Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDPP 98-2 47075 Southcliff Rd APN 628-120-002 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Council review of a Planning Commission action approving a hillside development plan to allow grading of the site and construction of a single family home on five acres within the Hillside Planned Residential zone known as 47-075 Southcliff Road, APN 628-120-002. III. APPLICANT: Eddie Babai 45-640 Highway 74 Palm Desert, CA 92260 IV. CASE NO: HDPP 98-2 V. DATE: December 10, 1998 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Background C. Analysis D. Conclusion E. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 20 and November 3, 1998 F. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1902 G. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 20, 1998 A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council refer this case back to Architectural Review Commission and direct the applicant to revise the proposal to not exceed 3,000 total square feet and that the dwelling be repositioned on the pad to a less prominent location to make the project blend in with the hillside. B. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application October 20, 1998. At that time staff recommended that the proposal be referred back to the applicant for redesign (i.e., reduce size of the dwelling, change the color and make it less prominent--see discussion below). Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval provided the applicant revised the colors to the satisfaction of staff. Resolution No. 1902 approving the project was adopted by Planning Commission November 3, 1998 on a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Finerty voting nay. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT HDPP 98-2 DECEMBER 10, 1998 Several members of Council contacted staff requesting that this application be scheduled for full City Council review. The property is a five-acre site at the westerly end of Southcliff Road which is a narrow paved road which connects to the CVWD maintenance road on the west side of the Palm Valley Channel. The property is presently occupied by a single family dwelling. A significant amount of grading activity has taken place in the area of the proposed new home and a new driveway. This grading activity was performed without benefit of permit or approval. 1 . ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: HPRD/Vacant (exempt) South: HPRD/Dwelling East: HPRD/Vacant West: HPRD/Vacant 2. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND SITE ZONING: Hillside Planned Residential/HPRD 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The construction of a single family home is a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The request is to authorize the completion of the grading for the new dwelling and its driveway and then construct a single family dwelling. The 5,600 square foot dwelling will be single story, 17 feet in height with a three-foot circular projection. The dwelling colors now include lava rock gray and weavers cloth beige. The dwelling architecture has received preliminary Architectural Review Commission approval. The proposal also includes demolition of the existing dwelling and renaturalization of the driveway and pad serving that unit. 2 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT HDPP 98-2 DECEMBER 10, 1998 C. ANALYSIS: The zoning ordinance for the hillside district encourages a minimum amount of grading and requires retention of natural vegetation. The ordinance allows a 10,000 square foot building pad be created on a five-acre parcel. As noted previously, the applicant proceeded with grading without a permit. Notwithstanding, the new pad placement is the most logical location on the lot because expansion of the existing pad would create a very significant slope visible from the northeast and anywhere else on the property would require movement of more material. The applicant has chosen to maximize the pad size and place a 5,600 square foot dwelling in the most prominent position on the new pad. The driveway, garage and pool are located to the back side of the pad. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed this project its September 22, 1998 meeting (minutes attached). At that time staff noted that the colors were too dark and will not blend in with the hillside and minimize the visual impact of a prominent architectural statement. ARC discussed the colors and the project in general and felt that landscaping would help to soften the appearance. ARC granted preliminary approval to the project as submitted. After the first Planning Commission hearing the applicant changed the colors to the satisfaction of staff. The goal of the ordinance is to blend new homes into the hillside. Staff disagrees with the ARC and Planning Commission actions and feels that this project will not blend into the hillside for the following reasons: 1 . A 5,600 square foot home is larger than was anticipated on a 10,000 square foot pad. Essentially, the dwelling is being placed on a 10,000 square foot lot. A typical home on a 10,000 square foot lot in the flat land would be between 3,000 and 3,500 square feet including the garage. The 5,600 square foot dwelling will exceed 50% coverage of the pad. The Olinger residence which is quite prominent was constructed in 1987 and it is only 1 ,830 square feet plus a 528 square foot garage. 2. The original colors of the proposed structure did not in staff's opinion blend in with the hillside. The applicant has revised the color scheme to a lava rock 3 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT HDPP 98-2 DECEMBER 10, 1998 gray and weavers cloth beige which should better blend in with the hillside. The extraordinary size of the dwelling and position near the front edge of the lot will still make it quite prominent. D. CONCLUSION: Staff feels that the dwelling needs to be reduced in size and be repositioned on the pad. Given the architectural design which the applicant is pursuing, a setback from the edge of the pad should be provided. This could be accomplished by relocating the further back on the pad. drivewayto the east side of the pad and placing the dwelling u Prepared by: Steve Smith Reviewed and Approved by: �t 4_ Philip Drell /tm CITY COUNCIL,ACTION: APPROVED ✓✓ DENIED RECEIVED OTHER tEETI - DATE I - `t ,YES: l ""..^"" 4t,e_ui r.AA,t K-e 0 �' 4OES• ABSENT: _(fn Qc ABSTAIN: Y\(ni 0 �. '--VERIFIED BY: .. � 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY �ALIFORNIA FIRE DEPARTMENT 0FaF, \FkE PROTECT oN J- IN COOPERATION WITH THE C (INTY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION C F!RESTr.Y RIVERSIDE MAY Y.IUJ JAMES M.WRIGHT DF FIRE CHIEF `FIRE • RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE COVE FIRE MARSHAL 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE 70-801 HWY 111 PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92570 RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270 TELEPHONE: (909)940-6900 TELEPHONE: (760)346-1870 FAX: (760) 328-1071 TO: Steve Smith 11-12-98 Planning Department FROM: Mike Mc Connell Fire Marshal SUBJECT: PP 98-2 I reference to my letter dated 10-15-98 on fire department requirements, should the council approve the project the fire department will amend the requirements. If any of the four previous conditions can not be met a residential fire sprinkler system can be installed as a mitigating factor. Mike Mc Connell Fire Marshal printed on recycled paper:: CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Smith, Planning Manager FROM: Joseph S. Gaugush, Engineering Manager SUBJECT: HDPP 98-2; EDDIE AHMAD BABAI AMENDED CONDITION DATE: November 25, 1998 Public Works Condition No. 5 for the above-noted project should be modified to read as follows: * Access drive grades shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall. ire ferenced Desert Municipal Code Section 26.40, as ef erenced in Condition No. 5, is applicable to street design. The subject access drive does not function as a street and, therefore, would not be subject to the limits specified in Section 26.40. JOSEPH S. GAUG , . . JSG/ms MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1998 C. Case No. HDPP 98-2 - EDDIE BABAI, Applicant Request for approval of a hillside development