The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHPR/PP 08-259 Bruce KuykendallREQUEST: CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISION STAFF REPORT Approval of a preliminary building site for a 5-acre parcel of land in the Hillside Planned Residential Zone pursuant to the requirements of Section 25.15.130 (Optional Preliminary Approval) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Said request does not qualify as a project under CEQA guidelines; no environmental studies are required at this time. Property is located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel on Upper Way West, (APN: 628-130-015, Barracuda, LLC, Bruce Kuykendall, Applicant). SUBMITTED BY: Renee Schrader Associate Planner APPLICANT: Bruce Kuykendall Barracuda, LLC P.O. Box 4737 Palm Desert, CA 92261 CASE NO: HPR/PP 08-259 DATE: August 5, 2008 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval of this request will recommend an appropriate building site for a single- family home on a 5-acre lot within the Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) Zone. II. BACKGROUND: A. Planning Commission Action On July 1, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed potential pad sites for the applicant in an effort to recommend an appropriate building site for a single-family residence. The Commission's 2-2 vote constituted a "No - Decision" action. Therefore, the applicant is returning in order to establish a definitive action. The applicant's request and staff recommendation remain the same as presented at the July 1, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Staff Report August 5, 2008 Page 2 of 5 B. Hillside Planned Residential Zone: Key elements of the Hillside Planned Residential Zone are as follows: Ridge Top Development — The current HPR ordinance defines a ridge and also prohibits any development on or across ridges within the hillside. Ridges defined in the ordinance are identified on the attached map in red lines. Development Standards — The ordinance also states that "Building pads and architecture shall be designed to eliminate or minimize any visual impact on the City to the maximum extent feasible". The HPR Zone includes a section regarding `Optional Preliminary Approval' (PDMC 25.15.130, attached). Under this section of the Municipal Code, applicants may propose standards of development for the property, including building site location and access road location. Once a preliminary site is approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant can prepare the necessary documents, including the architectural design, for the full Precise Plan submittal as required by the HPR Zone. C. Property Description: The applicant, Mr. Bruce Kuykendall, purchased the property in 2003. An approximately 18,000 square foot pad (referred in this report as Pad #1) was previously graded in the 1960's. Surrounding the pad, the topography of the site is very steep and difficult to develop. An additional pad (referred in this report as Pad #2), was graded sometime later and is approximately one third the size of Pad#1. Pad #1 is located at the center of the property and on top of a ridge. Pad #2 is located on the down slope of the property's east side very near the property line. C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: Hillside Planned ResidentialNacant Property South: Hillside Planned Residential/Existing Stone Eagle Development Company East: Hillside Planned ResidentialNacant Property West: Hillside Planned Residential/Existing Single-family Residence Staff Report August 5, 2008 Page 3 of 5 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The HPR Zone allows the Planning Commission to approve a preliminary building site, which can also include consideration of the density of development and access road information. The applicant proposes to utilize Pad #1. In order to build with sufficient space for a home and garage, the pad would be lowered and expanded somewhat on the south side. Berming on the north side and re -naturalization of the slope that faces the valley floor are proposed. A few view areas recessed in the berm would allow the resident of the proposed home a view. With this treatment the building is proposed to be fairly concealed from the north elevation. With respect to access, the applicant proposes to link a drive from the existing Upper Way West road to the home from the southwest side of the property. IV. ANALYSIS The applicant's property encompasses land on both sides of a steep hill. The prohibition of developing on a ridge has made more challenging his ability to build a home successfully. In an attempt to locate viable solutions, staff has visited the site and consulted with the applicant. It appears that the applicant's choices are limited. The first option is to build on the portion of the site located on the relatively flat area indicated as Proposed Pad #1 on the attached map. The subject property and the existing graded pad occur on a ridge. There is an existing road that runs along the northern portion of the subject property. An access drive could be constructed from the road, which would access the proposed building site from the south. Staff has reviewed the site plan and believes that only one other possibility for development of a single-family home exists, and it may pose development difficulties. The alternative development site is the area indicated on the site plan as Proposed Pad #2, located at the eastern edge of the property and on the downward slope of the ridge. Pad #2 sits at an approximate elevation of 618 feet, which is approximately 55 feet lower than Pad #1 higher on