HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 03-108 CZ 03-05 74110 Chicory Street Resolution No. 03-108
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal to a decision of the Planning Commission
denying a request for a change of zone from R-1 single family district
to R-3 (3) multifamily residential district for a 7,380 square foot lot at
74-110 Chicory Street.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manag rME
MO DATE ,s° ^ �l- 43
PrCONT)t4UED TD 1 C - a-3 - 0 3
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: d PASSED TO 2ND READ{N6
Dolores J. Laux
74-110 Chicory Street
Palm Desert, CA 92260
CASE NO. C/Z 03-05
DATE: October 9, 2003
CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Planning Commission Action
C. Discussion
D. Legal Notice
E. Staff Reports dated July 15 and September 2, 2003
F. Minutes of Planning Commission hearings of July 15 and September 2, 2003
G. Copy of neighborhood petition opposing request
H. Exhibits
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No.03-108 denying the appeal and
affirming the decision of the Planning Commission.
Resolution No. 03-108
Staff Report
Case No. C/Z 03-05
Page 2
October 9, 2003
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission, following two public hearings on the request, on a
unanimous 5-0 vote denied the requested change of zone. Reasons for the denial
were:
1 . The property adjacent to the east currently operating as a triplex is legally
a single family dwelling according to a report by the Code Compliance
Department and steps are being taken to bring this lot into compliance.
2. Neighboring property owners have submitted a petition objecting to
further intrusion into their R-1 neighborhood by multifamily zoned lots.
3. The project described by the applicant can be accomplished under the
recently adopted second unit ordinance (Ordinance No. 1044).
Discussion:
Ms. Laux filed an application for a change of zone from R-1 to R-3 (3) in order
that she can eventually construct another unit on the property. The recently
constructed dwelling was placed to the east side of the lot leaving space for
expansion of the existing building. At this time we do not have plans for the
future unit / expansion; however, the applicant has provided an artist's
rendering of how the single story expansion could look from the street (copy
enclosed).
This block of Chicory Street is a mix of single family dwellings at the east end
and apartments at the west. This property is the transition piece from
apartments to single family. The apartments to the north and west are currently
zoned R-3 (3) while the eight lots on the north side of Chicory west of
Quailbrush Avenue are zoned R-1 . The request is to change the westerly most
R-1 zoned lot from R-1 to R-3 (3).
The Planning Commission held two public hearings on the matter. At the July
15, 2003 hearing a petition was submitted (copy attached) opposed to further
(W pdocs\tm\sr\cz03-05.cc)
2
Resolution No. 03-108
Staff Report
Case No. C/Z 03-05
Page 2
October 9, 2003
encroachment of multi-family zoning (R-3) into R-1 zoned lots. In addition,
commission needed clarification of other issues before proceeding.
ISSUES:
1 . Commission wanted to know the status of the residential lot adjacent to
the east of the subject property. Physically it appears to be used for more
than one (1 ) unit.
Response:
In a memo dated August 5, 2003 (copy attached) Pedro Rodriguez,
Senior Code Compliance Officer, advises that "there are no building
permits on file for multi-family use."
Mr. Rodriguez has mailed the property owner a letter (copy attached)
"requesting compliance within 30 days."
2. Commission wanted to know if the future second unit could be
accomplished under the recently adopted second unit ordinance (No.
1044, copy enclosed) rather than through a zone change.
Response:
Staff has reviewed the recently adopted second unit ordinance. The
proposed second unit as described verbally to staff by the applicant
should be attainable under the new ordinance.
SIZE:
The second unit ordinance limits second units to 35% of the floor area
of the existing dwelling with a minimum of 400 square feet assured. The
existing dwelling is 1 ,446 square feet which results in a maximum of
506 square feet of allowable area. Given the available land area, this is
within the range which could be built under the R-3 zone standards while
complying with required setbacks.
(W pdocs\tm\sr\cz03-05.cc)
3
Resolution No. 03-108
Staff Report
Case No. C/Z 03-05
Page 2
October 9, 2003
PARKING:
The second unit must be provided with one covered space per bedroom.
Assuming one bedroom in the 500 +/- square foot unit, one covered
parking space would need to be added. Two bedroom units (if physically
possible) would require two parking spaces, both covered.
SETBACKS:
Setbacks for the second unit ordinance are based on the base zone. The
required side setbacks for the R-1 District are less than the required
setbacks in the R-3 zone; hence, should allow for more buildable area.
PROCESSING:
The second unit, processed under the second unit ordinance, is a
ministerial act; no public hearing, just ARC review.
The second unit under R-3 zoning would require a precise plan hearing
(public hearing) at Planning Commission, plus ARC review.
OWNERSHIP ISSUES:
Lastly, under the second unit ordinance the primary residence must be
owner occupied during periods when the second unit is rented. This must
be verified annually. Based on discussions with Ms. Laux, this should not
be a problem because her intention is to provide a separate unit for her
mother or aunt. Under the R-3 zoning, there would be no owner
occupancy of the primary unit required.
3. There was a question regarding how the street curb came to be painted
red.
(WPdocs\tm\sr\cz03-05.cc)
4
Resolution No. 03-108
Staff Report
Case No. C/Z 03-05
Page 2
October 9, 2003
Response:
Mark Greenwood, City Engineer, in a memo dated July 27, 2003 (copy
enclosed) advises that the curb was painted red by city forces May 23,
2001 in response to requests from Mrs. Laux who was experiencing
difficulty exiting her driveway.
Conclusion:
Based on analysis of this additional information, staff recommended that the
requested change of zone be denied. Our earlier support was primarily
influenced by the existing land use on the lot adjacent to the east. We are now
advised by Code Compliance that the legal status of that property is as a single
family dwelling. Actions have been taken to bring that property into compliance.
The neighbors have submitted a petition objecting to any further intrusion of
multifamily zoning into the R-1 area.
The project envisaged by the applicant can be accomplished under the recently
adopted second unit ordinance.
Therefore, based on the above, staff recommended that the requested change
of zone from R-1 to R-3 (3) be denied.
Submitted by: Department Head:
Stev Smith Phil Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Appr Approval:
H er Croy Carlos L. O a
ACM for Develo ent Services City Manager
(W pd ocs\tm\sr\cz03-05.cc)
5
S
RESOLUTION NO. 08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL TO A DECISION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A
CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO R-3
(3) MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY AT
74-110 CHICORY STREET.
CASE NO. C/Z 03-05
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 9th day
of October, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the above noted appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2221 did unanimously deny
said request for a change of zone; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts to justify its actions, as described below:
1 . The property adjacent to the east currently operating as a triplex is legally a
single family dwelling according to a report by the Code Compliance Department
and steps are being taken to bring this lot into compliance.
2. Neighboring property owners have submitted a petition objecting to further
intrusion into their R-1 neighborhood by multifamily zoned lots.
3. The project described by the applicant can be accomplished under the recently
adopted second unit ordinance (Ordinance No. 1044).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
City Council in this case.
2. That the City Council does hereby deny the appeal and affirm the Planning
Commission decision.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this day of , 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
�`- •
��• 3/91
(1 ;
� I . . _ •_ ;c PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
Q
=:copt i= "� +72.-: APPLICATION TO APPEALrn
vj
°� nay•/ —
• • DECISION OF THE ��7,/.&ff K.),,•777 .�„ 4557
(Name of Committee/Commission)
J
.J
Case No. " CZ-D3 -p Meeting Date: -,R-f 3
Name of Appellant _ > r eS eiri_
Address ', ,//� (°,,Cre ,tr v Phone: ( )
Description of Application: 0 . ze7e 7d�7 e /1' Z ,,7 / S
Reason for Appeal: ,S e- e a r-c, 0 7.--//c-M-
- ---/- 7
Signature of Appellant i ,.,L c," Date
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
/. Q
Date Appeal Filed: Fee Received:
��
Treasurer's Receipt #: 3J ���' Received by: �` �r�
/2J/71- CC,' P/QIY1f
Public Hearing Set For:
Action taken by the City Council:
Date:
Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk
� T
w ` I
SEPT, 15, 2003
I WOULD LIKE TO APPEAL MY CASE NO. C/Z 0305
TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM R-1 to R-3
MY REASONS ARE 1. ) THE EASTERN PROPERTY DID NOT HAVE
TO BE ZONED R-3 TO ENCOMPASS A TRIPLEX
AS IT WAS BUILT IN 1950 BEFORE CITYHOOD
WAS ADOPTED.
2. ) THE PETITION TAKEN BY ONE PERSON WAS
INVALID AS IT WAS NOT FOR WHAT I PETITIONED
FOR. ISSUES IN THE PETITION WERE FOUND
TOTALLY INVALID AS WELL. (CURBS BEING
PAINTED ETC. )
I WOULD BE SO GRATEFUL TO HAVE A CHANCE TO CLARIFY MY
CASE ONECE MORE. . .AS ISSUES TO DENY ARE INCORRECT AND
INVALID.