plan to allow grading singlefamily of the site and construction of a home on five acres within the Hillside Planned Residential zone known as 47-075 Southcliff Road, APN 628-120-002. Mr. Smith explained that the plans were on display and passed out photographs. He visited the site one day last week and took some pictures and thought they might be helpful. He said the request was to develop on an existing five acre site a large single family home located at the westerly end of Southcliff Road. Access to Southcliff was from the CVWD access road south of Thrush. He indicated that the project description was twofold. One was to allow the applicant to complete the grading activity which he had begun and then to approve the 5,600 square foot single story dwelling unit on this graded pad. He said that the existing five acre lot has another existing graded pad with a dwelling located on it. That house with trees and landscaping was located north of the proposed pad. As shown in the photographs, there had been considerable grading activity there that was done without permit or approval. The hillside ordinance allowed for a graded pad of up to 10,000 square feet. If the application before the commission this evening were successful, then the applicant would have to remove the existing dwelling unit and re-naturalize the area, the driveway and pad areas so that they are left with one home up there and one graded pad of 10,000 square feet. He indicated that Architectural Review at its meeting of September 22, 1998, granted preliminary approval to the plans that were distributed to Planning Commission. He passed out a copy of the color palette that was shown to Architectural Review at that time. Mr. Smith said staff discussed this matter at length with ARC in that they did not agree that the color scheme would blend in with the hillside. Copies of the minutes were included in the commission packets. He said the goal of the ordinance is to allow limited development in the hillside. He noted that at one time there was a referendum on hillside development as well as a variety of other issues in the hillside. More recent hillside development included the Olinger residence located a couple of hundred yards southerly of this property. That home showed up on the hillside in a lighter tan color above the Community Church. That was done in 1 987-88. It was a 1 ,830 square foot home plus a 520-530 square foot garage on that pad. In this instance the Planning Commission was being requested to approve a 5,600 square foot dwelling on a 10,000 square foot 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1998 pad. Staff did not believe it was the intent of the ordinance that they would be building monuments on the hillside. If they were looking at a 10,000 square foot lot on the flat land, it would have a 30%-35% coverage limit, or be 3,000 or 3,500 square feet. In this instance what they were looking at was in excess of 50% coverage on the pad. Secondly, staff was concerned that the color palette would not blend in with the hillside. In that area staff disagreed with the action by the Architectural Review Commission. Staff felt this dwelling needed to be reduced in size, have its color scheme revised to better blend in with the hillside and reposition the smaller home further to the south on the pad so that it would be less prominent. Staff's recommendation was that Planning Commission take public testimony and continue this matter to a date certain and direct the applicant to revise the proposal to not exceed 3,000 square feet and to revise the colors and the site plan to make the project better blend in with the hillside. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked if the Olinger home Mr. Smith referred to was the last home that was built on the hillside. Mr. Smith said yes, for this area of the hillside. There have been others down in the area of the tennis courts further to the north which while they were technically in the hillside, they were not as high up in the hillside. Commissioner Finerty asked if this would be comparable with where this home is proposed. Mr. Smith said yes, with the Olinger residence. It was a couple of hundred yards to the south and if they were standing at a point on Highway 74 they would be able to see both residences. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. SEAN ABAII, the Principal of S.A.B.A. Architects, informed commission that he was the architect for this project. He said that before the Commission was a rendering that would show how the house would look, which was also presented at the Architectural Review Commission meeting. He said he reviewed the staff report and wanted to go over some of the items that Mr. Smith mentioned to perhaps shed more light on some of the issues. The staff report indicated that the applicant chose to maximize the pad size and place a 5,600 square foot house on that pad. They hired a civil engineer before they started to do this project and the plans before Commissior indicated that the pad is actually 9,900 square feet, so it was below 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1998 10,000 square feet and they were not maximizing the pad. He showed the rendering to Commission and explained that when they submitted to the Architectural Review Board it took about five or ten minutes for the Commission to review and look at the project. They all had high i this about the project and most of them said that th s is the type of projecttheywould like to see on the hillside and these were the colors they would like to see on a hillside, rather than just a white or very light colors. They all agreed that these colors, which are also earth tone colors, do blend in with the mountain. He explained that they conducted a lot of computer analyses and took samples of the granite actually up there and did color matching to see what they could do to make it blend even better. That was how they came up with the proposed colors, but the colors were not important. He said they were there to please the City, to make sure they have a project that would blend in with the colors of the mountain. If the City has suggestions, or if Mr. Smith has suggestions about changing the colors, they would willingly listen. He had no problem with that. He pointed out a statement that was a quotation from the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, which he thoroughly read and which was mentioned by Mr. Smith, that said that a typical home on a 10,000 square foot lot, and the key word was "lot" in the flat land would be between 3,000 to 3,500 square feet, which was a 35% lot coverage. He agreed that was absolutely correct, but asked the Commission to remember that his client has a five-acre lot, not a 10,000 square foot lot. The pad they are proposing on the five-acre lot is approximately 10,000 square feet. If they were to use the zoning ordinance figure of 35% coverage, they would have a house size of 1 .62 acres. They have a pad of 10,000 square feet on a five-acre lot. He also mentioned that the Architectural Review Commission was pleased and had high praises for the house. They said this was the kind of home they would like to see up there on the mountain and not something white, not something simple, and not something that would not blend with anything. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification that Mr. Abaii wouldn't mind changing the color of the house. Mr. Abaii said he wouldn't mind as long as the color wasn't white, which wouldn't blend in. He said they took a piece of granite and actually did the computer analysis to get the earth tone colors that 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1998 would blend in, but he had no problem with working with the City to come up with a desirable color. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. There was none. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty noted that she was new to the Commission and this was her first hillside development case so she diligently read through the ordinance trying to find out how many square feet a home could be and found that the ordinance was silent on the square footage, as well as the height of the building. She was concerned about the reference to the Olinger home being built 12 years ago and it was noted that although it is 1 ,830 square feet, which is significantly smaller than the home before them tonight, that it wasquiteprominent and this home was constructed 1 2years ago. She was 9 also concerned that whatever they decided tonight would set a precedent and wondered if it would be a good idea to go back and review our hillside ordinance and find out what it is that they really want in the hills, what size of homes (if any) and to fine tune the ordinance because it didn't tell her or guide her as far as making a decision this evening. She would rather have a home built by a plan on what they really want than accidentally because the policy hadn't been properly set. Commissioner Jonathan thought that revisiting the hillside ordinance was not a bad idea but felt it would be inappropriate to postpone a decision regarding this matter based on a review of the ordinance. Furthermore, if the ordinance were to be reviewed and changed, it would be even more inappropriate to apply new and changed standards to an application that is before them at this time. His interpretation of the present ordinance is that the basic objective is to be as least intrusive on the hillside, particularly as it is viewed below, as possible. He believed that the size of the house had to be considered, not in isolation, but in recognition that it is on a five-acre lot and not on a 10,000 square foot lot. He didn't have any kind of a problem with the size of the home. They certainly had homes much larger throughout the desert, including on five acre lots in Rancho Mirage. He didn't have a problem with that size of a home on five acres. He loved the colors, but not for the hillside. He thought that some kind of compromise was going to be necessary there and suggested that if they moved forward with everything else that they allow the applicant and staff to work out an acceptable color scheme and only in the event that 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1998 any disagreement couldn't be resolved between the applicant and staff directly, that the matter come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Beaty said he was in favor of a continuance. There was a very clear statement in the ordinance which states that architectural design and materials to the greatest practical extent blend in with the natural terrain. He didn't see either the architecture or the colors or materials blending here at all. He was interpreting the project as an attempt to build a monument as Mr. Smith referred to where they would have something that stands out and everyone would say "wow, look at that". That clearly was not the intent of the ordinance. He believed the intent was to give the individual an opportunity to live on the hillside and enjoy the hillside and views, but not impose the view of their location on those on the flat land. Commissioner Fernandez concurred with Commissioner Jonathan and Dr. Beaty regarding the colors. He felt this was a great project and that the house was beautiful and would really look nice, but it was his opinion that the applicant should get together with the City and work out the colors. He would be in favor of the project and would like a continuance until both parties could decide on the colors. Chairperson Campbell stated that she was also glad that Mr. Abaii brought out the fact that the definition was for 10,000 square foot lots in the flat land and not five acres, which she wasn't aware of. This is a five-acre piece of property and as far as the design of the home was concerned, she thought it was very nice. Also, compared to some of the homes up there it was quite a step up. She also looked at the property today and the height at that location and as far as the landscaping was concerned that Architectural Review brought up, it would be nicely landscaped and would camouflage a lot of building. As far as the colors were concerned, there were a lot of shadows up in the mountains with dark and light colors and they don't want a white or beige home up there. She thought they could go ahead and work out something as far as the colors were concerned. She asked for a motion. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it sounded like a few of the commissioners wanted this to come back before them because there were enough changes they were asking for that they want to see it before it's approved and he could live with that. It also sounded like most of them didn't have an objection to the size of the home or the basic architecture. The area of discussion for most 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1998 of them was really on the color palette so if the Commission was so inclined he would be prepared to move for a continuance of the matter to a date certain which they could address with the applicant, but limit the issue to the color palette. He indicated if that was acceptable to the Commission perhaps they could move in that direction. Chairperson Campbell agreed that the discussion should be on the color palette. Mr. Smith stated that part of staff's concern was with the location of the home on the pad. He asked if the Commission wished staff to pursue that or if they accepted the driveway and garage in its current location on the plot plan. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he didn't have a problem with it. Commissioner Fernandez also said he didn't have a problem with it. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Abaii how much time he would need in order to address the color palette with staff with the hopeful objective of coming back to the Commission with something that both staff and the applicant could agree on. Mr. Abaii said he would leave that up to Mr. Smith. They were open and would be available any time next week. Mr. Smith noted that he would be on vacation next week and they would have to work with Mr. Drell, but he felt it was something that could be handled in one meeting and suggested a continuance to November 3, 1998. Mr. Abaii stated that November 3 would be fine. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they always had the ability of a further continuance if for some reason it wasn't resolved. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the motion was to continue the matter to November 3 with discussion being limited to the color palette. Commissioner Finerty said that she concurred with Commissioner Beaty with regard to the potential monument and she would not want to limit the discussion just to the colors. Commissioner Jonathan said the motion still stood and wanted to see if there was any consensus. Mr. Abaii said that if the Commission looked at the plan, they did a lot of studies which were also reflected by site delineation or site drawing which he believed was on the next page. They knew that they didn't want to design a house that was a block that would be intrusive or obtrusive that would look like a big mass. Their first attempt was flatly 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1998 refused by the Architectural Review Commission and he showed that design to the Planning Commission. He noted that the original design was for a two-story house and they took Architectural Review Commission's notes and comments and went back to the computer and came up with a house that was stealth in design which has a lot of curves to it. He explained that curves don't hit you like a solid tall wall of concrete or block. When designing a project, in order to soften a project an architect uses a lot of curves and also by placing the house on that location of the site was one of the key elements of making it not to be so obtrusive or stick out too far. They took advantage of the 10,000 square foot limitation they had and put the house all the way to the far back of it. If the city ordinance allowed them to go to a 20,000 square foot pad, they would be more than happy to push the house even further back which would allow them to have more landscaping development. They worked with the 10,000 square feet allowed and designed a house that was curvilinear and stealthy. Commissioner Beaty asked if the findings required demolition of the existing structur e and naturalization of the terrain. Mr. Smith noted that the Commission didn't have a resolution of approval in the packet. When the resolution came before them, staff would put in a condition requiring that. Chairperson Campbell asked ifthe applicant a licant would have a satellite dish at the new home like at the existing home. Mr. Babai indicated that it would be moved. Mr. Abaii said they could replace it with a much smaller one. Commissioner Beaty noted that they really make some small ones now. Chairperson Campbell concurred. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff, during the two-week continuance, could do a survey of the other homes in the hills to determine the average and largest square footage. Mr. Smith said he had a discussion last week with the gentleman of the lot adjacent to the east, a Mr. Cree, and Mr. Smith had expected him to be at this meeting. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Cree that question and Mr. Cree said they were between 800 and 1 ,000 square feet. Commissioner Beaty noted that those were the homestead shacks. Mr. Smith indicated that they were the homestead dwellings and Commissioner Beaty felt that some of them are shacks. Commissioner Jonathan felt it would be more 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1998 telling, in response to Commissioner Finerty's comment, to look at the most recent additions, particularly just north of Bighorn around Cougar Trail and that of those homes are verylarge and veryexpensive. Mr. Smith said area. Some f os g p that area was in the County. Commissioner Jonathan noted very few people think of Cahuilla Hills as not being part of Palm Desert and that was something that could be addressed if and when they looked at the hillside ordinance. Commissioner Beaty said he would second the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, to continue HDPP 98-2 to November 3, 1998 directing staff to meet with the applicant to resolve color palette concerns. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). Chairperson Campbell requested that staff also prepare a resolution of approval for adoption at that meeting. Mr. Smith said it would be prepared consistent with the Planning Commission's direction and they would attempt to clarify the color issue. Chairperson Campbell clarified for the applicant that the only unresolved issue that was being continued was the color palette. D. Case No. CUP 91-8 Amendment - SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of a one-year time extension to a conditional use permit to allow the temporary use of a five-acre parcel west of the existing facility to locate a 6,400 square foot classroom building and a 280-space parking lot at 73-251 Hovley Lane West. Mr. Smith explained that the request was for a one year time extension of the temporary use permit at Southwest Community Church. As the staff report indicated, the Commission approved the use of this five-acre parcel for a parking lot and a 6,400 square foot temporary classroom in March of 1997. The church had plans to move to a new facility and there was a condition placed on that approval for the removal of the temporary classroom building effective September 30. As well, the resolution established numerous operational conditions to improve the compatibility of the facility with the residential neighborhood to the west. Ground breaking for the new church did 24 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1902 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALLOWING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,600 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A FIVE ACRE SITE IN THE HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONE, 47-075 SOUTHCLIFF ROAD, APN 628- 120-002. CASE NO. HDPP 98-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of October, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of MR. EDDIE AHMAD BABAI for approval of a hillside development plan to allow construction of a 5,600 square foot single family home on a five acre site within the Hillside Planned Residential zone generally located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel, more particularly described as APN 628-120-002; 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. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 3 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 actions, as described below: 1 . The proposal is consistent with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan and West Hills Specific Plan. 2. The proposal complies with the intent and specific requirements of the Hillside Planned Residential District. 3. The proposal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties for improvements in the vicinity. 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 approve Hillside Development Plan No. 98-2, subject to the conditions attached hereto. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1902 r PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of November, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BEATY, FERNANDEZ, JONATHAN, CAMPBELL NOES: FINERTY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE >2/ SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: l r'_ PHILIP DRELL, ecretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1902 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. HDPP 98-2 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property described herein shall conform to approved exhibits on file in the Department of Community Development and shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all the requirements, limitations and restrictions of all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. Applicant shall receive approval from the Riverside County Health Department for an on-site septic disposal system prior to issuance of building permits. 3. That all disturbed slope areas and the existing pad area and driveway be renaturalized to blend in with the surrounding undisturbed slopes. 4. That the dwelling height and design be substantially consistent with that given preliminary approval by the Architectural Review Commission at its September 22, 1998 meeting. 5. That the perimeter landscaping be designed to blend with the natural hillside. Plan to be approved by Architectural Review Commission. 6. That the existing dwelling be removed from the site prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the new dwelling. 7. That the colors shall be as shown on the color sample board dated November 3, 1998. 8. In addition to all normal development fees, the applicant shall be subject to the double permit fee provision of the grading ordinance as a result of past illegal grading activity. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1902 Department of Public Works: 1 . Any storm drain/retention area construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by the registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 2. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 3. Proposed pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Site grading design shall include consideration of existing topography. 4. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.15, all manufactured slopes shall be planted or otherwise protected from the effects of storm water runoff and erosion within thirty days after completion. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . Access will not have an up or down grade of more than 15%. 2. Access will not be less than 20 feet wide. 3. Access will be free of sharp confined turns, 45 feet outside radius. 4. An approved turnaround shall be provided at all building sites. 4 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 20, 1998 CASE NO: HDPP 98-2 REQUEST: Approval of a hillside development plan to allow grading of the site and construction of a single family home on five acres within the Hillside Planned Residential zone known as 47-075 Southcliff Road, APN 628- 120-002. APPLICANT: Eddie Babai 45-640 Highway 74 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. BACKGROUND: The property is a five-acre site at the westerly end of Southcliff Road which is a narrow paved road which connects to the CVWD maintenance road on the west side of the Palm Valley Channel. The property is presently occupied by a single family dwelling. A significant amount of grading activity has taken place in the area of the proposed new home and a new driveway. This grading activity was performed without benefit of permit or approval. A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: HPRD/Vacant (exempt) South: HPRD/Dwelling East: HPRD/Vacant West: HPRD/Vacant B. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND SITE ZONING: Hillside Planned Residential/HPRD C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The construction of a single family home is a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. STAFF REPORT HDPP 98-2 OCTOBER 20, 1998 D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The request is to authorize the completion of the grading for the new dwelling and its driveway and then construct a single family dwelling. The 5,600 square foot dwelling will be single story, 17 feet in height with a three-foot circular projection. The dwelling colors/materials include indian red, dark gray and glass block. The dwelling architecture has received preliminary Architectural Review Commission approval. The proposal also includes demolition of the existing dwelling and renaturalization of the driveway and pad serving that unit. II. ANALYSIS: The zoning ordinance for the hillside district encourages a minimum amount of grading and requires retention of natural vegetation. The ordinance does allow a 10,000 square foot building pad be created on a five-acre parcel. As noted previously, the applicant •proceeded with grading without a permit. Notwithstanding, the new pad placement is the most logical location on the lot because expansion of the existing pad would create a very significant slope visible from the northeast and anywhere else on the property would require movement of more material. The applicant has chosen to maximize the pad size and place a 5,600 square foot dwelling in the most prominent position on the new pad. The driveway, garage and pool are located to the back side of the pad. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed this project its September 22, 1 998 meeting (minutes attached). At that time staff noted that the colors were too dark and will not blend in with the hillside and minimize the visual impact of a prominent architectural statement. ARC discussed the colors and the project in general and felt that landscaping will help to soften the appearance. ARC granted preliminary approval to the project as submitted. The goal of the ordinance is to blend new homes into the hillside. Staff disagrees with the ARC action and does not feel that this project will accomplish that goal for the following reasons: 2 STAFF REPORT HDPP 98-2 OCTOBER 20, 1998 A. A 5,600 square foot home is larger than was anticipated on a 10,000 square foot pad. Essentially, the dwelling is being placed on a 10,000 square foot lot. A typical home on a 10,000 square foot lot in the flat land would be between 3,000 and 3,500 square feet including the garage. The 5,600 square foot dwelling will exceed 50% coverage of the pad. The Olinger residence which is quite prominent was constructed in 1987 and it is only 1 ,830 square feet plus a 528 square foot garage. B. The colors of the proposed structure will not blend in with the hillside. The colors when combined with the extraordinary size of the dwelling and position near the front edge of the lot will make it quite prominent. III. CONCLUSION: Staff feels that the dwelling needs to be reduced in size, have its color scheme revised to better blend in with the hillside and reposition the dwelling on the pad. Given the architectural design which the applicant is pursuing, a setback from the edge of the pad should be provided. This could be accomplished by relocating the driveway to the east side of the pad and placing the dwelling further back on the pad. Alternatively, the applicant could revise the architecture and colors to allow better visual integration with the hillside. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission continue the case to a date certain and direct the applicant to revise the proposal to not exceed 3,000 total square feet, revise the colors and site plan to make the project blend in with the hillside. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Legal notice 3 STAFF REPORT HDPP 98-2 OCTOBER 20, 1998 B. Comments from city departments and other agencies C. Plans and exhibits Prepared by ,,626a , /ls't" '/‘ Steve Smith Reviewed and Approved by hil Drell /tm 4 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 98-02; EDDIE AHMAD BABAI DATE: October 14,1998 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above- referenced project: 1 . Any storm drain/retention area construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by the registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 2. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 3. Proposed pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Site grading design shall include consideration of existing topography. 4. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.15, all manufactured slopes shall be planted or otherwise protected from the effects of storm water runoff and erosion within thirty days after completion of grading. PAGE 2 MEMO TO STEVE SMITH HDP 98-02 5. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.40, the maximum grade for a hillside road shall not exceed twenty percent unless the Fire Marshall requires a flatter slope. Road grade segments in excess of twelve percent may not exceed 300 feet in length and must be constructed of Portland cement concrete. RICHARD . . FOLKERS, P.E. RJ F:PG/rh RIVERSIDE COUNTY C.UFORNIA e.w_. FIRE DEPARTMENT a�PFRE PROTECT 049y IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY -� • ' COUNT AND FIRE PROTECTION C FJRESTr. JAMES M. WRIGHT IRE F FIRE CHIEF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE COVE FIRE MARSHAL 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE 70-801 HWY 111 PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92570 RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270 TELEPHONE: (909) 940-6900 TELEPHONE: (760) 346-1870 FAX: (760)328-1071 TO: Steve Smith 10-15-98 RECEIVED Planning Department OCT 15 1998 FROM: Mike Mc Connell Fire Marshal COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT SUBJECT: PP 98-2 *The following requirements apply to this project. 1. Access will not have an up or down grade of more than 15%. 2. Access will not be less than 20' wide. 3. Access will be free of sharp confined turns,45' outside radius. 4. An approved turnaround shall be provided at all building sites. MjkenIVIc Connell wvil Fire Marshal printed on recycled paper ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 MINUTES Commissioner Urrutia felt that landscaping will help to soften the appearance, and the applicant indicated that a landscaping plan is forthcoming. Action: Commissioner Urrutia moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant preliminary approval. The motion carried 5-0. 3. APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICHARD PRICE & ASSOCIATES, INC. for AVONDALE GOLF CLUB VILLAS, 27127 Calle Arroyo, Suite 1905, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval landscape plan LOCATION: Avondale Country Club ZONE: PR-3 Michael Bunganich, the landscape architect for the project, reported that the City's landscape consultant, Eric Johnson, indicated to the project developer that the plan contains too many trees. Chairman Gregory noted that the trees are shown at 25 feet apart, which should be sufficient to allow growth. Mr. Smith noted that the street improvement plans have not yet been submitted, and there is a concern that the area may not be as large as once thought; so the Commission may approve the proposal, and if changes are necessitated by the street improvements, it will be brought back to the Commission. Mr. Bunganich stated that he has reviewed the street improvement plan which includes a 19-inch median with two-inch stamped concrete on either side; so there is sufficient room. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to grant preliminary approval. The motion carried 5-0. 