained that the idea of the semi-rural area is to have lots of open space
between houses.
Member Foxx felt that the definition of accessory structure should be clarified, and
preferred that a separate definition and special development standards be
developed for guest houses, with which Member O'Donnell concurred.
1
. J
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MAY 10, 2000
MINUTES
Mr. Smith asked that the Committee provide recommendations regarding: 1)the 50-
foot rear setback in the RE zone; 2) limiting the size of accessory structures in the
RE zone; and 3) a height limit for accessory structures in the RE zone.
Member Benson preferred to avoid the appearance of having two houses on a lot,
and felt that the height of accessory structures should be limited.
Mr. Drell noted that this issue could be addressed on a case by case basis by
allowing accessory structures within the setback via approval of a CUP.
Member Foxx felt that a definition of accessory structure in residential zones should
be developed.
Commissioner O'Donnell felt that the existing 50-foot rear yard setback in the RE
zone should be maintained.
Member Foxx felt that habitable accessory structures should not be allowed within
the required setback on small residential lots, and stressed the need for clear
definitions of accessory structures and guest houses.
The consensus of the Committee was to not allow guest houses within the required
setbacks on small residential lots.
Member Foxx stated that he would not be opposed to non-habitable accessory
structures, i.e., garden shed, at an eight-foot maximum height located eight feet
from the property line, and indicated that the allowed height could be increased by
one foot. Member Foxx expressed support for allowing open accessory structures,
i.e., gazebos, at a 10-foot height maximum located 10 feet from the property line.
Mr. Smith noted that consensus of the Committee to maintain the 50-foot rear yard
setback in the RE zone, and allowing accessory structures within that setback via
approval of a conditional use permit.
3. ADJOURNED: 5:00 PM
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
STEPHEN R. SMITH
PLANNING MANAGER
G:\PLANNING IUMCHA-I\WPDOCS\MIN\ZO051000.MIN 2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTI f
JULY 12, 2000
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 8:40 p.m.
Present: Tim Bartlett, Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Jim Foxx, Frank
Goodman, Richard O'Donnell, Steve Smith, Phil Drell
1. Discussion on proposed sign ordinance amendment for Section 25.86.090.A. -
Prohibited Signs to allow movable copy of Dow Jones market averages as a
community service
Mr. Smith presented draft language for an amendment to allow movable copy and
also presented a copy of a memo from the City's Traffic Engineer, Mark
Greenwood,expressing opposition to allowing movable copy signs insofar as it may
cause driver distraction leading to collisions and congestion.
Member Benson was concerned about how the meaning of information of interest
to the general public could be construed and indicated that she would be more
comfortable with a more specific definition. Member Benson indicated that she is
in agreement with the requirement that other such information be displayed in
conjunction with the time and temperature information.
Member Foxx suggested that such signage be approved for a specific period of
time, i.e., one year, on an experimental basis.
Nancy Cobb of Imperial Signs noted that the proposed changeable copy sign for the
A.G. Edwards building will cost approximately $30,000, so an experimental sign is
cost prohibitive.
Ms. Cobb reported that the applicant now wishes to display the stock market index
while the market is open, and to display the time and temperature only when the
market is closed.
1
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
JULY 12, 2000
MINUTES
Member Benson indicated that she would not be in fav, r of such a display, and
would only be supportive if the time and temperatum data were displayed
alternately with the stock market index data, with which Members Bartlett, Campbell
and Foxx concurred.
Mr. Drell suggested deleting the proposed language restricting the copy to that
which is related to the business, and recommended that the City Attorney be
consulted regarding an appropriate definition of information of interest to the general
public.
Mr. Smith indicated that he will check with the City Attorney and report back to the
Committee.
2. Review of proposed ordinance revisions for accessory structures
Category for 12,000 square feet and greater
Mr. Smith presented draft language for an amendment to allow accessory structures
via conditional use permit within rear yard setbacks of residential properties 12,000
square feet or greater.
Mr. Drell suggested that language be included providing guidelines to maximum
building size, height and minimum setback.
Mr. Smith proposed language such that the Planning Commission may approve
tract development plot maps having accessory structures within the required rear
yard as long as the structures are not visible from public streets and are not located
in the perimeter of the tract. Members Benson, Campbell and O'Donnell indicated
they would be supportive as long as the minimum lot size was 12,000 square feet,
whereas Members Bartlett, Foxx and Goodman indicated they would be supportive
for any size lots.
Member Bartlett suggested that the height:setback ratio be one to one, as it is
proposed for gazebo structures, and the others agreed.
Mr. Smith indicated that he will rework the draft language and bring it back for
further consideration.
2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
AUGUST 30, 2000
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 8:40 p.m.
Present: Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Frank Goodman, Bob Leo, Richard
O'Donnell, Steve Smith
1. Review of proposed ordinance revisions for accessory structures
Category for 12,000 square feet and greater
The Committee reviewed the revised language and concurred with the changes
except the inclusion of Subsection E allowing habitable bonus rooms on lots less
than 12,000 square feet in tract developments where the sites are identified at time
of map approval and excluded from perimeter lots.
The Committee recommended approval of the amendment without Subsection E.
The Committee determined that treating new tracts more liberally than existing
homes would be unfair on its face.
2. Discussion on proposed sign ordinance amendment for Section 25.86.090.A.
Prohibited Signs to allow movable copy of Dow Jones market averages as a
community service.
Mr. Smith advised the Committee that they City attorney is still reviewing the
question of how the City could define "signs of general public interest" and noted
that even if these signs could be defined, on-going enforcement would be difficult.
The Committee discussed the merits of the amendment further and directed staff
to table the matter.
1