SIN YOURS, 7
D ORE JK L 7
1
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 2, 2003 continued from July 15, 2003
CASE NO: C/Z 03-05
REQUEST: Approval of a change of zone from R-1 single family district to R-3
(3) multifamily residential district for a 7,380 square foot lot at 74-
1 10 Chicory Street.
APPLICANT: Dolores J. Laux
74-110 Chicory Street
Palm Desert, CA 92260
BACKGROUND:
This request was before commission July 15, 2003 at which time several issues
came up for which commission needed additional information before proceeding.
You will recall that a petition from nearby property owners was submitted
objecting to the proposed change of zone.
II. ISSUES:
A. Commission wanted to know the status of the residential lot adjacent to
the east of the subject property.
Response:
In a memo dated August 5, 2003 (copy attached) Pedro Rodriguez,
Senior Code Compliance Officer, advises that "there are no building
permits on file for multi-family use."
Mr. Rodriguez has mailed the property owner a letter (copy attached)
"requesting compliance within 30 days."
B. Commission wanted to know if the future second unit could be
accomplished under the second unit ordinance (No. 1044, copy enclosed)
rather than through a zone change.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. C/Z 03-05
SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
Response:
Staff has reviewed the recently adopted second unit ordinance. The
proposed second unit as described verbally to staff by the applicant
should be attainable under the new ordinance.
SIZE:
The second unit ordinance limits second units to 35% of the floor area
of the existing dwelling with a minimum of 400 square feet assured. The
existing dwelling is 1 ,446 square feet which results in a maximum of
506 square feet of allowable area. Given the available land area, this is
within the range which could be built under the R-3 zone standards while
complying with required setbacks.
PARKING:
The second unit must be provided with one covered space per bedroom.
Assuming one bedroom in the 500 +/- square foot unit, one covered
parking space would need to be added. Two bedroom units (if physically
possible) would require two parking spaces, both covered.
SETBACKS:
Setbacks for the second unit ordinance are based on the base zone. The
required side setbacks for the R-1 District are less than the required
setbacks in the R-3 zone; hence, should allow for more buildable area.
PROCESSING:
The second unit, processed under the second unit ordinance, is a
ministerial act; no public hearing, just ARC review.
The second unit under R-3 zoningwould require aprecise plan hearing
q
(public hearing) at Planning Commission, plus ARC review.
OWNERSHIP ISSUES:
Lastly, under the second unit ordinance the primary residence must be
owner occupied during periods when the second unit is rented. This must
2
I cv
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. C/Z 03-05
SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
be verified annually. Based on discussions with Ms. Laux, this should not
be a problem because her intention is to provide a separate unit for her
mother or aunt. Under the R-3 zoning, there would be no owner
occupancy of the primary unit required.
C. There was a question regarding how the street curb came to be painted
red.
Response:
Mark Greenwood, City Engineer, in a memo dated July 27, 2003 (copy
enclosed) advises that the curb was painted red by city forces May 23,
2001 in response to requests from Mrs. Laux who was experiencing
difficultyexitingher driveway.
Y
III. CONCLUSION: •
Based on analysis of this additional information, it is now recommended that the
requested change of zone be denied. Our previous support was primarily
influenced by the existing land use on the lot adjacent to the east. We are now
advised by Code Compliance that the legal status of that property is as a single
family dwelling. Actions have been taken to bring that property into compliance.
The neighbors have submitted a petition objecting to any further intrusion of
multifamily zoning into the R-1 area.
The project envisaged by the applicant can be accomplished under the recently
adopted second unit ordinance.
Therefore, based on the above, staff will recommend that the requested change
of zone from R-1 to R-3 (3) be denied.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission Case No. C/Z 03-05 be denied.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
(Wpdocs`,tm\sr\cz03-05.pc3) 3
II
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. C/Z 03-05
SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
C. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by:
r
i
S eve Smith Phil Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Review a d i Concur.
Homer Croy [/`
ACM for Develo 16
lent Services
i
/tm
(W pdocs\tm\sr\cz03-05.pc3) A
If?'
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST
FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY
DISTRICT TO R-3 (3) MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR
THE PROPERTY AT 74-110 CHICORY STREET.
CASE NO. C/Z 03-05
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 15th day of July, 2203, hold a duly noticed public hearing, which was continued to
September 2, 2003, to consider the request of DOLORES LAUX for approval of the above
described change of zone; 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 to justify its actions, as described below:
1 . The property adjacent to the east currently operating as a triplex is legally
a single family dwelling according to a report by the Code Compliance
Department and steps are being taken to bring this lot into compliance.
2. Neighboring property owners have submitted a petition objecting to further
intrusion into their R-1 neighborhood by multifamily zoned lots.
3. The project described by the applicant can be accomplished under the
recently adopted second unit ordinance (Ordinance No. 1044).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, 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 deny Case No. C/Z 03-05.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 2nd day of September, 2003, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
City of Palm Desert, California
13
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: July 15, 2003
CASE NO: C/Z 03-05
REQUEST: Approval of a change of zone from R-1 single family district to R-3
(3) multifamily residential district for a 7,380 square foot lot at 74-
1 10 Chicory Street.
APPLICANT: Dolores J. Laux
74-110 Chicory Street
Palm Desert, CA 92260
BACKGROUND:
The property is in an older part of Palm Desert on the north side of Chicory
Street. In 1999 a single family dwelling was constructed on the east portion of
the property. The area is a mix of older single family dwellings and apartments.
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: R-3 (3) / apartments
South: P - School and R-1 / dwelling
East: R-1 / dwelling
West: R-3 (3) / four apartment units
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests a change of zone from R-1 to R-3 (3) in order that she
can eventually construct another unit on the property. The recently constructed
dwelling was placed to the east side of the lot leaving space for expansion of
the existing building. At this time we do not have plans for the future unit /
expansion; however, the applicant has provided an artist's rendering of how the
single story expansion could look from the street (copy enclosed).
If this zone change is approved, then the applicant would be in a position to file
a precise plan request for a second unit on the lot. That application would go
through the normal planning process of ARC and public hearing at Planning
Commission.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. C/Z 03-05
JULY 15, 2003
III. ANALYSIS:
This block of Chicory Street is a mix of single family dwellings at the east end
and apartments at the west. This property is the transition piece from
apartments to single family. The apartments to the north and west are currently
zoned R-3 (3) while the eight lots on the north side of Chicory west of
Quailbrush Avenue are zoned R-1 . The request is to change the westerly most
R-1 zoned lot from R-1 to R-3 (3).
The general plan land use designation for this area is medium density residential,
5-7 dwelling units per acre. Based on the 7,380 square foot lot size, the
maximum number of units on an R-3 (3) zoned lot would be two units. The
proposed zone change is consistent with the land use designation.
At some point in the future it may be appropriate to zone the remaining seven
R-1 zoned lots on the north side of Chicory to R-3 in order to encourage
upgrading of the area.
IV. CONCLUSION:
The area is a mix of single family dwellings and apartments. This property is
surrounded on two sides by apartments. Previous construction was oriented so
as to permit additional building construction. The property is across the street
from a public school and as such is impacted by student related pick up / drop
off traffic and playground noise. The proposed zone change to R-3 (3) is
consistent with the general plan land use designation.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Cas
e
No. C/Z 03-05, a zone change from R-1 to R-3 (3).
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
2
I -5
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. C/Z 03-05
JULY 15, 2003
B. Legal notice
C. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by:
Steve Smith Phil Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Review an.-Concur:
Homer Croy
ACM for Dev-lop ent Services
/tm
IWpdocs\tm\sr\cz03-05.pc) 3
16'
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1
SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO R-3 (3) MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY AT 74-110 CHICORY
STREET.
CASE NO. C/Z 03-05
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 15th day of July, 2203, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
DOLORES LAUX for approval of the above described change of zone; 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. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA and that no further
documentation is necessary; 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 to justify their actions, as described below:
1 . The proposed R-3 (3) zone is consistent with the general plan land use
designation.
2. The property is bordered on the west and north by R-3 (3) zoned properties
which are occupied by apartment complexes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, 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 C/Z 03-05, Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 15th day of July, 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
City of Palm Desert, California
2
r,
Z
, p - -
C- I GAIDF
R J SQ
• R
_ _ cARREAS
R-3 ( itjjj -•
P i
SQ
R (3 )
.1 iit d
CAND E CLOD ST
P
R-3 ( 1
0 s ki ,
R- 1
HICU ST w
4
W Z
4 PAROSELLA�- ' R- 1
P ST
cll
—it" 1 - ,.. .4 ,
E-4 .,
_ PEPPER- Proposed
��� � Zoning Change
I 1 9-
Tit- 1-1- R-1
R-
To�— - R 3 (3
edy .94dm 17eee'd Case No. C/Z 03-05 CITY COUNCIL
6: ., ' Chan,.e of Zone ORDINANCE NO.