11 DRAFT SUBJECT TO mie REVISION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 MINUTES Commissioner Urrutia suggested that a planter could also be installed at the southwest corner of the building. Commissioner Urrutia commented favorably on how the architect added articulation to the structure, and Commissioner Holden indicated that he also did a good job in reducing the massive appearance of the structure. Commissioner O'Donnell expressed support for the improvements to the design. Action: Commissioner Holden moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to grant preliminary approval of the revised plans with the following conditions: 1) that the landscaping be upgraded to improve screening from the adjacent residential areas; 2) that the drive-through element be reduced to a single lane; 3) that the drive-through structure be lengthened, with planting added on the north side of the drive-through to soften the appearance. The motion carried 5-0. 2. CASE NO.: HD PP 98-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EDDIE AHMAD BABAI, 45- 640 Highway 74, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVALApproval SOUGHT: A roval of revised drawings for hillside development of single-family residence LOCATION: 47-075 Southcliff Road ZONE: HPRD Mr. Drell presented the plans and materials sample, and opined that the " colors are too dark and will not blend into the hillside. Mr. Drell indicated that he believes the line of sight drawing is inaccurate. Commissioner O'Donnell commented favorably on the proposed colors,while Commissioner Van Vliet felt that the colors should be more consistent with the color of the hillside. 10 DRAFT_ SUBJECT TO • Chapter 25.15 planned residential district and do not require pre-approval25.15.010 pursuant to a development plan: HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT A. Small family day care homes.(Ord.742§5, 1994) Sections: 25.15.025 Large family day care homes. 25.15.010 Purpose. Large family day care homes are permitted subject to 25.15.020 Permitted uses. a use permit pursuant to Chapter 25.72A of this code.(Ord. 25.15.023 Principal uses and structures 742 § 6, 1994) permitted. 25.15.025 Large family day care homes. 25.15.030 Development standards. 25.15.030 Development standards. Development standards shall be as approved by the plan- ?5.15.040 Abandoned uses. ning commission in a public hearing and shall be based 25.15.050 Circulation. upon the following development options. The minimum 25.15.060 Structural design. density obtainable shall be one dwelling unit per five acres. 25 15 070 Fire protection. It will be the rsaonsibrlity of the applicant to provide suffi- 25.15.080 Erosion control. cient data supporting the applicability of any option.The 25.15.090 Preservation of open space. planning commission shall make a final determination 25.15.100 Submittal requirements for concerning which option or combination of options is development plan. appropriate. Firms submitting topographic data must be 25.15.110 Environmental assessment. registered civil engineers. 25.15.12.0 Required information. 25.15.130 Optional preliminary approval OPTION NO. 1 — PARCEL AVERAGE procedure. SLOPE METHOD 25.15.010 Purpose. This option requires a topographic map of the entire The purpose and intent of the hillside planned residential parcel with maximum five foot contour intervals. Using district is: the following formula and tables the average slope for the __ A. To encourage only minimal grading in hillside areas entire parcel is determined leading to density designations that relates to the natural contours of the land and will not and grading limitations: result in extensive cut and fill slopes that result in a padding A Average SlopeFormula or staircase effect within the development; B. To retain natural vegetation which stabilizes slopes and where necessary to require additional landscaping to s = .00229II.. Where: S =Average percent slope stabilize slopes and maintain the necessary cuts and fills A I = Contour interval,in fit in hillside areas: L = Summation of the con- C. Require the retention of natural landmarks and tour length, in feet features including vistas and the natural skyline as integral A = Area of the parcel in elements in development proposals in hillside areas.(Ordacres, of ownership 322 (part), 1983) being considered. 25.15.020 Permitted uses. Uses and activities permitted by approved development B. Density.Density within the district shall be based plan shall be as follows: on the following scale: A. Grading; imum Acreage Per Min B. Single-family attached or detached dwellings; Unit C. Land subdivisions: Percent SlopeDwelling D. Remodels and additions only require department 1. 10— 15 0.66 acres: of environmental services approval.(Ord.322(part), 1983) 2. 16 —20 1.00 acres; 3. 21 —25 1.25 acres; 25.15.023 Principal uses and structures 4. 26 —30 1.66 acres: permitted. 5. 31 —35 2.50 acres; The following arc permitted uses within any hillside 6. 36 or over 5.00 acres. 363 ('raixn Desert 7-95) 25.15.030 C. Grading. The minimum of percentage of a lot to 3. Maximum of overall density of one dwelling unit remain in a natural state without cut or fill shall be de- per acre. termined on the basis of the average slope of the natural The city may require any measure it feels nec-scary terrain of the lot Such determination shall be made on to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic impacts of the basis of the natural state as being defined as the condi- grading or construction.Location and gades of amass roads tion of the lot prior to any new development The following shall be as approved by the fire marshal and planning table indicates the minimum percentage of a lot to remain commission.If adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts in a natural state: of site and access grading rannot be adequately mitigarrrl then the designated location shall not qualify as a building Percent of the Lot to site under this option. Remain in the Natural Density for the area remaining after the application of Percent Slope State Option No.3,shall be determined via Option No.1 or Nu. 1. 10— 15 325 2. 2. 16—20 47.5 Architectural design and materials shall to the geatest 3. 21 —25 625 practical extent blend with the natural terrain. 4. 26 —30 775 5. 31 —35 92_5 GRADING RESTRICTION FOR PROPERTIES 6. 36 or over 95.0 OVER TEN PERCENT SLOPE DEVELOPED UNDER OPTION NO. 2 AND OPTION NO. 3 D. Density transfer. The planning commission may require a transfer of density from one portion of a parcel Grading on the site shall be limited to-the minimum to another,to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic required for safe access and the structural requirements impacts. of the dwelling unit. Grading for the building pad shall not involve an area grater than ten thousand square feet. OPTION NO. 2—TOE OF SLOPE That area disturbed by grading other than that requires for genes or building foundation,including all visible cuts Owners of parcels located at the toe of the slope may or fills, must be contoured and landscaped to blend with delineate areas adjacent to the valley floor(minimum area the surrounding natural terrain prior to final inspection or one-third acre, minimum dimension one hundred feet), within one year following completion of grading if constuc- which after application of the slope formula described in tion has not commenced. Option No. 1 are shown to have an average slope of less than ten percent These areas will no longer be subject to OPTION NO.4—PREFERRED the restrictions contained in this title, will be assigned a DEVELOPMENT AREA density of three dwelling units per acre and shall be devel- oped according to procedures set out in Chapter 2524. The ability of the city's architectural review commission If the remaining area exceeds four acres,an ariditional process to insure proper siting of units within the hillside unit may be developed in the hillside.If the remainder is is directly proportional to the size of the parcel. Certain less than four acres,the hillside must remain undeveloped. lots may not contain any acceptable sites while others may For a remainder larger than five acres,density wi71 be deter- contain several. The larger the parcel, the greater the mined through Option No. 1 or No. 3. likelihood that suitable locations can be found.It is therefore advantageous to encourage the consolidation of smaller OPTION NO. 3—DWELLING UNIT parcels so that sites can be developed according to aesthetic BUILDING St 11r, and environmental criteria instead of arbitrary existing property lines. It is Instead of determining density by the average slope of the entire parcel as in Option No. 1, the applicant may delineate specific dwelling unit building sites whose slopes arc twenty percent or less and are not adjacent to the valley floor, if the following criteria is met 1. Minimum area of one-half acre: 2. Minimum dimension of one hundred feet; (am,Desert 7-95) 364 25.15.030 also the city's desire to concentrate development on the structures and roadways Shall be in accordance with the less visible lower slopes. uniform fire code and approved by the fire agency. The following option offers increased density for B. Roof shall be of incombustible material ap- - larger parcels or combination of parcels submitted proved by the fire agency. under one development plan if at least ten acres are C. All easements for fire breala shall be dedicated located in the preferred development area as shown on to this purpose through recordation. the zoning map. D. All buildings shall be equipped with fire suppres- Density Shall be based upon the following table: sion automatic sprinkler systems approved by the fire marshal.