the ridge. Developing on Pad #2 would require that the slope be substantially graded to create a pad large enough for a home. In order to expand Pad #2, cutting into the hillside would be required. Staff believes that the grading of Pad #2 to create a residential site would result in greater visual impact and environmental disruption to the hillside than would the type of mitigation necessary to build on Pad #1. The alternative, Pad #2, would also require an access easement from the property owners to the east in order to construct a drive to the residence. The drive to access Pad #2 would be much steeper and more difficult for construction to access the home. Staff Report August 5, 2008 Page 4 of 5 The existing access road serving the single family residences to the west (uphill) of the subject site runs directly across the northern portion of the applicant's property. Staff believes that the applicant could route a drive that would gradually increase approximately 13 feet in elevation from the existing road, curve around a knoll on the subject property, and provide appropriate access to build a home on Pad #1. In addition, the applicant could conceal the home from the valley floor by extending Pad #1 on the back side (south) of the slope and by creating berms and restoring the natural landscape. Development of a residence on Pad #1 is not in keeping with the letter of the Municipal Code. However, staff believes the applicant could successfully build a home on Pad #1 that would conform to the intent of HPR Zone, which is to preserve the view of the hillsides to the greatest extent possible and to minimize grading and environmental disruption thereon. V. PUBLIC NOTICE AND RESPONSES: A Public Notice was sent to property owners within a 4,000-foot radius of the subject site on July 22, 2008. In response to the July 1, Planning Commission 2-2 vote, a letter from the Ironwood Community Association was received on July 7, 2008, indicating a strong support for maintaining the restrictions stated in the Hillside Ordinance. A letter, e-mailed July 25, 2008, was received from Mr. Peter J. Szambelan, who resides in The Summit neighborhood, indicating support of the ordinance prohibiting development along the ridgeline. Additionally, a letter was received on July 28, 2008 from Ms. Sandra Sue Osborne, a resident in the Ironwood Community, in opposition to development. Copies of the letters are attached to this report. No other written comments have been received as of the date of publication of this staff report. Various telephone inquiries have expressed curiosity regarding the proposed project or the desire that the applicant be given the right to develop his property. VI. CONCLUSION: Staff has identified two development options for consideration. Pad #1 is the easier option; however, it is located on a defined ridge. While the applicant believes this location could be developed in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the HPR Zone, staff discourages development on ridges, in keeping with the letter of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Pad #2 would provide the applicant with a potential building site lower than Pad #1. Unfortunately, this option would have greater visual impacts and would require creation of an access road that would further disturb the hillside. However, it is a potential alternative that should be given consideration, since it would eliminate new construction on this ridge top. Staff Report August 5, 2008 Page 5 of 5 VII. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission preliminarily identify Proposed Pad #1, as the home site for the subject parcel, requiring such grading, berming, and renaturalization work as is necessary to obscure the view of the home and improvements from the valley floor, per the Hillside Planned Residential Zone section 25.15.130 `Optional Preliminary Approval'. VIII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Topographic Plan of site B. Public Notice C. July 1, 2008 PowerPoint presentation D. Letter from the Ironwood Community Association E. Letter from Mr. Peter J. Szambelan F. Letter from Ms. Sandra Sue Osborne Submitted By: Renee SQhder Associate Planner ,44 Homer Croy ACM, Devel�prwlent Services Department Head: Lauri Aylaian Director of Community Development CITY OF Pfltfll DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL:760 346-06ti FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC NOTICE Case No. HPR/PP 08-259 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Palm Desert City Planning Commission will consider approval of preliminary building site for a 5-acre parcel of land in the Hillside Planned Residential zone pursuant to the requirements of section 25.15.130 (Optional Preliminary Approval) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Said request does not qualify as a project under CEQA guidelines, no environmental studies shall be required at this time. Property is located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel on Upper Way West (APN: 628-130-015, Barracuda, LLC, Bruce Kuykendall, Applicant). The above mentioned case was presented before the Planning Commission on July 1, 2008. The Planning Commission voted 2 — 2, constituting a "no -decision" action. Therefore, it will be returned for a second review. e y t -, 1. �r Yf r' illi.., tl1'. rr 1/4. M.a MIa • Ci MO: r, VI: :tito SAID review will be held on Tuesday, August 5, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the City 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 this notice shall be accepted up to the date of the review. Information conceming the proposed