V.L1 EXHU ZIT A Date:
; ITY OF PALM DES T
e„`spy
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE 1
R.`o IR I, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
-� - TEL: 760 346-06L I
��` ✓ FAX' 760 341-7098
uinfo@ palm-desrr,org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. C/Z 03-05
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by DOLORES J. LAUX for approval of a change of zone
from R-1 Single Family Residential District to R-3 (3) Multifamily Residential District for the
property known as 74-110 Chicory Street.
i GI RPM
‘74...„)
)1"(
(+r •' p R3
.-
R-3(3) 4 AM&
I .P.
I Milk
P IJ SQ ,
R-3( I T I
' , CAN) 7 ns
rf .
Atirr-1 . P xl R-3(3)
i dP "...
ill .. , CH1CU , R-� , i — { I iii
Y
*, •
\li
um
IP
� . _ . ii
R� rl
( I
S\ 1
-• • Subject .<`
mom
Property I' z R
= —' 110 -1 R
FAIR Ayn fl 17a , i►IS.
6-, r—r-}-1 I I r I I I I I 1 I I I
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring at the Palm Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ,"'CD
I...... an '7nn4 Palm Desert Plannina Commission
A
c
I;, .,,....
fi vNIft-1•4:::,,,i„ ?) LOP'. lr• ii.',- .
...-1, 4.., t k . . - • lak., •••, •...........
,-y.-- I . p; .., - "4" - --- 1" .,:, ~ • . — - -- .
, ....„004,- ji,....... :!,....,,..e.•0---...... o 4,,. .,- -.4, I .-- -*. , . ___ --.-,y-... r _
. A., ' 4 Ak.t .....-= •
• 4'1-4,X;',..k_ -------
or'ff 7''.,:%,s;...o.L.....-- .....,__........ ........ ----------_______
•ir ,v.
•,-• 1,•p — 1, --,.i; ,0 qt, ..: - 5._•4,•?:. ,,:.,;- ......:..1,pp. - ..r.• - •.-•
, ,,,>, tY.'". . :•• 1_ • -I ill I.
t$r A ,1 . ----.:7'.....m..
OP"''ref Sk,i b ' •*. '1,,, .1..i ‘::'' '. lan ...„,..- .., t. . _
1 :1 :
—-. . ,.. ..... .._ ..... 1..e. 1
‘
.1: ..1 A•-- " `4 g, . , vk 14 r-••••,) • ' i
--••• &Per 1 . tv„, - ... I, . • ,,
1114;\'` ,.. ' WOW- 4: '•41..., ., ' , J N f I I I :Li...Ve ri i,., -1-- 0
,i , .ktiz\ L .,
%II " ._ . ,
, - - I 121,
• , '., __ _L._ 1, ..': ..--1 ;-i-_, _ _
1 II I /I ' . '...
. r •
"al,* '."''‘Z4 ' i.
‘-iri - 4
_ ..-.. 1:.,rit. :
i t . I ' .'1,4:1:•1 . .J 414'4:
, 7..‘U L. , ' PRIMANitg Win* - '--- alla 1 1.1 T If
N.... ..... I. ,6., -..... • ----,."*.c."...4%.••••11~1. 'pi'r."*.....a' .4.Z..5 1 4-5'..1..t .*''''''.*'"I.`..'!,:. ."'i ' qillNliarEINIIINIMMIMIMIIIIIP.
..pri) .1...% %Nra-b. f ii .1 i ,,.-7, ...•-. ,.-:-.•-%-em,..:-.4.0--r•••••••• -----ts....-.. :*"=-:•-•--.......t.,..t.--ft.-/
4.., - -,P. -, ...,:-.- ., 4... ,e-4.ft, .•••F .e..4., •IF 4 L'..1•FIA;‘F.re.,-...10%amatil,rt.::it•....-.....:....34.:'t• .....
,.___.--.ir,:-..z...,..,,.....,...s-y.,,..,,,.....-.,pip..........t........,.- . ;,.....,.,,,,,...0.....2,.......-i,....1.4.,...itir z. .,... . F,ri s,„,.......4:-.,,,-;3.......,,,....7.1,,..... ..e-re„,,,Iv , 1-,
• ( , , 1/4`„...4 ''Or -, .• ' el:' .:1•0•11reirs:,::":1 74 5 ii ii-':31 I:fr.',..:1-7.4z-Z".•:-zigii..",&•::•:-.;:•.::..-- .-:.-:.,:.:k%;:'eee,,ez.t.":,,....41;;;;;Z4'.i•SI .4„i \71',14::•,.:,17; ..,.:;1'....erTle:1...:;-;.).„-al..,-".7 ,, .,•,.
I '/11 IV I, .„.‘7,„ „), 1 '' ''' " t i i I.ii 0;.t.'--,--..T.,-; ::4'-_:.3 5;!. .7,--.,17":?-47....-4,-fr,--.‘•,,,../:-•_,3--1/4-- - ----.:i;;;•44,e.•!'.,z•;lt.'4,4.-nr.e-1`...%:",--%-or,.; 'tl-11„4t:,..----4,1%....-___q.-44," ' „if ,- ik
„:-. - .,..--.:-.4.,...-..,-,,, „..„......, ..
-„1,-,..N•44.,,,.000(,;.: ip, 5 4 i W. ..---.5.''''S.S..-f'',„'1 -- .' ' ' • h. ....zira........„!....t....,..".74, . „.., ,....7.;14....,.. • .P1.... ,...-:1 , .- ' '
.1
'biro."' ow • %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% f `,. I .1117;`,4,-,;:--0,1%"..J'cit tii, . 4. fr-
,,,I Jr 1 IktViii -.-rdli,i- .-, :-.4.,....,;,...-:,,...,,-..-4,----- .--, --
i --sroria 0 P t‘1' ir .
0 ill ' ''1:1. '
V'S q . , .. - .-- - ,--r
., . ..
.‘. ,., ., .... ,
....„...,. , '3
I 4
1,-------
-*"-,I4 •*.-
if
1
‘\ 1 , u ,,'''t 4. ,'',1 4, .• 4" .410 JP 4..
F
"TY ' /S, --'./1•4 'ig/'',." .k ';1 , .
v ov .• --‘ ' '''•
9' lb •
li
6 11.1 C,
r;Ic.)2.7,vrif)-ery
PC-
fi.ro
e /4/os
PROTEST PETITION FOR PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FOR
SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT
74-110 CHICORY STREET, PALM DESERT, CA 92260
[Change from R1 to R3]
We the undersigned, hereby formally object to the proposed Zoning change filed with
the City of Palm Desert for a home located at 74-110 Chicory Street, Palm Desert, CA.
The property owner has indicated a desire to build a guest house on this property site.
The objections stem from the following data obtained at the Palm Desert City Hall:
a) The Zoning Department has advised the property owner that she did not need a
zoning change to build a guest house. The owner can construct a guest house
under the exsisting R1 Zoning (no change is needed).
b) The Palm Desert City Council recently adopted an amended second unit
ordinance "Exhibit A", Chapter 25.21. This amended ordinance outlines the
definition of "Second Unit Housing". The adoption of the new amended
ordinance was necessary to protect the public health and safety, and includes a
requirement that the primary unit be owner occupied. The requirement of owner
occupancy is important to protect neighborhood stability and the character of
existing family neighborhoods and to discourage speculation and absentee
ownership. The current owner purchased this property on October 1, 1999.
The owner literally has had the home "For Sale" since the day escrow closed. The
property owner of 74-110 Chicory Street has consistently held "open house" nearly
every weekend for four years. The neighborhood has had to endure "For Sale"
signs and balloons on the corner of Chicory & Portola Avenues and in front of
the residence while the owner has tried unsuccessfully to sell this home. This
behavior is not indicative of a "stable" [long term] property owner. It is in keeping
with a speculative buyer.
Note: The property owner further made the statement in front of the staff
at the zoning department that she wanted to obtain the R3 Zoning so she
could increase her potential to sell her property.
c) Further, the ordinance clearly states the property owner must file building plans
and a conditional use permit. The property owner has NOT submitted either to
the building department. The owner has simply petitioned directly for a zoning
change. This lends skepticism to the reason behind the Zoning change request.
d) The requirements for Second Unit Housing specifically state that the second unit
must be provided with one off-street parking space per bedroom within a garage
or carport, per Section 25.58.220. The property owner has not submitted plans
for the construction or addition of a parking site.