(Ord.322(part),1983) AREA DENSITY 10-19 acres 2 d.u./5 acres 25.15.080 Erosion control. - 20 awes 3 d.u./5 acres All manufactured slopes shall be planted or other- wise protected from the effects of storm runoff and erosion within thirty days after completion of grading. Site location, grading, roads and architectural de- Planting shall be designed to blend with the surround- sign shall be as approved by the planning commission ing terrain and the character of development.(Ord.322 and architectural commission and shall minimi7r ad- (part),1983) verse aesthetic and environmental impacts and shall maximize the preservation of the natural character of 25.15.090 Preservation of open space. the hillside. In order to insure permanent retention of the natn- This option cannot be applied in conjunction with ral terrain as required in Section 25.15.040,a covenant any other options.(Ord.322(part),1983) approved by the city attorney shall be recorded dedi- cating all building rights to the city and insuring that 25.15.040 Abandoned uses. the natural areas shall remain as shown on plans ap- If, pursuant to this chapter, an existing building proved by the city.(Ord.322(part),1983) and/or building site is to be abandoned,the abandoned -building Shall be removed from the site and properly 25.15.100 Submittal requirements for disposed of and :he site regraded and landscaped to development plan. blend with the terain prior to any other building per- Prior to the issuance of any building or grading nits being issue for the property. (Ord. 322 (part), permit (unless otherwise provided), or land subdivi- 1983) sion, a development plan shall be appi uved by the planning commission.This may include,as determined 25.15.050 Circulation. by the director of environmental services,the following A. Street alignments where possible shall parallel information as set out in Sections 25.15.110 through contours of the natural terrain and be located in valleys 25.15.130.(Ord.322(part),1983) or on ridges so as not to be visible from the valley floor. B. Street lighting, when required, shall be of low 25.15.110 Environmental assessment profile design and unobtrusive.(Ord.322(part),1983) All applications shall comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Ord. 322 25.15.060 Structural design. (part),1983) Site plan review in accord with Chapter 25.70 is 25.15.120 Required information. required for all development The director of environmental services and/or plan- Structure height and setbacks shall be flexible in ning commission may require any of the following in- I order to achieve the purposes of this section.(Ord.322 formation: (part),1983) A. Accurate topographic maps indicating the fol- lowing: 25.15.070 Fire protection. 1. Natural topographic features with an overlay of In areas where there will be a fire hazard, in the the proposed contours of the land after completion of opinion of the fire agency,the following shall apply: the proposed grading, A. Clearance of brush or vegetative growth from 2. Slope analysis with at least five-foot contour in- 365 . 25.15.120 tervaLs and a slope analysis showing the following slope screens,enclosures and structures,including drainage categories: facilities, 6. Any other information required by the planning 10%—15% 26%—30% commission; 16O/o—20% 31%—35% C. Reports and surveys with recommendations 21%—25% 36%and over, from foundation engineers or geologists based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capa- 3. Elevations of existing topographic features and bilities, including soil types, soil openings, hydrologic the elevations of any proposed building pads, street groups,slopes,runoff potential,percolation data,soil centerlines and property corners, depth,erosion potential and natural drainage patterns; D. Archeological studies in areas where existing 4. Locations and dimensions of all proposed cut and fill operations, evidence seems to indicate that significant artifacts of 5. Locations and details of existing and proposed historic sites are likely to be encountered in order to drainage patterns,structures and retaining walls, insure that these artifacts and/or sites are not inadver- 6. Locations of disposal sites for excess or excavated tentiy destivyed; - material, E. Additional information to include: 7. Locations of existing trees,other significant veg- L Average natural slope of the land, 2 Acreage and square footage calculations, etation and biological features, 8. Locations of all significant geological features, 3. Area of impermeable surfaces,including bluffs, ridgelines, cliffs, canyons, rock 4. Ratio of parking area to total land area, outcroppings,fault lines and waterfalls, 5. Ratio of open space to total land area, 9. Locations and sizes of proposed building areas 6. Description of maintenance program for pro- and lot patterns, posed developments involving joint or common owner- 10. Any other information required by the planning shiP, coremitsion; 7. Any other specific information determined to be B. Site plans and architectural drawings illustrating of special interest relevant to the applicant's proposaL the following: (Ord.322(part),1983) L Architectural characteristics of proposed build- ings, :5.15.130 Optional preliminary approval 2 Vehir nIar and pedestrian circulation patterns, Procedure. including streetwidths and grades and other easements The applicant may choose to submit information of public rights-of-way, and request a preliminary approval from the planning 3. Utility lines and other service facilities,including commission which will assign the appropriate develop- meat standard option, determine density, identify water,gas,elecsidry and sewage lines,4. Landscaping, irrigation and exterior lighting building sites,access roads and locations. No permits puns, shall be issued until final approval is obtained- (Ord. 5. Locations and design of proposed fences, 322(part),1983) A 366 C. 1 ram . 1 ,,, ;� t P. ©ITV o pa0U Desert `�':14,t, 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. HD PP 98-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider, a request by EDDIE AHMAD BABAI for approval of a single-family, hillside residence, located at 47-075 Southcliff Road. Property is also particularly described as A.P.N. 628-120-002 '. - !' J : ;.:- i • awe ' 1 RI r 1 4 T . L._st-• - - . 3/ DO: - -- -- 1 r'; �:�_ �. /R....51" 1 l'. ' I R- 12i0bb I ! ' 1 i!aH.P.F I1 i U I ' fir i . i�t 2 1It .- I: "••• &,...6-tifii- , ofk:), • ' n."--� -u:a_-- 2. \4•�J�. ..;if fi• • 1i2• , , ,,„,t.bii'l i 1 i� d yjr"Ti!P.p 5Pr' co . _, r `' ' ' ` \ubiectProy . - ' `'f'— Pam C;.C ,yi,' Y 40 L•`- ='.� �',•tr,..,r�x.-.:a- -' ,. 1. - ---- -- - 6 • °• 'ITi+il}ei9 ►,; Rr4 t9 e04 • ..-.X. .1: O.S. P 1.:..,L.r..• i -- 0I» --r i� I 'z,.t^T' �' I r '- :-,r i'1ar.AAp'.. • •fiq'rt'2.1 ..,,t..,, c u..r .r,n.1 .+ -I.. k. MAT;TA0t �OAO I. 1 1 •1 LO o00 a _ 0.! .-- ,044- 1 -- — ------�------- k°h_ py - . . . k-b•oeo • • - . 4 ti -- • T1� 1 IY R•1 10,000- I L -=.-- -_ • . . 1 r-�1 n_:.•. r SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 20, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary . October 9, 1998 Palm Desert Planning Commission . .... " „•,•••••'.14.VOiti: ',., if'. ''''''''',,,. ....