project 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. LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission tto :75 4— • -- 0 -0 > L- 0 (13 s... c 0. • - a- E 0 < = 9- 0 if) +-A a) E CT a) E 0 To c 0 of the Palm 2 a_ 0 VY O •i a_ 0 --1cN 73 25.15.030 (G Hillside Planned minimize any IRONWOOD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION July 7, 2007 City of Palm Desert ATTN: City Council ATTN: Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Driven Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Enforcing the Improved Hillside Ordinance Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members: On behalf of 1066 homeowners in the Ironwood Community, I am writing to encourage you to fully enforce the provisions and intent of the City's Hillside Ordinance. This improved Ordinance has been in effect for Tess than seven months, the Hagadone compound and matter remains in full view and painful memory, and both the Planning Commission and City Council have recently been presented with and/or are reviewing requests for exceptions to the ordinance. As you contemplate approving any possible variance to the Hillside Ordinance, please consider the following: 1. THERE IS VERY STRONG COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE CURRENT WORDING IN THE HILLSIDE ORDINANCE, especially (underlining is mine): 'F. Development on or across prominent ridges is prohibited. 'G. Building pad elevations and architectural shall be designed to eliminate or minimize any visual impact on the City to the maximum extent feasible. The meaning of the word "prohibited" is very clear. The Hagadone home is a visible and frequent reminder to Palm Desert residents of an unfortunate exception, and the primary reason significant changes to the Hillside Ordinance were pursued. 2. CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION LEADERSHIP TO ACHIEVE AN IMPROVED HILLSIDE ORDINANCE IS RECOGNIZED AND APPRECIATED. A Desert Sun article by K Kaufman included the following quote: "We need to be explicit to people who want to build on the ridge, said Councilman Robert A. Spiegel. "It can't be done." Then -Mayor Dick Kelly once told me the City wished to "apologize" regarding the Hagadone matter and its subsequent impact on residents. We very much appreciated his candor and sincerity. In our meetings, it was clear that Councilperson Jean Benson was most displeased with the Hagadone matter. Councilman Jim Ferguson facilitated the first meeting between Duane Hagadone and the community, and Cindy Finerty provided great counsel and support throughout as a Planning Commissioner and Councilperson. Indeed, the City provided important leadership in mitigating the impact of the Hagadone construction and amending the Hillside Ordinance. RI P.O. Box 4772 * PALM DESERT, CA 92261-4772 * (760) 346-1161 * FAX (760) 346-9918 3. ANY EXCEPTION TO THE HILLSIDE ORDINANCE should be just that — a rarity, an aberration, an unusual case. Such a request must be critically measured against the Ordinance's clear standard and intent. If an exception is granted, it should be rigorously specified. Each variance potentially weakens the Ordinance and encourages additional challenges to our ridgelines. Any matter involving ridgelines and the Hillside Ordinance will be of great interest to Palm Desert residents, given the recent Hagadone experience. An unpopular ruling would certainly stimulate a strong and negative community response. We urge you to consider these matters at a time of the year when residents are available and can readily respond with their opinions. The Ironwood community (along with representatives from The Reserve, The Summit, and Monterra) has worked with members of the City Council and the Planning Commission and Staff to improve the Hillside Ordinance. We look to you to vigorously enforce the Hillside Ordinance and protect our ridgelines. Respectfully submitted, '---- ''''." .. A 4 4 .e'114c,c.. ..•1 ideairA) Lawrence T. Sutter President Ironwood Community Association Copies: The Reserve, Bill Ebert Monterra, Gene Grant The Summit, Peter Szambelan Ironwood Country Club, president Don Black Ironwood Community Council P.O. Box 4772 * PALM DESERT, CA 92261-4772 * (760) 346-1161 * FAX (760) 346-9918 July 25, 2008 The Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260-2578 RE: Public Notice Case # HPR/PP 08-259 Dear Planning Commission, As a home owner in both The Summit neighborhood and the Palm Desert Tennis Club, I am concerned that my breathtaking pristine views of the mountains will be compromised by another development along the ridgeline. Doesn't the new zoning ordinance prohibit building along the ridgeline, regardless of whether there is an existing building pad or not? I'm sorry that I will not be able to attend the hearing scheduled for August 5th. However, I am in hopes that you will decline the proposed application if the plans include building along the ridgeline. Sincerely, Peter J. Szambelan 72-670 Sun Valley Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Cc The Summit Home Owners Association The Palm Desert Tennis Club Home Owners The Iron Wood Home Owners Association Al-42A,--/ 626 73— 4"--/e) /177711: $/(5- 0 eu-- /-7 1-;,i 4-2 0 -r- I 1 , 1 I •• 4.u4;,1 m ), . JESERT a‘c\ /.•-=m, -e, ,k-4.- ‘,..,,_ , d_v___,,,,,___ : .,Z.--, -,e 47c). /71 /42.f2/f'P e") X "-c,(2'St ,; 40----,0-c6-6--„--- v •l--,i-e-c.}e <1' -cii-- , s 6e.-- /4' e 0.4-7,ez „,27a_ A:Le--- f a- S--- a-0-4.0-, a-,-,,,.._?,F...6 L4 „..,,7.----,y-4,e.424-' c,75-: j,5";/ 3, 7 ,,at,,,,34, 7,Z_.„-42- ,_,_744_.4---6.,21 , \ ,,....,. ,..,. - / ,i4e.- - dr0,-4 a;a6,4,- ,__.,„-..4_ . 1- 1