ORIGINAL
Chicory Street Petition I page 2 continued:
e) The property owner painted the frontage curb RED (at night), without proper
city authorization. Approximately one week later, while a road crew was painting
the curbs at the Washington Charter school, the owner asked the workman to
paint over the unauthorized "red zone" with their red road paint. When neighbors
complained to the city, the owner requested and received a varience [after the
fact], from the road department to have the entire property frontage become
a "RED NO PARKING ZONE. "
There is no curb parking in front of this home. PHOTO ATTACHED
As neighbors, we would like to know where the property owner plans to have
overflow visitors park? The same question applies to future potential buyers -
where will their friends and family park? Further down the block in front of our
homes? This seems very inequitable.
Finally, if the owner obtains the R3 Zoning change and does NOT complete or build a
guest house (which remember is not needed under the new Amended Second Unit
Ordinance), and later sells the property to a developer, the property can then become
useable as a duplexes, triplexes etc. There will be nothing to stop multi-use buildings
from further encoaching into this single family home neighborhood. Most of the families
in this neighborhood are long time residents and strenuously object to this re-zoning
proposal.
Sincerely, Concerned Neighboring Homeowners
.1
Name ��.�� 'j' Name ' ��, <.1(.,� -), �1 ;;j�^r:' ; r► r. k-1 0, «I
•
Address /': `L.1 (��� , `%`, :i Address 74 I �..`h , c;, r , + f.
•Signature jai - Signatures 4'-�- t
j 7'
Name Roger & Karen Tuck Name 1-'\c•-r1 '✓
Address 74155 Chicory Street Address ' -
SignatureIN 1.',-. t 'Si
•
ORIGINAL
2-3
Chicory Street Petition / page 3 continued:
Name Lynn V. Pennoyer, Trustee Name John H. & Rayna Lyman
Address 45625 Quailbrush Street Address 740160 Chicory Street
Lynn V. Pennoyer, Truster ' 7,- 1
Signature Signature 1,4 1
Vetos In Abstentia (949)338-1663 •
•
Name f w'--c= 6v5/kic c't_ Name, • ,-...:_1
Address `fir 1. u �� 4( I
-z c . ..S f Address '
Signature / Or I'K- , Signature (2-< -k �...; /- y.•sF1:._
Name 44 Name
Address 0 a11 V Address
Signature e—�-�t , Signature
Name Name
Address Address
Signature Signature
Name Name
Address Address
Signature Signature
Name Name
Address Address
Signature Signature
idJI ORIGIL
RDINANCE NO. 1044
EXHIBIT "A"
Chapter 25.21
SECOND UNIT HOUSING
Sections:
25.21.010 Purpose and intent.
25.21.020 Second unit defined.
25.21.030 Conditional use permit required.
25.21.040 Requirements.
25.21.010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a mechanism to help expand housing
opportunities by-allowing second residential units under certain circumstances in areas normally
restricted to a single family unit while preserving existing character of surrounding single-family
neighborhoods.
25.21.020 Second unit defined.
The second unit shall be defined as a dwelling unit, attached or detached, which provides
complete independent living facilities for one or more persons on a parcel zoned for residential
uses. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on
the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated.
25.21.040 Requirements.
Applications for a second unit must meet the following requirements:
A. The parcel must contain an existing residential unit.
B. The second unit may be attached and incorporated within the living area of the
existing dwelling, but separate, or may be detached.
C. The floor area of a detached or attached second unit shall not exceed thirty-five
(35%) percent of the floor area of the originally permitted and constructed primary unit but
in no event to be less than four hundred 400 square feet.
( ) q
D. The unit shall be for rental purposes only.
E. The second unit must be provided with one off-street parking space per bedroom
within a garage or carport per Section 25.58.220. For second units with three or more
bedrooms, only a minimum of two of the required parking spaces shall be provided within
a carport or garage; the other required parking spaces may be uncovered.
3
_ :a;;
ORDINANCE NO. 1044
F. Any new construction associated with the second unit shall comply with all
setbacks, coverage, height and design standards contained within the base zone and
shall not alter the general appearance of the primary dwelling as a single-family
residence.
G. The second unit shall have adequate sewer and water services as determined by
the Coachella Valley Water District and shall not adversely impact traffic flow.
H. The second unit shall have independent heating and air conditioning systems and
shall include separate utility submeters. The hot water system shall be adequately sized to
meet the needs of the second unit.
The design of second units and any related improvements such as an additional
garage or carport shall be compatible with the existing single-family home so as to
preserve the character of the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood and shall
be subject to review and approval of by the Architectural Review Commission.
J. Prior to July 1, 2003, a second unit shall be subject to a conditional use permit and
review by the Architectural Review Commission. After July 1 , 2003, the determination of
use for a second unit shall be a ministerial act only subject to compliance with the City's
development standards. Architectural design shall remain subject to review and approval
by the Architectural Review Commission.
K. The primary unit shall be owner occupied. If the property owner is unable to occupy
the primary unit, it shall remain unoccupied during periods in which the second unit is
rented. In no instance may both units be rented. The owner of the property shall be
required to verify annually compliance with this requirement, providing such proof as may
be reasonably required by the Community Development Department. A covenant
memorializing this requirement shall be recorded against the property prior to issuance of
a certificate of occupancy for the second unit.
A second residential unit which conforms to these requirements shall not be considered to
exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to
be a residential use consistent with the existing general plan and zoning ordinance
designation for the lot.
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003
D. Case No. C/Z 03-05 - DOLORES J. LAUX, Applicant
Request for approval of a change of zone from R-1 single
family district to R-3 (3) multifamily residential district for a
7,380 square foot lot at 74-110 Chicory Street.
Mr. Smith stated that the request was for approval of a change of zone
from R-1 single family to R-3 (3) multifamily residential district for an
individual lot on the north side of Chicory Street at 74-110 Chicory. The
lot in question was 7,380 square feet. He indicated that the area of
Chicory had a mix of older single-family dwellings and apartments. He
had a colored zoning map on display showing the existing R-3 (3) to the
west and to the north of the subject property. The remaining eight lots
on the north side of Chicory were currently zoned R-1 .
In the property in question, the home was constructed in 1999. The
home as it currently sat on the lot was on the east side of the property.
At the west side adjacent to the apartments there was vacant land
available for future development. If commission was to grant the
requested change of zone, it would permit the applicant at some point in
the future to come before the commission with a precise plan request for
the second unit. It would only permit, based on the area of the property,
one more additional unit which would have to meet all the code
requirements. That request was not before the commission. They didn't
have plans for that. The request was just for the change of zone. The
applicant provided the commission with a rendered version of how the
addition and creation of a second unit could look. It was shown as single
story and just as an addition to the existing dwelling. If and when they
received the application for the additional unit, it would go through the
full public hearing process before the Planning Commission and
Architectural Review.
Mr. Smith said that generally staff felt this property in question was the
transition piece right now. It was the piece between the apartment units
to the north and west. To the southwest was a school site. On the
southeast corner of Lantana, while the property was in fact zoned R-1 ,
it was a triplex and the Assessor showed it as being a triplex. So they
had a neighborhood in transition. They felt that the change of zone to R-3
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003
(3) would be consistent with the General Plan land use and staff
recommended approval.
Commissioner Jonathan asked why the request wasn't for a zone of R-2.
Mr. Smith explained R-2 wouldn't allow a second unit. The basic
minimum area per unit in R-2 was 4,000. This was 7,300 so staff went
with the R-3 so there would be just one additional unit. Commissioner
Jonathan asked if based on the standards, they would only ever see one
additional unit. Mr. Smith said that was correct.
Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant
to address the commission.
MS. DOLORES LAUX addressed the commission. She stated that
she owns the home. She said directly to the east of her the
property was legally listed as R-1 ; however, there were three units
there. She guessed that it was built so many years ago that it
wasn't a requirement to have the zoning R-3, but they could see
she had 16 units to her left, three units to the right, behind her
were four units and across the street adjacent to the school were
three or four units. Her home in the center was situated on the lot
whereby it would allow a unit. It was a family situation. She said
her 90-year-old mother was living with her and she had two other
elderly aunts that she would like to put in that unit. None of them
drove, so she wouldn't be adding to traffic and it would be a very
quiet residential duplex. That was why she had the illustration
done to show that it would be quiet residential and almost home
like. It would be behind the wall. She built that wall 15 feet back
from the curb which was a requirement of the City and she would
keep everything behind that wall so it wouldn't interrupt the
neighborhood in any way. The reason she brought that up was
next to her it was R-1 , but there were actually units there and on
the analysis it said she was surrounded by two lots around her
that were multi-unit, but actually she was totally surrounded by
multifamily units. She said it was just for family and she would be
really happy if she could do this. Assisted living was becoming so
expensive for her family that this would be an answer. She said
that was her presentation. She also had one other picture to show.