•';2'.,!,:-..T!'i..';''.'1':''''''....;-'•.;:•••::•::' -.: - •: - 4'4,041* ,.,•-•!..: -7t1,--'44,. . . ,,..t.,..!c,,,7.•;•a.7..',7...,•,.7i:,;:,,,.......--:,...;.,..,.'.:,:,....;-,••••:.,,..,-‘,,,..,,,. • • .• P...:-I,',..zi,-"..4.,1.•,•)V1,:••.- • . ....... . . ..... „....... , ..,.. .,... ... 1.,:....:.:...,::: . ,-,,,..,,...,_-,::,;:j..:,....',„:-,, :..-J,,,.;.,...,.......; :,-,::::,:::--.„,.:.,,:,-..-...;:i-,..r., ,. A;---a-toik.,nfre E..::::....,:::::::,,..,..,_„...,,,,..„. ..::;.:::,,.....i.,.::: ;:,..,::,..•.,.:,:., , . .. ,,,...- 11, I. s • • Alf:, ,--:-,:,...4".-,••••,:: :.'•••',-, ,:--•..:..-- :•..•:.-7 1. , , :.,,:''';? .741:•;','' i,-.. 4 II !'441.44;ki'S'C'kel; all.11.1. Al lb, gfit,f4W-.5$14ti4 ....••• II r •,,,:::,'i''.4.1."'S",-,:',-1,1'•,; -•; :,,,..,!,,•{‘,.,-.!,...,i„J...,...,,,,,•,..-,•.•;:..,....:,....,,,,.•:: ...,• i Ilk .f,,,./'-',,>-;•7;'',-,„:;."+,:A.,,': Mir ,',„,,,'y::•,,.,..,...:::.:1:,;.::;?.:i`, ......,:, ,;,:.1.,,,..,,e;E',.c.,,,-1';,4 e-....,'',1;',,,•1.:.,,,1 c.-`.4•-A' =non .'- ',,,,,..'':;--;4-,' A li r:','•': , - '' .,''. :• immi. T.,m :k.:;•:,,',1:;;;,-......,, ,,z;',:,.1••,;..;''',;',',..:,:414. •fe`,' '.:'•'. m••••• '•"" '''..4'4Vif4';`$;;447:-•;f,i;yq.,-.-1.F.).7;tf,-;,kr,,,,w;tv...' /Ilk ,,,.•,,,,t,•,;(r,?,::,,,!-. 7:,,•,,?''.':•'•?,'.? -''''',',.,-:' ',.•,..2:', ...... immissi II/ .J.,:: ,',.•:..'•,.,....',:,!:.,,',..:,,,......,:. •,;',.,,',',;i,.••;,',,.`00`.0 ,(•_.-•'‘''.!-•;.'2,_•..,•;;,,,Y,--4.,-. -4r:',.....,,:-.•,.746.;:tsc,..:,..,,,.,,,::,,,A.,,,,,....;?*(. .,.0. .,:s'oy.. . ----141 . "'‘ • l'A'.,IiitAkl.*46,4,' .064;kk,,,,43....:4:-. ;:•.,/,:,,:•:,,,,,.:,..,,,,..2.,;,g,-.•?.. ..,',4.t:-‘..... *.INN•sem, III•::io,,'i-.., 47:,,1:41P:!,..tf.E.Y.,`.•:','•:., ',.:-:/:',,.:,:•'.__,;):::-.E,-,•?•,:•::, ,,,,•,,,•,, ,,,, imm., Ert i'd,:,,'-'..r.f1:00 i;.g.,..f.;;.!:,:t..,:::_!_1•?,,..i.;•.-il,„.„,,,, '1';.. '..?••.,5'.F.; ••;,..,',•:::: :;''.,;.f., .;•'').,•:..,'•:''''..--•f';''.:,:- •SsiW:•'2,;,:..,,,i,l,'..:::..',•,.:,•,.:-,,,...,, •,:,..,,. ..,‘...:.,,.-, ...I= ,•- , . :-!,',:', Z•'.:',..,';','::.,-.'',:,.:,...•:;::::,' • • .11111MMI-.',.:-;-•,: ::. ..y.,;.)-.;:ip„,:.- --;•.•?4,:;,..,,....e.,..,--:•-•:-.,•............., „;...,...,,,,,:;?,•-, • 4‘,.,,,,,,•,••••••4 ,,,•:,.,-,,,,.......,•,-....,-..:,,•:.••,,,I..F.,•::...A. ',:.. ._... - m'' .... • ,..(YA•t.,..'i7i:-:',.•••.:•3..i.,::.?:.;,.•:,...•;,...,,,,••;,,-,•:1.c... .0.1,:.,.... .• . ii•,• . ...:F..-..,....,-•:..,••••••••••,.....,,,,,,....,..,..„„„,„,,.4k,,,,•.,,1 Nur . . • .,.....,..„:,,,,....•,••,..,-••-.••••• •,.:.:•,..1!......',4,',-.'.,„•,,,i:,...-1.1, ,,f•••,....-,,.,,.. . • • • ._ •,....;,,',6,t,k,,:i• . ..-ii ....„....,,,.4, -.:•4•.,,,,,,..._•,,-,, MB -- , , .,.;.,-„,-;._,',;-:-...Lp:-. 1=',,,,,,-,., , ilk ,•••„,, .44*••,4,,,,•,..1',1•,•-:.:-- • ...... ......-- ..-. - r.,,•,.,',.-i.,:,,..4z-.7,4:.)-V... simmem.-7 mil IF -; ,''',',,,:-,,,t14,6,4,:::,,'")-i-.•,.. '.- - - 72.-• '-'-, :•.44,-,,. ',,--s•I'4,,,;:,,- IIIII .,.'!'7i-,,k.',,;:*;-,..:'-i::. —.- ' ::'..:il'-;;';','-.1'4., ..4•:•;17.:;:7:7';'•.,;-.-,.':'-':' _ - .. •';...-;-:'',:j:••:';:',i.... .i,.,•-•;•::. 4r111,14'''' -zir°47-,...?':.'`;,:ffr•;'0),-i---,: .. • - Iiiiiiill , , .. ..-,1‘,'''''',;ri,' „,,,,;,,;:,fzit'I':,!!,:,,'.':!:;::.('';;;''•,;::'',-•, •-•._,:' ,-.:•;*,44:31,. : '.<•-,u 4,Wi, ‘40,,i,,,,i.: ,,,_.,2-, %,, 4 ...--, ....IN,N- ..,.,. . . •,,,, ...,,,,,,,....i _,,,,.•,.,:: ,r'5.?,..1,7 ilk ,',' .., :,-,"';'.!•°..i*,'1'.4.!0:4j:..t..:,,P.,.!:-',;:•,:;- ;.•.:•.:•,,,,•f,':-1..-0-?:•,:*::::.•,',,,,.-• ,i.,,b-,:;,,,,...:.,0,,,;,i,•,.:.•-...._--.;•,..:: ,,,,..i...,. ,.. _ • V/ - : ';,',7,'.-c.-4/,',f':";';1;••',,,.7.4',.?,,,"' - ;:•):•*,,,,12.,;:;'),..,;::i..' ,', . Alinlitil ,,, ,,......•!,—.,,,%,,.-..--.':-...'-':,-,--;,-•!•••'4'''' '''' al . • • ., ,. ,'.',.',,:::-.,:.:,':,, ,Vr:1,.;".---L,- •-„... . III :., •,.., • tf; ::. ..' ...."..",.;:c.",f4.A'l- : ':''. '' . •-r. :`,---.';''::V,'' MMI r---, . . ,.,,_,,_„„,,,,,..,,,,,3,,,•_, .- Iv?4,,f.,k.-, . liummi '.' •-•'•''''!')':',.',../!i."•• •,,,,t-,,,,,,F,:•...,!..1,,A7.4.. ' .•• • --.,..,..‘,--,,,,•,... ,,, mom , ,,,,,i, •,,,,,..;,,,,,,..„4,4.„,/...„., ....,..., ., • , ,,....,.,..,,,,,,,,,-1,-iv.:,- • . -,•',,,,.::',••.?!.:-,-.',...,4..,..';ogi;,:i.,?•,-, •',•-•:,...- -• - • • , ,...,,,,,.,„'„,,-,• -1.- ...„ -,...,.i... • • • s a • US U • - ., .. :-..„. . .. .: . I, •.''.'. ...?:,,.4.1.1---_,.-:.4!-;,').7-,.-- . ' , . .--... 7',- .,„,,,-,1-...,?: ....,-,...,:•:.;:i4'..•:,,,,,,,•..T.t_fr.•:.:•:-• . -,..'„,:::•;:r..;:'-.-;'..::-.,.'''. '..'':'.-::gi i il".k.',• ' p.,tA,-,Tk.k.'''... EN= tio,li.,,.,.. .,),t..,A-',.=,.4.,,t.: , ,l•ini.. ....,. ' . 's.'f',..:;x:•1:AY„, :%:=[::1•,,,,,,-0,,k'',-,.' ..'_:.,,: ' Y4'.;04 . ,.:A,...1-''.. M • • '!''''''•;'•.:!:44,1',1:e'Air-,cY,,'''.'.',•,,:,-;'',7,- :',..-;....,. •,0.,-1,7:".' .': - '''.k4ir"..:: . /'''' NENE ,•,-.,',\x‘-.4„-*.zr,l,;e:.4,-,.r-0,,..-..K -- . , Ii4P?'-.t.'. "•- NENE ,,,w-„,,v,,.;,...,,A;,,,,,,..-',,,,',',..s.*,...':-..-.*,-; - - .• .i'''',`• j4$;',,f.Kretv,,,'.::':.',' -:-..-.. - ... . •,,',4:i .,., . U . S ,:,1•.;...•••,• - . :-•-''''''','.':',.*'''.:`,•#,4.1;:eil:',!.:t:,-'-",t, '-'7.:''' •''''.''''''' '''':t.,,ii':''' .-.. '''''°''''4•.,•,,,,,,,*:,,',„',','.''''',.-',','•, 'E'4?4?).,,Avq.r'•';'...N41 :..•- ... . : i• ..,5,..:i.`",,-'4,41::::4'...,'14"41„';',Ii :''''..lit: :4,.. ,., • ' . "•-•'''.'-';'-'':.'..': ',',,,,i,;0:',..i.141:',,,,..'.:^ '.', -,'':', -,•;t:c`41:::11”."?•,•',7,?,?:.:,FN - • :'..1 "..',:` ''.. '•-•,`::::,:.;',..,-.-: r-•..4.,,,,-,s`''' :'••'?::::-:-'s:::—...'.‘;'::', . . .• .':. .. . , . . , .J.'''.";'1,;Ct::5-;,.'!A;',;EV:kl:k:':•I';''ii• • ''-',''•,,,,Sg-.4 s,.,'•;14,,,iVi-1,2-,!':i.:•...:...". , ..,...: :::,:-.,,,'..,k,'th.V.",t;,;::',•".; .'%'''-'' .. .4 .•,/...,N: h 1 t;•,•-..?'': Aii'''...':.:•'.•''' • (. ,1,:.s.---1::::. .• I',/,it it.''qii..)p,,......,.' . .,,......, ,.. p: ..,'... •.7,.', ..• ''- '', ','• '1 -'' .',..." I,•,.,:fIll'tk',‘,1,T5',:'....:, — u, 4 .. .; Rttip t i001 Vi t'uU,(A),E.:'x i i',C12D,Lc:na,aa 0. ri1 . -o oD__ • • OOF OF PUBLICATION Tisspace Is for County Clerk's Filing Stamp PR. (2015,5C.C,P) STATE OF CALIIO?RNIA • RECRAVEL County ofRiverside. ENT NOV 1 8 1998 I aim a tidies of the Untied States mitt resident of the Coarty aforesaid;I am ova the ae of eighteen COMMUNITY OFPALLOPM DESERT DEPARTMENT years,and aad not a party to or interested in the �r abovekd:flatlet I am the prindpal clerk of a ' • print er citte, TSUNPUBLiSH/NIG COM ANYa newspaper of general circulation, printei and published in the c y of Palm Spring*,, Prvof of P ,rcation of Count]of ttiverside,and which newspaper has been • adjudged a newspaper of general aarula Lion by the upezierCcurt of the County of Riverside,State of Cafiforak ander the date of March 24,1988. Case Number 19T2 6;that the notice,of which the annexed is sprinted copy(set In type not smaller tharl Ixoparea has been published in each regular and earn Issue of said newspaper and not In any supplementthereof oil the fouvwtng dates,to-wit: No.8302 — - CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. HDPP 98-2 • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to review the Planning Commission approval of a re- quest by EDDIE AHMAD BABAI for approval of a // single family hillside residence located at 47-075 ` aj 16,4 / Tya Southcliff Road, more particularly described as: •• �� �» 6, ,� APN 628-120-002. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, De- cember 10, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council • • Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at st••so'°os.kit" •O 11011111119110111 which time and place all interested persons are in- vited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public notice t_ 1 • shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. '�Vy • Information concerning the proposed project • and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you chal- lenge the proposed actions in court, you may be Ioest j ir declare)under _t h the limited to raising only those issues you or someone penalty Yr perjury that 4* else raised at the public hearing described in this �� cared notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk Cityy of Palm Desert, California • ((/��/ PUB: November 16. 1998 is tedal Palm Sprint,Cahforrw tht2/N„ day el i9..r: .e.. SIGNATURE