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003
She said that driving by her house, they couldn't see the lot from
the inside. She measured the distance she would have to build
there and it could accommodate one small unit as her illustration
showed.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that the commission would only address
the change of zone, not the design, but he noticed in the rendering
provided that it appeared there wasn't a separate garage for that second
unit. He asked if she had verified that there was room to add on as well
as provide the required parking.
Ms. Laux stated that there was a two-car garage with the new
home.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if she meant the existing two-car garage.
Ms. Laux said yes. But that could be added. She'd have to do
something different with the wall.
Commissioner Jonathan asked staff if there was a requirement for
covered parking beyond the existing two-car garage. Mr. Smith said
apartments have a requirement of one covered space per unit plus one
open. They needed a total of two and one had to be covered.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were going under the apartment
standards. Mr. Smith said at that point the property would be R-3 and
they would be looking at apartments. Commissioner Jonathan clarified
that the one covered per unit plus an additional parking spot per unit was
the standard that would apply. Mr. Smith concurred.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if Ms. Laux, after hearing that, if she was
convinced that the design, the space, and the available room would
accommodate that requirement.
Ms. Laux said she believed so, however, the people in her family
were beyond the driving age. There would only be the one car that
was there now. She realized that she would have to go along with
what the City wanted and she could possibly change the design
and put a carport or something.
23 •
a—I
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003
Commissioner Jonathan said they were just there to look at the zoning,
but he wanted to make sure they weren't going down a path that would
ultimately be fruitless.
Ms. Laux concurred.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION.
MS. RAYNA LYMAN, 74-160 Chicory Street, addressed the
commission. She said she brought a petition that had been signed
by nine neighbors strenuously objecting to this R-3 zone change.
The City of Palm Desert in February signed an amended ordinance
allowing anyone that has R-1 zoning to build a guest house. So
anyone in their neighborhood that wanted to put in a guest house,
which is what Ms. Laux told neighbors she wanted to do, that's
all they have to do. A guest house could be built in the R-1 zone.
They don't need a zoning change. The zoning change lent itself to
adding more triplexes and duplexes to a family neighborhood and
the folks that live there didn't want to see that happen. They
already had enough trouble with the apartment building at the end
of the block. She documented everything and had pictures to
show Ms. Laux has a red zone painted in front of her house. She
bought the house in 1999 and lived in it for four years and the
house had a for sale sign in front of it ever since. It had not sold.
She didn't know the reason for it, she just knew the house hadn't
been sold. That didn't sound the way that someone that was a
stable family neighborhood person would want to own a home. It
sounded like a speculative buyer. She had the petition to present
to the commission. She had a copy of the Palm Desert Ordinance
that said she was free to build a guest house without the zoning
change, so she didn't see the need for it. But she wanted to show
the commission photos of the parking that had been painted red
and said it caused a traffic overflow to all the houses down the
block because if there was no parking in front of her house for the
elementary school, whenever they have a function they had 12 or
13 cars parking further down the block. If they added a guest
house, even if her relatives didn't drive, what happened when and
24
3� I,
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003
if she sold that house. That opened the door to multiple families
living on that property, again with no parking on the street. The
City's ordinance said she had to have that. By getting it painted
red, it didn't work. She said she went around the neighborhood
with the petition for the last two weeks. She wasn't able to reach
a couple of the homeowners that were out of town for the season.
They did own their homes, they just weren't there. She then
presented them to the commission.
There was no one else wishing to speak and Chairperson Campbell asked
Ms. Laux for rebuttal comments.
Ms. Laux said two things were mentioned, such as the red zone
that the police department placed in front of her home. She bought
the brand new house and there was no red zone there. But shortly
after when school started the school bus was unable to clear the
corner for a turn and the police came and made a mention of it.
That there needed to be one side of the street made red so the bus
could turn that corner after both sides were used as parking areas.
So she had nothing to do with the red zone. She was happy it was
put there because it made a flow of traffic easier, especially when
school got out. She said there were about 15 or 20 minutes of
congestion there as parents pick the children up. That had nothing
to do with her and she had no idea that anybody cared whether
she put a unit on her lot or not. She was surprised that people
were signing the petition, but she assumed their concern was
congestion and worrying that if she made that lot an R-3 it would
bring more congestion there. They didn't know that she was only
doing it for family. She had the house for sale for a short time by
owner, which irritated the realtors around there and she wondered
if there wasn't some connection there. She did it by owner
because she was trying to find a duplex to house her relatives.
When she couldn't, she decided to try to change the zone and
build her own. She had no idea. She talked to a few people around
there, but not many, and no one had said anything. They knew her
mother was elderly and lived there and they all got the letters, but
they didn't understand perhaps that she was just putting in the
one unit. She was disappointed. She didn't know that anyone
25
3 �
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003
cared. She has 16 units on one side of her and she didn't even
hear those people. They were working people that came home in
the evening and it was very quiet. She had never heard any
commotion from the 16 units. In fact, they were quieter than the
other side.
Commissioner Jonathan asked Ms. Laux if she investigated the
alternative of second units under the R-1 zoning and if she was familiar
with that new ordinance that went into effective July 1 .
Ms. Laux said it was mentioned to her after she put her application
in that she didn't need to do it and that she could go ahead and
build something. She just didn't know that and when she went to
the desk at the City and said she wanted to make a duplex
situation there, that was what she was offered as the best thing.
She didn't want to add congestion to her street either. She wanted
to address that again. The neighbor was probably worried because
there were 16 units there and because of all the other units. The
people who had little individual homes down there, she could see
their concern. But as the commission could see from her
illustration, she wouldn't even be concerned with doing anything
more than one. The time it was for sale was simply to address the
problem in her family. She couldn't find a duplex to buy. But it did
irritate the realtors that she was trying to do it alone.
Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked the
commission for comments.
Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Smith what he thought would be the
best vehicle for putting the desired second residence on that lot. Mr.
Smith said he didn't know the percentages they would be getting into
relative to the recently passed ordinance that took effective July 1 as to
the 30% or 35% limit on the additional unit. So before he said too much
more, he wanted to investigate that, but he didthat at the time the
9say
applicant filed the request, they were still in limbo as to which direction
that ordinance was headed. So this seemed to provide the most
certainty. (Ms. Laux spoke from the audience and indicated that she
submitted her application in May.)
26
32^
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003
Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification relative to the dwelling unit
to the east being a triplex. Mr. Smith said that the property at the
southeast corner of the intersection was definitely a triplex, perhaps four
units although the Assessor showed it as three. The property immediately
east of the applicant, the Assessor showed it as being a single family
dwelling. It appeared to be more than that, but he couldn't go beyond
that. The applicant believed it to be more than that. But he didn't know
with certainty.
Commissioner Tschopp stated that he would like to know what the unit
to the east really was because it did have a bearing if this was a single
family surrounded in a sea of apartments. He wanted a definitive answer
before the commission proceeded.
Since Mr. Smith didn't how the new ordinance would impact this
property, Chairperson Campbell advised that they continue it to allow all
their questions to be answered. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He
said he personally didn't have a problem with a second unit being
proposed because they were in a multi-unit area and concurred with
staff's analysis. The question in his mind was the best methodology for
accomplishing that given that they now have a brand new alternative for
accomplishing it. He asked staff to take a look at it to see if that was a
more effective vehicle for accomplishing what the applicant was seeking.
Commissioner Lopez concurred. There were a couple of questions raised
and they needed some clarification. One question he had which was
pointed out in the petition was about the red curb. The petitioner alleged
that the applicant did this on their own or had someone do it for them
and then after the fact everything was okayed. He wanted to know about
the red curb usage and what it was for. It made sense for the school bus.
(Ms. Laux spoke and said the police department did it and it was on file.)
Commissioner Lopez stated that they needed some clarification on that
issue and what the best direction was to go as it pertained to proceeding
with the second unit at this location, because it was an area filled with
multi-units and he thought it would work just fine.
Commissioner Tschopp said he also wanted to know if the unit to the
east was legal. His concern was the impact it could have on
27
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003
neighborhoods in Palm Desert when multifamily units were not done with
permits and the problems that created for the rest of the neighborhood.
So he wanted to know if the unit to the east was legally non-conforming.
Chairperson Campbell said she would like staff to look at all of the homes
to the east of this home.
Commissioner Lopez said he would move for a continuance and asked
how long staff would need. Mr. Smith recommended that the case be
continued to the first meeting in September (September 2, 2003).
Chairperson Campbell reopened the public hearing and asked for a
motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, continuing Case No. C/Z 03-05 to September 2, 2003 by
minute motion. Motion carried 4-0.
(It was noted that the September 2 meeting would start at 6:00 p.m.)
E. Case No. Cup 03-10 - GARY CASSEL for SPRINT PCS, Applicant
Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow
construction of a wireless telecommunications site
camouflaged as a 10-foot high by 24-foot long faux boulder
designed to match the hillside.
Mr. Drell noted that this was the area in the hillside south of Bighorn.
Since a palm tree wasn't appropriate, the applicant was proposing a
boulder. The commission had a photograph of a boulder, but he indicated
that the proposed boulder would be more tailored in design to the type
of rock up on that hillside. None of the faux facilities were perfect, but
probably in this situation this was the most appropriate one. He thought
from a distance it would be difficult to tell it was faux. He said that the
proposal was reviewed by the Architectural Commission and was
28
3L(
rt
Li .7"AFT SUBJECT TC
Fl- REVISIONMINUTES REvi$IO
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
t2 2003 Mr. Smith summarizedpertinent August 8 City Council actions.
g
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Case No. PMW 03-12 - MAUREEN D. McGIVERN, Applicant
Request for approval of a parcel map waiver
to move the south property line of Lot 9
further south. Property is located at 73-305
Irontree Street, APN 630-023-006.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Finert approving the Consent Calendar byminute motion. Motion
Y� pp 9
carried 5-0.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to
raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public
hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Case No. C/Z 03-05 - DOLORES J. LAUX, Applicant
(Continued from July 15, 2003)
Request for approval of a change of zone
from R-1 single family district to R-3 (3)
multifamily residential district for a 7,380
square foot lot at 74-110 Chicory Street.
2
ri
SUBJECT TC
. fir - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
Mr. Smith noted that this matter was before the commission on July 15
at which time commission directed staff to look into several matters.
Item one concerned the legal status of the property immediately east
of the subject property. Code Compliance investigated and advised that
there were no building permits on file for multifamily use. A letter was
sent to that property owner requesting compliance.
Item two. Commission wanted to know if the future second unit that was
referred to by the applicant could be accomplished under the recently
adopted second unit ordinance. They reviewed the proposal as
described to staff by the applicant and the various findings necessary
were outlined on page two of the staff report. Staff felt it could be
accomplished under the second unit ordinance.
During the processing of a previous request for a second unit, there
was an issue regarding ownership and whether or not the owner lived
on the site. In this instance, the applicant described to the commission
that she would put her mother or aunts in the facility.
Item three had to do with a question as to how the curb became painted
red in front of the residence. In a memo dated July 27, 2003 given to
commission, Mr. Greenwood advised that City forces performed the red
painting in response to requests from Mrs. Laux who was experiencing
difficulty exiting her driveway. He noted that there was a school across
the street.
In conclusion, based on an analysis of the additional information, staff
was now recommending that the proposed zone change be denied.
Staff's previous report had been primarily influenced by the existing
land use on the lot to the east. Staff was now advised that the legal
• status of that property was as a single family dwelling and actions were
being taken to bring that into compliance. Staff was also convinced that
the applicant could achieve the desired goal through the second unit
ordinance. Therefore, staff was recommending that the requested
change of zone from R-1 to R-3 be denied.
3
•
C1 _
_ SUBJECT TC
MINUTES REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification regarding the unit across
the street to the south and a little bit to the east. He wanted to know if
it was multifamily. Mr. Smith explained that it is zoned R-1 ; however,
the permits taken on it were for three units which pre-dated the city. So
it had legal nonconforming status. That could not be said to for one to
the east in that the permits on record were for a single family dwelling.
Commissioner Tschopp noted that previously the commission heard
testimony that the painting on the curb was done by the school district,
but it was done by the City. He asked if the City took into consideration
how that would impact adjacent neighbors when they do something like
that because prohibiting parking from one area forced it down the
street. He asked if there was redress for the neighbors if that parking
was impacting them. Mr. Diercks stated that they put it in and they
could always take it out. The issue was sight distance coming out of the
driveway and it was possible a portion of it could be removed. He said
there was also a concern about the parking out there as well.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that the property was currently zoned R-
1 and the properties to the east of that lot were zoned R-1 . He asked
if the properties to the west and to the north were zoned R-3. Mr. Smith
said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that at one
point staff felt this might make sense as a transitional kind of lot from a
higher intensity to a lower intensity, but asked if it was staff's conclusion
now that the boundaries were proper as they currently existed. Mr.
Smith said their rationale for supporting it previously was that it was
surrounded on three sides, but the third side was not a legal situation.
Chairperson Campbell asked if there would have to be covered parking
provided and if there was sufficient room. Mr. Smith explained that the
application for that was not before the commission at this time.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Smith if in using the second unit
approach, if there was anything in that approach that would not be
accomplished compared to the change of zone approach. Mr. Drell said
there were a few things. The second unit law had an owner-occupancy
requirement. It also had a limit on the relationship between the main
4
337
SUBJECT IC
•
•
MINUTES
F 1". REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
dwelling and the second unit. The second unit could not be larger than
35% of the main dwelling. So in R-3, both units could be equal in size
and neither would have to be owner occupied. Commissioner Jonathan
noted there was a specific application before them and he was asking
if the application as is fit into the second unit ordinance. Mr. Drell
explained that there was no actual application for a building before
them. That was just a conceptual idea.
Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still open and
asked the applicant to address the commission.
MS. DOLORES LAUX, the owner of 74-110 Chicory, stated that
she requested a zone change. She said she was in a sea of
apartments. She has 16 units on one side. The property on the
east that Mr. Smith kept referring to had three units, but they
were built in 1950 before the city was incorporated. Therefore,
when she called Mr. Erwin, the City Attorney, and asked about
it, he said that it was fine because they were not under any
restrictions at that time to not build units. So they built their units
and they were not violating anything until they rebuild. That was
the understanding she got from the City Attorney. She said it was
being offered here as one of the reasons as a proposed denial
for her to have her R-3. She asked how they could use that as an
excuse when that property was done before incorporation.
The second reason they proposed a denial was because a
woman came in from the neighborhood with a petition. They
didn't want any more units in the area, but the petition was for a
guest house. No where on her application were the words guest
house. She had onlywritten in that she wanted an R-1 to go to
an R-3 so she could build her duplex. She offered the
commission an illustration. It showed that she was going to do a
very residential single unit for her relatives. She had three elderly
relatives she was trying to accommodate. Her mother was in her
90s and she had two aunts. She said it would look like her house
and it would be behind the wall. It wouldn't interfere with the
tr school across the street.
5
3g
SUBJECT IC
MINUTES
y�i o REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
She said that her home was a new home that was just built in
1999. She was the only brand new home on Chicory Street in 60
years. At the time the home was built and she purchased it from
the builder, the City revamped the school playground directly
across from her. This was a major change for this small street
and she felt that perhaps it may have effected the older
neighbors that were worried that she might do a 16-unit project,
but she was only asking for the one unit and her drawing showed
the location.
Ms. Laux thought that the petition was rather invalid, which was
for a guest house, and ordinances were included that Ms. Laux
thought didn't effect her application at all. The person who wrote
the petition said that Ms. Laux went out at night and painted the
curbs. Ms. Laux noted that the commission had the work order
from the City and as they could see, she had an unusual
situation where Lantana, next to the school playground, came
straight down. The City put in parking about the time her home
was being built to accommodate the school. When they redo the
school, she thought they would have to make it one-way.
Pointing to the map, she showed Chicory at the base of two
streets. Ms. Laux explained that what had been happening was
the lot used to be vacant before her home was built. The school
bus and others could back into it and make the turn. So she
found herself with a school bus in her driveway and a lot of police
there every afternoon, so she came to the City and Mr.
Greenwood was very helpful and they discussed what could be
done. By making the areas red in front of her home and the
corner with no cars parked there, traffic could flow and the bus
could make the turn. She felt there were many discrepancies in
the petition and it had no bearing on her application.
She stated that it concerned her that the little house next to her
with its two units built in 1950 would now be a reason to deny her
a change of zone because based on when they were built they
weren't violating any ordinances. That was what the City
6
_ SUBJECT TC
MINUTES d r 6 REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
Attorney told her. And she thought Mr. Smith understood that.
She called him afterward and asked him if he realized that
property was built so long ago. That whole neighborhood was
built in the 1940's and 50's. The school was built in 1950 and this
neighborhood was put together at that time. So they had a lot of
these situations where people have built units.
Ms. Laux said she was going to leave it in the commission's
capable hands to make the right decision. She just felt that the
two reasons for denying her the zone change were invalid. The
home next to her and the petition were both invalid as it
appeared to her. The commission had the ultimate answer and
what was best for the community she was sure would be the
base of their decisions. She said she has had that home for sale
because she needed to find a duplex for her relatives and people
would constantly ask her, usually single parents, if they could
rent her house so their children could go to that school. So she
felt that if she had a unit there it would be a nice thing for the
community after her family was finished with it.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if Ms. Laux had an opportunity to review
the second unit ordinance to determine whether that ordinance would
accommodate her need for a second unit.
Ms. Laux said she really hadn't because she went in at the end
of April, beginning of May, for this application and it wasn't
offered to her. Her builder and everyone said she needed a zone
change to R-3.
Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the revised second unit
ordinance was relatively new.
Ms. Laux informed commission that she had a couple of builders
give her bids on her proposal and they had been $70,000 if she
did it the way she wanted to do it--beautifully.
7
• SUBJECT If
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
Commissoner Jonathan asked if she already had specifics in terms of
what she had in mind in terms of size, layout, architecture, etc.
Ms. Laux said yes, because it was very well described by the
Building Department. The size of her lot would only allow her a
700 foot dwelling there.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if she had actual architectural
renderings.
Ms. Laux said no, she didn't money spend the for them until she
p Y
could see if the zone change would be feasible. She said she
explained that to Mr. Smith. She felt it would be no impact on this
street because her older relatives would just be there and there
were no extra cars. Her dwelling was like the illustration. Very
residential and a quiet, set back situation.
Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. There were none. Chairperson Campbell asked for testimony
in FAVOR or OPPOSITION.
MS. RANA LYMAN, 74-160 CHICORY, addressed the
commission. She noted that she was before the commission a
couple of months ago. She said she brought two more signed
petitions by two more homeowners, which virtually gave them
almost the entire street of owners that were opposed to this
change. Not to stop the applicant from building, which she
originally called a guest house because all of the neighbors knew
about it and she had discussed it with several people in the
neighborhood saying she wanted to put in a guest house, not a
duplex, so Ms. Lyman didn't know where that was coming from
now. In any event, the people she spoke with in the
neighborhood that signed the petitions willingly indicated they
didn't want a zone change. They had no problem with the
applicant building a guest house on her property in compliance
with the city, but the zone change was not necessary. They didn't
8
SUBJECT TC
I "1 REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
want to see multiple families coming into the neighborhood when
it was a single family neighborhood. That was the balance of it.
Additionally, the applicant mentioned the red zone on the curb.
Ms. Lyman said she made a call today to the Transportation
Department of the Desert Sands Unified School District because
she remembered at the last meeting that Ms. Laux mentioned
something about the buses coming down Lantana, hanging a left
onto Chicory, and possibly coming into her curb area. The lady
she talked to had been an officer with the Desert Sands School
District and just happened to live in that same neighborhood and
has for a lot of years. She indicated the same thing. The bus
route has always come up Portola, gone left on Chicory, they
drop the kids off right out there on the sidewalk, and they didn't
park anywhere on the north side of that street. They park on the
south side where the fence runs. They unload the kids onto the
sidewalk, the bus continues down Chicory to Lantana, they go up
Lantana and loop around on Fairway and then go back down
Portola toward El Paseo. No where did they go up to Fairway
and come back down swinging around in front of Ms. Laux's
house. Like the lady at the school district said, they couldn't turn
a 90-passenger bus on an angle like that, it wouldn't make that
turn. In the history that she had worked at the school district they
had never had the buses going in that direction.
As for painting the curb, Ms. Lyman said she personally saw her.
It became a she said/she said, but she saw her painting the curb
at night. Then when Ms. Lyman questioned the City about it, they
sent someone out there who then repainted it. She got it
grandfathered in by claiming that the buses were turning there.
But in talking to the school district, the buses had never turned
there and she had a copy of the map and a copy of the
conversation with the school district if the commission needed it.
She just wanted to pass on that they had additional homeowners
that were opposed to this. They had no problem with her building
a guest house, they were just opposed to the zone change. (She
submitted the two petitions and letter/map.)
9
SUBJECT It
MINUTES
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any rebuttal comments.
Ms. Laux stated that it was getting ridiculous, but Mr. Greenwood
was the only person that she dealt with. She didn't go to the
school. She said she is a school teacher and she knew better
than to trouble the schools about something like that, so she just
went to the City. Mr. Greenwood took care of the whole thing.
She was not out there at night painting curbs.
Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for
commission comments.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Smith was certain about the
adjacent home to the east not being grandfathered in and being a
single family use. Mr. Smith stated that he knew there was a distinction
between it and the one across the street where permits in 1950 or 1951
were taken for three units even though it was currently zoned R-1 .
Relative to the one to the east, the information that Code came up with
was that the permitting which took place in 1950 or 1951 was for a
single residence, or as they put it not for a multiple residence. With that
background he deferred to the City Attorney present. It was his
understanding that it didn't convey legal non-conforming status to the
adjacent property to the east. Mr. Drell stated that in order to get it
grandfathered, they had to be legitimate to start out with. If they were
legal under the County, then they were legal non-conforming under the
City if they changed zoning. But if under the County jurisdiction it was
converted from a single family home to a triplex without legal permits,
it was illegal when it came into the city.
Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that the other property
obtained permits for triple units. Mr. Drell said yes. He said they go out
of their way to try to find legitimacy for these old county buildings, but
they didn't find it for the one to the east.
Commissioner Jonathan said that it appeared to him that this might be
a situation that would more appropriately fit into the second unit
ordinance as it had been recently revised. The neighborhood had some
10
4-3
' FT SUBJECT TC
- REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
issues with changing the zone from R-1 to R-3. He wasn't concerned
about the red curb or where the school buses went. Those were valid
issues, but not for the purposes of addressing a change of zone. His
greater concern was when they have an existing zone and neighbors
and residents purchase their property based on that zone, then he
thought the commission had an added measure of responsibility to
ensure that those expectations weren't adversely compromised in some
way and he thought that might be happening here.
On the positive, he said there might be another way to accomplish the
same thing to meet the applicant's needs without offending the existing
residents. He said that would mean a denial of this particular
application, but at the same time he encouraged the applicant to work
with staff to determine if what the applicant wanted to do could be
accomplished through the revised second unit ordinance.
Commissioner Finerty noted that she was absent at the July 15
meeting, but had read the minutes and familiarized herself with the
application and concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. She thought
it needed to be denied. A zone change was not needed. She
understood the concerns of the homeowners not wanting to add
multifamily into what they thought was single family. She encouraged
the applicant to reapply under the second unit ordinance.
Commissioner Tschopp also concurred. He stated that it is a very
congested area during the school year and additional housing in that
area needed to be looked at very closely. If the applicant met the
requirements of the second unit ordinance, he would encourage her to
apply under it. There were also neighbors that objected to further
intrusion of multi-family into their neighborhood which he thought was
a valid concern. Lastly, although not a part of this hearing, he
requested the City Traffic Engineer to review the no parking zone in
front of the house and take whatever applicable action they deemed
appropriate knowing that by eliminating some parking spaces, they
forced it into other areas. However, in this case it might be valid, but he
wanted the Engineer to take a look at it and either validate it or remove
the red stripe.
11
1 14
SUBJECT Tt
MINUTES i I FT-
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
Commissioner Lopez also concurred and thought Ms. Laux should work
with staff on the new second unit ordinance. He thought she would be
able to accomplish what she would like to do.
Ms. Laux thanked him and said she would do that. She then
mentioned that Ms. Lyman said she had more names from
neighbors.
Commissioner Jonathan interrupted to explain that the public hearing
was closed to further testimony.
Commissioner Lopez continued and said he also concurred that staff
should look at the red curb to see how it might benefit all parties
involved. But in this particular case, the recommendation by staff for
denial was acceptable.
Chairperson Campbell also concurred that this project could be
accomplished under the adopted second unit ordinance that went into
effect in July. She also asked staff to check into the red zone to see if
it could be eliminated or possibly cut down in any way and make that
a condition of approval. She was also in favor of denying the change of
zone from R-1 to R-3. She asked for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-
0.
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2221 denying
Case No. C/Z 03-05. Motion carried 5-0.
B. Case No. CUP 03-07, Gary Cassel for SPRINT PCS, Applicant
(Continued from August 19, 2003)
Approval of a conditional use permit to allow
the installation of a 70-foot high wireless
12
L-�-S
)perty Profile RIVERSIDE ra, eta AY-
O
Prepared By: Jeff Rhoads Prepared For:
Parcel Number: 625-173-018 Phone: (818) 784-7056
Ownership: UNMRRD W
Owner 1: DEPEW,VIRGINIA L Pg-Grd: 213-D1/848-G2
Owner 2: Census: 0451.026
Site Address: 74126 CHICORY ST Zoning: R1 3 Z( y1; I S
Site City/State: PALM DESERT CA 92260 Tract: 00000 -00
Mail Address: 14927 HESBY ST Lot/Block: L-0019/B4
Mail City/State: SHERMAN OAKS CA 91403 Flood Panel: 060629 0005
Legal Description: LOT 19 BLK B4 MB 022/074 PALM DESERT UNIT 4
Property Characteristics
Use Description: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
Yea;2ui!L ?°`0 Square Feet: 1,420
Pool:
Beds/Baths: 3/2.2 Additional: View:
Num Stories: I Roof: ROLL COMP Gar SqFt:
Num Units: 1 Heat/Cool: B Gar Type:
Lot Size: 7,405 Fireplace: Car SqFt:
Gas: DEVELOPED Half Bath: Gar Type2:
Sewer: DEVELOPED 3/4 Bath: 3 Out Imp:
Electric: DEVELOPED StSurf: YES
Water: DEVELOPED
Sale/Loan Information
Last Trans W/O $: Last Trans W/O$ Doc#:
Sale Date: 03/05/1997 Doc Number: 73687 Buyer: DEPEW,VIRGINIA L
Sale Amount: $85,000 F Cost per SqFt: $59.86 Seller:
1st Trust Deed: Loan Type: Lender:
+Addl: Prey Date: Title: OLD REPUBLIC TITLE
Prey Amout:
Assessment/Tax Information
Assessed Value: $93,708 Tax Amount: $1,274.86
Land Value: $27,560 Status: CUR
Improvement: $66, 148 Tax Rate Area: 018006
% Improvement: 70% Exempt:
Tax Year: 2002-2003
•
•
Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. +(0 Profile Report
.��•••�'�•••�• CITY OF PALM DESERT
'�• 11��, O A. •••I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
From: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
Subject: RED CURB AT 74110 CHICORY
Date: July 23, 2003
As shown on the attached work order, the curb at 74110 Chicory was painted red by City
forces on May 23, 2001. This work order was approved by me on May 16, 2001 in
response to a request by Ms. Dolores Laux, the owner of the property. Ms. Laux reported
difficulty exiting her driveway due to parents parking too close when picking up children
at Washington Charter School, which is across the street.
Please be aware of this parking restriction while considering zoning changes for this
property.
•
MARK GREtNWOOD, P.E. 4
cc: Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer
H.\wpdocs\Chicory Red Curt Memo wpd
-�• �� rruR LLJGXI
WORK ORDER FORM / -
STREET DEPT. PARKS DEPT. PRIORITY
DATE: -7/!/ 0� APPROVED BY: (P.W.DEPT. )
7 TO: v:'! /7 ir/ e, FROM: J/)1 7 /4% G'/�ZAJ✓1WOf7
LOCATION: 7�/w chi/GO/)/
DESCRIPTION: P4I v " CUJ2v 41- 4 c*27o �Y� /�
Cobb_MAY l �'
FO�qI/O ��01 Date Started: - �
A4M FS�p Date Completed: P C
By:
f Maintenance Personnel
-lq- 1 0 Remarks:
tw1
cortAl
•
Inspected By:
Supervisor
Priority:
�f E - EMERGENCY
'U If R - ROUTINE
I
-�-�, CITY OF PALM DESERT
e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
,4'e INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Hart Ponder, Director of Code Compliance
FROM: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
DATE: July 24, 2003
SUBJECT: 74-126 Chicory Street
During a public hearing on a proposed change of zone for property in this area it was
asserted that the above R-1 zoned property has been converted to a duplex or triplex.
Planning Commission requested that the matter be investigated and reported on at its
meeting of September 2, 2003.
Could you please review this matter and advise us in writing of your findings?
. JJii.
t� r�
CITY OF PALM DESERT
J /rtpi �ti BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT
••. <• =.��o .r. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
From: Pedro Rodriguez, Senior Code Compliance Officer
Date: August 5, 2003
Subject: 74-126 Chicory Street, Palm Desert (Code Case no. 03-3279)
Per your memorandum dated July 24, 2003, you requested our office conduct an
investigation for property address, 74-126 Chicory Street. The outcome of my
investigation determined that the property was converted to a triplex illegally.
The City records indicate the property was approved as a single-family use, and not as
a multi-family 9 Y
u anvil use. In addition, there are noYbuildingpermits on file for
multi-family use.
The attached letter dated August 5, 2003, was mailed to the property owner requesting
compliance within thirty (30) days.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me.
Attachment: Letter to Property Owner Dated August 5, 2003
C:\Documents and Settings\arr enta\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKE4\Memo Sheet doc
...*************.....
... ...
...- ...
• CITY Of PLffl DESERT
..- ..
73-5 10 FRED WARING DRIVE
ma
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
411 TEL: 760 346-0611
` • FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-deserc.org
August 5, 2003
Ms. Virginia L. Depew
74126 Chicory Street
Palm Desert, California 92260
Case No. 03-3279
Dear Ms. Depew:
It has come to the City's attention that the condition(s) listed below exist on your
property located at 74126 Chicory Street, also legally known as APN No. 625-173-018.
The City is requesting your cooperation in correcting the following item(s) in order for
your property to be in compliance under Palm Desert Public Nuisance Ordinance,
Chapter 8.20.
A complaint was registered against your property alleging a zoning violation.
Currently, your property is zoned for a single-family home, and your home is
being used a non-permitted triplex. The City records do not indicate any permits
for the conversion to a multi-family use. Therefore, please contact the Building
and Safety Department and Planning Department to obtain the necessary
approval and permits.
We appreciate your assistance in resolving this issue within the next thirty (30) days
from receipt of this notice. This enables you and your neighbors to maintain your
property values, and enhances the quality of life in your neighborhood, as well as for the
City of Palm Desert.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Should you have any questions, please
contact our office at (760) 346-0611, ext. 477.
mcere , ? .7
Pedro Rodriguez
Code Compliance Officer _
cc: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
; - - ;• CITY OF PALM DESERT
4 1111/4
r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
•
! ! h
•• " • INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
.�rEa=9�3a
TO: Hart Ponder, Director of Code Compliance
FROM: Steve Smith, Planning Manager j2-/ &-/
DATE: July 24, 2003
SUBJECT: 74-126 Chicory Street
During a public hearing on a proposed change of zone for property in this area it was
asserted that the above R-1 zoned property has been converted to a duplex or triplex.
Planning Commission requested that the matter be investigated and reported on at its
meeting of September 2, 2003.
Could you please review this matter and advise us in writing of your findings?
(-0 '‘.
/ L
L.
L
; I Ty Of nu ill O E 5 rn1
.$4i 101i
r,ipil ;r,• I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
.t. PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 78
, ,) __-. 4Va"i TEL: 760 346-061 I
f'`� FAX: 760 1— 0 8
.',�r.i vEti,.� 34 7 9
se 73',,+ r nfo@palm-desert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. C/Z 03-05
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to consider an appeal to a decision of the Planning Commission denying a request
by DOLORES J. LAUX for approval of a change of zone from R-1 Single Family Residential
District to R-3 (3) Multifamily Residential District for the property known as 74-1 10 Chicory
Street.
CT:-..-I
(G,A1DF,
3 --
R-3 =
R-3(3)
•
.Ilp
AMOK
■ rI • i U �y 1 SQ �«
R-3(3) , .111
it
41 P r! uAui��1��
1 w , ��I BIi soli
111
a
„EV IIIIII p4 r
\Ji,,,,,,:,,-: A ---. . : : • ' 13.-1 f '
40.Wi�Subject I"
111 Property Z rPL anvil- 4 ''
ACV
I' ��0'�
i R-110 R tiR-t F
FAIRWAY llK
-, , I I f I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ITTIF4111101 I I
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 4:00 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 City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
September 24, 2003 City of Palm Desert, California r
r
• -« -
i
/D Cm A Ico-+--Q
■ p ..
=, J,,,, I. /
T A ' REA ST1 . P. --/i\p\/'
.,, Ri 1
R-3 (3 )
0 . ' .�, )7A___Rm_ici-
,
p sQ
U • AT
R-$(3 )
LAND . • •
1
Iril, p -- z_iii3 (
(•
R- l
CHI CO ST W
mg
0 H..„,_ At- 1
, �u)
I PAROSELLA „ _
.. P .‹ me
___
1._1____,
Huai~
. . . _ - Proposed
Zoning Change
ii - :i. S ST
OG . '
- 1 R-1
R- 1 1 To
R-3 (3)
' Yam.0eoe4i Case No. C/Z 03-05 CITY COUNCIL
Change of Zone ORDINANCE NO.
... EXHI is IT A Date: