HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 04-43, Ord 1046-A - GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06CITY OF PALM DESE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D
STAFF REPORT
MEETIGDATE
CONTINUED TO
TO PASSED TO 2ND READING
REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Hillside Planned
Residential District Chapter 25.15 and the West Hills Specific Plan.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NOS: GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
DATE: May 13, 2004
CONTENTS:
Draft Resolution No. 04-433mending the West Hills Specific Plan
Draft Ordinance No. 1046 A amending Chapter 25.15 of the Municipal Code
Staff Reports dated June 26, 2003 and February 12, 2004
Staff Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 04-43 amending the West Hills
Specific Plan (Case No. GPA 03-04).
That the City Council pass Revised Ordinance No. 1046 A to second reading
amending Chapter 25.15 of the Municipal Code (Case No. ZOA 02-06).
Background:
This item has been before City Council at meetings held April 24, May 8, May 22
and June 26, 2003 and February 12, 2004.
In the hearings leading up to the June 26, 2003 hearing, the City Council had
indicated that it was prepared to enact Altemative A as recommended by the
Planning Commission if it were amended to include a maximum dwelling unit size
limit.
Staff Report
Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
Page 2
May 13, 2004
Per the direction of City Council at its May 22, 2004 meeting, staff amended the
proposed ordinance and resolution to include a provision limiting the maximum
dwelling unit size on areas of greater than 10% average slope in the hillside
planned residential district to a maximum of 4,000 square feet of enclosed floor area
including required garage area. For areas having Tess than 10% average slope a
35% maximum pad coverage limit was recommended.
At the June 26, 2003 hearing the City Council deadlocked over three issues:
1. Whether parcels less than 10% slope should receive the same five -acre
minimum lot size as steeper parcels.
2. Whether five -acre parcels between 10% and 35% would be entitled to
15,000 square feet of grading or be limited to 10,000 square feet.
3. Whether there should be a limit on house size.
Since there were not three votes in favor of any compromise, the June 26, 2003
hearing was continued indefinitely.
February 12, 2004 staff returned to City Council seeking direction on how to
proceed and reported on a conceptual Riverside County hillside ordinance.
The City Council on a 4-0 vote with Mayor Pro Tempore Crites absent, continued
the Hillside Ordinance issues indefinitely to allow completion of the Comprehensive
General Plan Update process.
Discussion:
March 15, 2004 the City Council completed its review of the General Plan Update.
The hillside area is designed (R-HR) Residential Hillside Reserve (0-1 du/5 acres),
maximum one dwelling unit per five acres.
Alternative 'A', which was recommended by the Planning Commission April 1, 2003
permits one unit per five acres for areas in excess of 10% average slope and one
unit per acre for areas with less than 10% average slope.
Staff has enclosed a copy of Alternative 'B' which limits density regardless of slope
to one unit per five acres. All existing lots will be entitled to at least one unit. This
alternative would be consistent with the general plan.
Staff Report
Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
Page 3
May 13, 2004
Alternative B' limits grading to a maximum of 10,000 square feet plus 3,000 square
feet for an access road/driveway.
Alternative B' does not distinguish between areas with less than 10% average slope
and those with greater average slope. All lots, regardless of size, would be limited
to 10,000 square feet of graded area plus 3,000 square feet of driveway grading.
Alternative `B' does not impose a house size limit.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a modified version of Alternative
B' which would allow up to 20,000 square feet of grading on lots with an average
slope of 10% or Tess. Lots with average slope in excess of 10% would be limited to
10,000 square feet of grading.
While staff believes that appropriate siting, design, color and texture are more
important then size in determining visual impacts, a 5,000 square foot limitation on
total floor area including garages and accessory buildings may represent a
reasonable compromise.
A legal notice for this revised item was published in the Desert Sun April 30, 2004.
Submitted by:
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
Approv
Homer Cr,
ACM fo
elopment Services
(Wpdocsltmisr\zoa02-06.c10)
Department Head:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
Approval:
Carlos L. 0
City Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE WEST HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
"DEVELOPMENT POLICIES"
CASE NO. GPA 03-04
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
13th day of May, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment
to the West Hills Specific Plan as described above; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2193 has
recommended approval of Alternative 'A' without a maximum dwelling unit limit; 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 amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared;
and
WHEREAS, the general plan designation for this area is Residential (Hillside
Reserve) maximum one dwelling unit per five acres; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the provisions of AB 2292 in that the
proposed down -zoning has been more than offset by the redesignation of 35 +/- acres
of service industrial land to residential, allowing construction of 279 residential units
of which 161 are under construction; 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 and reasons to exist to justify its action as described
below:
1. That the amendment to the West Hills Specific Plan is consistent with
the objectives of the General Plan as it relates to limiting hillside
development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the City Council in this case.
RESOLUTION NO.
2. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached,
is hereby certified.
3. That an amendment to the West Hills Specific Plan "Development
Policies" is hereby approved as provided in the attached Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this day of , 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: GPA 03-04
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Approval of an amendment to the West Hills Specific Plan.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons
in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "B"
REVISED
ALTERNATIVE B
HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
25.15.010
25.15.020
25.15.023
25.15.025
25.15.030
25.15.040
25.15.050
25.15.060
25.15.070
25.15.080
25.15.090
25.15.100
25.15.110
25.15.120
25.15.130
Purpose.
Permitted uses.
Principal uses and structures permitted.
Large family day care homes.
Development standards.
Abandoned uses.
Structural Architectural and landscape design.
Fire protection.
Erosion control.
Preservation of open space.
Submittal requirements for development plan.
Environmental assessment.
Required information.
Optional preliminary approval procedure.
25.15.010 Purpose.
The intent and purpose of the hillside planned residential district is:
A. To encourage only minimal grading in hillside areas that relates to the natural
contours of the land avoiding extensive cut and fill slopes that result in a padding or
staircase effect within the development;
B. Encourage architecture and landscape design which blends with the natural
terrain to the greatest practical extent;
C. Require the retention protection of viewsheds, natural landmarks and features
including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements in development proposals
in hillside areas. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.020 Permitted uses.
Uses and activities permitted by approved development plan shall be as follows:
A. Grading;
B. Single-family attached or detached dwellings;
4
RESOLUTION NO.
C. Land subdivisions;
D. Remodels and additions only require department of environmental
community development approval. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.023 Principal uses and structures permitted.
The following are permitted uses within any hillside planned residential district and
do not require pre -approval pursuant to a development plan:
A. Small family day care homes. (Ord. 742 § 5, 1994)
25.15.025 Large family day care homes.
Large family day care homes are permitted subject to a use permit pursuant to
Chapter 25.72A of this code. (Ord. 742 § 6, 1994)
(Replace Section 25.15.030 in its entirety with the following:)
25.15.030 Development standards.
Development standards shall be as approved by the Planning Commission and City
Council in a public hearing and shall be based on the following two topographic
conditions. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient data supporting
their request. Topographic data must be prepared by a registered civil engineer.
A. Density.
Each lot shall be limited to a maximum of one unit per five acres. All lots will be
entitled to at least one unit.
B. Grading.
Location of building pads and access roads shall be evaluated, approved or
adjusted based on consistency with the goals set forth in Section 25.15.010.
1. Building Pad Area. In areas of greater than 10% average slope, the
maximum area permanently disturbed by grading shall not exceed 10,000 square feet.
In areas with 10% of less average slope, the maximum area permanently disturbed by
grading shall not exceed 20,000 square feet.
2. Access Road/Driveway. Maximum permanent grading disturbance of
natural terrain for development of access to the approved building pad shall be 3,000
square feet. Roads shall be located and designed to blend with the natural terrain to
the greatest practical extent consistent with the goals of 25.15.010.
3. Renaturalization. All cuts, fills or other areas temporarily disturbed by
grading shall be re -naturalized, colored and landscaped to blend with the adjacent
undisturbed natural terrain to the greatest practical extent. Renaturalized areas shall
not be considered disturbed for proposes of Subsection B 1 and 2.
5
RESOLUTION NO.
25.15.040 Abandoned uses.
If, pursuant to this chapter, an existing building and/or building site is to be
abandoned, the abandoned building shall be removed from the site and properly
disposed of and the site regraded and landscaped to blend with the terrain prior to any
occupancy of any new building(s)
constructed on the site.
25.15.050 Girettlatien Lighting.
Exterior lighting shall be limited to that which is absolutely necessary for safety and
security and shall be in compliance with Chapter 24.16 of the Municipal Code. (Ord.
322 (part), 1983)
25.15.060 Structural Architectural and Landscape Design
Site plan review in accord with Chapter 25.70 is required for all development.
Structure height and setbacks shall be flexible in order to achieve the purposes of this
section. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983).
25.15.070 Fire protection.
In areas where there will be a fire hazard, in the opinion of the fire agency, the
following shall apply:
A. Clearance of brush or vegetative growth from structures and roadways shall be
in accordance with the uniform fire code and approved by the fire agency.
B. Roof shall be of incombustible material approved by the fire agency.
C. All easements for fire breaks shall be dedicated to this purpose through
recordation.
D. All buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression automatic sprinkler systems
approved by the fire marshal. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.080 Erosion control.
All manufactured slopes shall be planted or otherwise protected from the effects of
storm runoff and erosion within thirty days after completion of grading. Planting shall
be designed to blend with the surrounding terrain and the character of development.
(Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.090 Preservation of open space.
In order to insure permanent retention of the natural terrain as required in Section
25.15.040, a covenant approved by the city attorney shall be recorded dedicating all
building rights to the city and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on
the plans approved by the city. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
6
RESOLUTION NO.
25.15.100 Submittal requirements for development plan.
Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit (unless otherwise provided),
or land subdivision, a Hillside Development Plan shall be approved reviewed by the
Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission and approved by the City
Council. This may include, as determined by the Director of
Community Development, the following information as set out in Sections 25.15.1 10
through 25.15.130. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.1 10 Environmental assessment.
All applications shall comply with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.120 Required information.
The Director of Community Development and/or Planning
Commission may require any of the following information:
A. Accurate topographic maps indicating the following:
1. Natural topographic features with an overlay of the proposed contours of
the land after completion of the proposed grading.
2. Slope analysis with at least five-foot contour intervals and a slope
analysis showing the following slope categories:
10% - 15%
16% - 20%
21%-25%
26% - 30%
31%-35%
36% and over,
3. Elevations of existing topographic features and the elevations of any
proposed building pads, street centerlines and property corners,
4. Locations and dimensions of all proposed cut and fill operations,
5. Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage patterns,
structures and retaining walls,
6. Locations of disposal sites for excess or excavated material,
7. Locations of existing trees, other significant vegetation and biological
features,
8. Locations of all significant geological features, including bluffs, ridgelines,
cliffs, canyons, rock outcroppings, fault lines and waterfalls,
9. Locations and sizes of proposed building areas and lot patterns,
10. Any other information required by the Planning Commission;
B. Site plans and architectural drawings illustrating the following:
1. Architectural characteristics of proposed buildings,
2. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns, including street widths and
grades and other easements of public rights -of -way,
7
RESOLUTION NO.
3. Utility lines and other service facilities, including water, gas, electricity
and sewage lines,
4. Landscaping, irrigation and exterior lighting plans,
5. Locations and design of proposed fences, screens, enclosures and
structures, including drainage facilities,
6. Any other information required by the Planning Commission;
C. Reports and surveys with recommendations from foundation engineers or
geologists based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capabilities,
including soil types, soil openings, hydrologic groups, slopes, runoff potential,
percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns;
D. Archeological studies in areas where existing evidence seems to indicate that
significant artifacts of historic sites are likely to be encountered in order to insure that
these artifacts and/or sites are not inadvertently destroyed;
E. Additional information to include:
1. Average natural slope of land,
2. Acreage and square footage calculations,
3. Area of impermeable surfaces,
4. Ratio of parking area to total land area,
5. Ratio of open space to total land area,
6. Description of maintenance program for proposed developments involving
joint or common ownership,
7. Any other specific information determined to be of special interest
relevant to the applicant's proposal. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.130 Optional preliminary approval procedure.
The applicant may choose to submit information and request a preliminary approval
from the Planning Commission which will assign the appropriate development standard
option, determine density, identify building sites, access roads and locations. No
permits shall be issued until final approval is obtained. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
8
ORDINANCE NO. 1046 A
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.15, HILLSIDE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
CASE NO. ZOA 02-06
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
13th day of May, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amending Palm
Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.15, Hillside Planned Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2193 has
recommended approval of Alternative 'A' without a maximum dwelling unit limit; and
WHEREAS, the general plan designation for this area is Residential - Hillside
Reserve, maximum one dwelling unit per five acres; 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 amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared;
and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the provisions of AB 2292 in that the
proposed down -zoning will be more than offset by up -zoning of other properties in the
city, which is being recommended in the general plan update (see additional discussion
in staff report dated March 4, 2003 which is adopted by reference herein); 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 and reasons to exist to justify its actions as described
below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the general
plan and the West Hills Specific Plan as amended.
4. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public
health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
ORDINANCE NO. 1046 A
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the City Council in this case.
2. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached,
is hereby certified.
3. That ZOA 02-06, as delineated in the attached Exhibit B, is hereby
ordained.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this day of , 2004, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. 1046 A
EXHIBIT "A"
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: ZOA 02-06
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) as it
relates to permitted density, limit of grading activity, maximum dwelling unit size and
other matters.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons
in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3
ORDINANCE NO. 1046 A
EXHIBIT "B"
REVISED
ALTERNATIVE B
HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
25.15.010
25.15.020
25.15.023
25.15.025
25.15.030
25.15.040
25.15.050
25.15.060
25.15.070
25.15.080
25.15.090
25.15.100
25.15.110
25.15.120
25.15.130
Purpose.
Permitted uses.
Principal uses and structures permitted.
Large family day care homes.
Development standards.
Abandoned uses.
mar Architectural and landscape design.
Fire protection.
Erosion control.
Preservation of open space.
Submittal requirements for development plan.
Environmental assessment.
Required information.
Optional preliminary approval procedure.
25.15.010 Purpose.
The intent and purpose of the hillside planned residential district is:
A. To encourage only minimal grading in hillside areas that relates to the natural
contours of the land avoiding extensive cut and fill slopes that result in a padding or
staircase effect within the development;
B. Encourage architecture and landscape design which blends with the natural
terrain to the greatest practical extent;
C. Require the retention protection of viewsheds, natural landmarks and features
including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements in development proposals
in hillside areas. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.020 Permitted uses.
Uses and activities permitted by approved development plan shall be as follows:
A. Grading;
B. Single-family attached or detached dwellings;
4
ORDINANCE NO. 1046 A
C. Land subdivisions;
D. Remodels and additions only require department of
community development approval. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.023 Principal uses and structures permitted.
The following are permitted uses within any hillside planned residential district and
do not require pre -approval pursuant to a development plan:
A. Small family day care homes. (Ord. 742 § 5, 1994)
25.15.025 Large family day care homes.
Large family day care homes are permitted subject to a use permit pursuant to
Chapter 25.72A of this code. (Ord. 742 § 6, 1994)
(Replace Section 25.15.030 in its entirety with the following:)
25.15.030 Development standards.
Development standards shall be as approved by the Planning Commission and City
Council in a public hearing and shall be based on the following two topographic
conditions. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient data supporting
their request. Topographic data must be prepared by a registered civil engineer.
A. Density.
Each lot shall be limited to a maximum of one unit per five acres. All lots will be
entitled to at least one unit.
B. Grading.
Location of building pads and access roads shall be evaluated, approved or
adjusted based on consistency with the goals set forth in Section 25.15.010.
1. Building Pad Area. In areas of greater than 10% average slope, the
maximum area permanently disturbed by grading shall not exceed 10,000 square feet.
In areas with 10% of less average slope, the maximum area permanently disturbed by
grading shall not exceed 20,000 square feet.
2. Access Road/Driveway. Maximum permanent grading disturbance of
natural terrain for development of access to the approved building pad shall be 3,000
square feet. Roads shall be located and designed to blend with the natural terrain to
the greatest practical extent consistent with the goals of 25.15.010.
3. Renaturalization. All cuts, fills or other areas temporarily disturbed by
grading shall be re -naturalized, colored and landscaped to blend with the adjacent
undisturbed natural terrain to the greatest practical extent. Renaturalized areas shall
not be considered disturbed for proposes of Subsection B 1 and 2.
25.15.040 Abandoned uses.
If, pursuant to this chapter, an existing building and/or building site is to be
abandoned, the abandoned building shall be removed from the site and properly
5
ORDINANCE NO. 1046 A
disposed of and the site regraded and landscaped to blend with the terrain prior to any
occupancy of any new building(s)
constructed on the site.
25.15.050 Circulation Lighting.
Exterior lighting shall be limited to that which is absolutely necessary for safety and
security and shall be in compliance with Chapter 24.16 of the Municipal Code. (Ord.
322 (part), 1983)
25.15.060 S#e+ Architectural and Landscape Design
Site plan review in accord with Chapter 25.70 is required for all development.
Structure height and setbacks shall be flexible in order to achieve the purposes of this
section. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983).
25.15.070 Fire protection.
In areas where there will be a fire hazard, in the opinion of the fire agency, the
following shall apply:
A. Clearance of brush or vegetative growth from structures and roadways shall be
in accordance with the uniform fire code and approved by the fire agency.
B. Roof shall be of incombustible material approved by the fire agency.
C. All easements for fire breaks shall be dedicated to this purpose through
recordation.
D. All buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression automatic sprinkler systems
approved by the fire marshal. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.080 Erosion control.
All manufactured slopes shall be planted or otherwise protected from the effects of
storm runoff and erosion within thirty days after completion of grading. Planting shall
be designed to blend with the surrounding terrain and the character of development.
(Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.090 Preservation of open space.
In order to insure permanent retention of the natural terrain as required in Section
25.15.040, a covenant approved by the city attorney shall be recorded dedicating all
building rights to the city and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on
the plans approved by the city. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.100 Submittal requirements for development plan.
Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit (unless otherwise provided),
or land subdivision, a Hillside Development Plan shall be approved reviewed by the
Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission and approved by the City
Council. This may include, as determined by the Director ofenvironmental services
6
ORDINANCE NO. 1046 A
Community Development, the following information as set out in Sections 25.15.1 10
through 25.15.130. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.1 10 Environmental assessment.
All applications shall comply with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.120 Required information.
The Director of Community Development and/or Planning
Commission may require any of the following information:
A. Accurate topographic maps indicating the following:
1. Natural topographic features with an overlay of the proposed contours of
the land after completion of the proposed grading.
2. Slope analysis with at least five-foot contour intervals and a slope
analysis showing the following slope categories:
10% - 15%
16% - 20%
21%-25%
26% - 30%
31%-35%
36% and over,
3. Elevations of existing topographic features and the elevations of any
proposed building pads, street centerlines and property corners,
4. Locations and dimensions of all proposed cut and fill operations,
5. Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage patterns,
structures and retaining walls,
6. Locations of disposal sites for excess or excavated material,
7. Locations of existing trees, other significant vegetation and biological
features,
8. Locations of all significant geological features, including bluffs, ridgelines,
cliffs, canyons, rock outcroppings, fault lines and waterfalls,
9. Locations and sizes of proposed building areas and lot patterns,
10. Any other information required by the Planning Commission;
B. Site plans and architectural drawings illustrating the following:
1. Architectural characteristics of proposed buildings,
2. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns, including street widths and
grades and other easements of public rights -of -way,
3. Utility lines and other service facilities, including water, gas, electricity
and sewage lines,
4. Landscaping, irrigation and exterior lighting plans,
5. Locations and design of proposed fences, screens, enclosures and
structures, including drainage facilities,
6. Any other information required by the Planning Commission;
7
ORDINANCE NO. 1046 A
C. Reports and surveys with recommendations from foundation engineers or
geologists based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capabilities,
including soil types, soil openings, hydrologic groups, slopes, runoff potential,
percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns;
D. Archeological studies in areas where existing evidence seems to indicate that
significant artifacts of historic sites are likely to be encountered in order to insure that
these artifacts and/or sites are not inadvertently destroyed;
E. Additional information to include:
1. Average natural slope of land,
2. Acreage and square footage calculations,
3. Area of impermeable surfaces,
4. Ratio of parking area to total land area,
5. Ratio of open space to total land area,
6. Description of maintenance program for proposed developments involving
joint or common ownership,
7. Any other specific information determined to be of special interest
relevant to the applicant's proposal. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
25.15.130 Optional preliminary approval procedure.
The applicant may choose to submit information and request a preliminary approval
from the Planning Commission which will assign the appropriate development standard
option, determine density, identify building sites, access roads and locations. No
permits shall be issued until final approval is obtained. (Ord. 322 (part), 1983)
8
TN/City of Palm Desert/9.5.03
Draft Comprehensive General Plan/Land Use Element
Table III-1
City of Palm Desert Draft General Plan
Proposed Land Use Designations
Land Use Designation (Density)
RESIDENTIAL
(R-DE) Desert Estates (0-1 du/10 ac)
Purpose of Land Use
This designation provides for single-family
residential development on lots a minimum
of ten acres. The Desert Estate land use
provides a development density intermediate
between more typical open
space/conservation lands and low residential
densities, providing lots sufficient for rural
and estate lifestyle yet with room to limit
site and environmental impacts. This
designation applies primarily to lands in the
Sky Valley area.
(R-ME) Mountain Estates (0-1 du/20 ac) This designation provides for single-family
residential development on lots 20 acres or
greater in size. The Mountain Estates
designation recognizes the added constraints
of steep terrain on site development and
extension of access and services. It provides
an intermediate step in development density
between open space/conservation lands and
low residential densities, providing lots
sufficient for rural and estate lifestyle, while
limiting site and environmental impacts.
(R-HR) Residential Hillside Reserve (0-1du/5ac) The Residential Hillside Reserve designation
serves to provide an intermediate
development density for lands located on
sloping terrain primarily within the foothills
of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The
designation permits the development of one
single family home on lots of not less than
five acres. The intent is to provide
reasonable development opportunities while
protecting natural and scenic resources.
Land Use Element
m-4
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Status of City and County Hillside Ordinances
SUBMITTED BY: Philip Drell, Director of Community Development
CASE NOS: GPA 03-0 and ZOA 02-06
DATE: February 12, 2004
CONTENTS:
Staff Recommendation
Background
City Council Minutes of June 26, 2003
Staff Recommendation:
Set a new date for the continued public hearing and direct staff conceming
how to proceed relative to the County ordinance review process.
Background:
A. City Ordinance Amendment
When the Council last discussed the proposed hillside ordinance on June 26 it
deadlocked over three issues:
1. Whether parcels Tess than 10% slope should receive the same five -acre
minimum lot size as steeper parcels.
2. Whether five -acre parcels between 10% and 35% would be entitled to
15,000 square feet of grading or be limited to 10,000 square feet.
3. Whether there should be a limit on house size.
Staff Report
Status of City and County Hillside Ordinances
Page 2
February 12, 2004
Since there were not three votes in favor of any compromise, the hearing was
continued indefinitely. The hearing will have to be renoticed before it is returned
to the agenda.
B. County Hillside Ordinance
Currently there is no County hillside ordinance. The new County Planning
Director, Bob Johnson, is just beginning the process of proposing a hillside
ordinance based on an ordinance from Pima County, Arizona (his last place of
employment). While the Pima County ordinance is quite comprehensive, it is
generally more permissive or silent regarding our three unresolved issues.
1. The Pima ordinance does not apply at all to properties with slopes Tess
than 15%.
2. Grading is regulated as a percentage of parcel size without reference to
slope. A five -acre parcel would be entitled to 32,000 square feet of
disturbance regardless of slope.
3. The Pima ordinance does not regulate house size. Mr. Johnson does not
recommend or anticipate adding specific house size maximums.
Submitted by: Approval:
Phil Drell
Homer Croy
Director of Community Development ACM for Development Services
Approval:
Carlos L. Ortega
City Manager
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2004
XVI. OLD BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION RELATIVE TO CITY AND COUNTY HILLSIDE
ORDINANCES Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06 (City of Palm Desert,
Applicant).
Councilman Ferguson noted that the Council had not yet done the
Environment and Natural Resources section of the General Plan. He said it
had always been his understanding and philosophy that a general plan sets
forth goals and policies to implement those goals. Subject to that process,
ordinances are created, and if the ordinances do not match the goals and
policies of the General Plan, they are void. He said he felt it would be putting
the cart before the horse to craft an ordinance before the Council has even
gone through and set the goals and policies or at least reviewed them on the
hillsides as part of the General Plan.
Mr. Drell said he had placed this on the Agenda for Council direction. He
said the generalized goal of the General Plan was to preserve the hillsides as
best we can. Upon question by Councilman Ferguson, he said he would
have no problem continuing this item until completion of the comprehensive
General Plan update process.
Upon question by Mayor Spiegel as to where the County of Riverside is with
regard to its new hillside ordinance, Mr. Drell responded that they were in the
most infant state at this time.
Councilman Ferguson moved to continue consideration of the Hillside Ordinance
issues indefinitely to allow completion of the Comprehensive General Plan Update process.
Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Crites
ABSENT.
XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
XVIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
None
B. CITY ATTORNEY
None
14
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Hillside Planned
Residential District Chapter 25.15 and the West Hills Specific Plan.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NOS: GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
DATE: June 26, 2003 continued from April 24, May 8 and May 22, 2003
CONTENTS:
Revised Draft Resolution No. 03-53 amending the West Hills Specific Plan
Revised Draft Ordinance No. 1046 amending Chapter 25.15 of the Municipal Code
Staff Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Revised Resolution No. 03-53 amending the
West Hills Specific Plan (Case No. GPA 03-04).
That the City Council pass Revised Ordinance No. 1046 to second reading
amending Chapter 25.15 of the Municipal Code (Case No. ZOA 02-06).
Executive Summary:
In previous meetings the City Council has indicated that it was prepared to
enact Altemative A as recommended by the Planning Commission if it were
amended to include a maximum dwelling unit size limit.
Per the direction of City Council at its May 22 meeting, staff amended the
proposed ordinance and resolution to include a provision limiting .the
maximum dwelling unit size on areas of greater than 10% average slope in
the hillside planned residential district to a maximum of 4,000 square feet of
Staff Report
Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
Page 2
June 26, 2003
enclosed floor area including required garage area. For areas having less
than 10% average slope a 35% maximum pad coverage limit is
recommended.
This proposed revision was renoticed in the newspaper and circulated to
property owners in the HPR District.
Discussion:
At the May 22, 2003 meeting, several property owners spoke on the issue of
maximum dwelling unit size. Two speakers supported a 3,500 square foot dwelling
unit maximum. One speaker supported no maximum size limit, but urged strong
architectural controls.
Staff reviewed the matter further and discussed it with two of the owners.
Considering that most of these dwellings will be on a 10,000 square foot pad on a
five -acre lot, the 4,000 square foot maximum unit size, including garage and any
accessory structures, will only amount to 1.8% of the lot area or 40% of the pad
consistent with coverages existing in many desirable R-1 zones.
Areas with Tess than 10% average slope will be treated similarly to other R-1 zoned
lots in the city. In Altemative A, these lots will be a minimum of one acre and have
a pad size limited to 50% (21,780 square feet on a one acre lot). The dwelling unit
on a one acre lot would be limited to a maximum of 7,623 square feet (17.5% of the
lot area).
Dwellings on these lower areas with average slope of less than 10% have more in
common with "flat land" dwellings than hillside dwellings. While 35% sounds like a
large dwelling, it is limited to 35% of the pad area which reduces the coverage by
at least 50% so the maximum basic coverage becomes 17.5% of the lot area.
Staff Report
Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
Page 3
June 26, 2003
Conclusion:
In the hillside area, architectural design, color, siting, orientation and surrounding
topography have a far greater influence on how obtrusive a home appears than
floor area. Particularly important is the amount of wall area exposed to view from
the valley floor area, color and texture of materials used in exposed locations and
the surrounding topography.
The proposed dwelling unit size limits and careful architectural consideration of the
above items will assure dwellings which blend into the hillside areas.
Staff recommends that City Council adopt Revised Resolution No. 03-53 and pass
Revised Ordinance No. 1046 to second reading.
Submitted by:
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
Approv
Homer Croy
Department Head:
Director of Community Development
Approval:
Carlos L. Ortega
ACM for Develop ent Services City Manager
(Wpdocsltm1sAzoa02-06.cc7)
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2003
XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 25.15 OF THE
PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE, AND THE WEST HILLS
SPECIFIC PLAN Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06 (City of Palm Desert,
Applicant).
Following is a verbatim transcript of this matter.
JMB Jean M. Benson, Mayor
SS Steve Smith, Planning Manager
RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor Pro Tempore
JF Jim Ferguson, Councilman
RSK Richard S. Kelly, Councilman
DN David Nelson
BK Bruce Kuykendall
FM Fred Messreni
JM Dr. Jerry Meints
HP Hayward Pardue
DC Dori Cree
JCO Juan Carlos Ochoa
LG Lori Gagnon
GG Gina Gagnon
RH Robert Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
JMB First public hearing...Consideration of approval of an amendment to the
Hillside Planned Residential District, Chapter 25.15 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, and the West Hills Specific Plan, Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and
ZOA 02-06 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
SS
Good afternoon. This matter was continued from your meeting of May 22na
In addition, we did renotice it as a public hearing relative to the changes
which you directed us to make. Specifically, at your meeting of May 22nd
you asked us to come up with conditions relative to the maximum size of
dwelling units in the hillside area. We have done that. We have inserted it at
the appropriate place in the draft documents. What we're recommending is
that in the hillside areas with greater than 10% average slope, the maximum
dwelling unit size including garage and accessory structures be set at 4,000
square feet and that in the hillside areas of Tess than 10% slope that the
maximum unit size be set at 35% of the approved pad size. I can indicate
that we did meet with several property owners in the area prior to coming up
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2003
with this recommendation, and I think basically I'll stop there, and if people
have any questions I'd be pleased to try and answer them.
RAS There is no height limitation?
SS Not as it currently stands. There was no height limit in the original document.
We did have that discussion...with the additional architectural controls that
we have added into this document...I'm not so sure that we necessarily need
height restrictions in that there are instances where you have significant
slope conditions that you might want to be able to do two-story. And you still
do have the architectural control and you're also...what's the word I was
looking for...you also have the strengthened lines under...or conditions under
purpose where the protection of the view sheds is specified. If you wish, we
could limit it to...we could come up with height limits, but up to this point, no
(inaudible)
RAS In the City, what's the height limit on the single -story home?
SS 18 feet maximum. The R-1 districts are limited to one-story.
RAS So if someone wanted to build a two-story house, they'd have to do it in
3,500 square feet.
SS Yes, plus a garage. Typical two-story development in the City is limited to 24
feet.
JF Is it your understanding of either the proposed ordinance or the existing
ordinance that people are allowed to build two-story homes on the hillside?
SS Yes. We haven't had one to review, but...
JF But if somebody hypothetically submitted plans for one, we'd have to process
it.
SS Correct.
RAS Is there really a need for a two-story house on the hillside?
JF A different question.
SS There are some very steep hillside conditions where, rather than seeing a lot
of fill in order to create a one-story dwelling, you might in fact prefer a two-
story structure, where it's back behind a ridge somewhere where it's not
visible.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2003
RAS But could we put the limitation as to one-story and if something like that did
exist that it would go through the Planning Commission and come to the City
Council for a variance?
SS
RSK
SS
JMB
DN
wouldn't suggest a variance, but we could certainly come up with language
that would, under very limited circumstances, allow a two-story home to be
processed where it meets certain specific criteria.
There might be a situation where house pad you actually might put another
level that would be drop off behind the hill and actually be a big improvement
over extra footage that wasn't at a two -level. It wouldn't be like a two-story
as much as it would be a split-level. The mall is a good example. From the
front you would never know it's double layered because of the terrain.
It's quite common where you have homes with basements or they have walk-
out basements with the street level at a higher level, so...it just seems to me
that you'd want to keep that option available where it might be advantageous
to all concerned.
Question, Jim? I do have...it is a public hearing and I do have some
speakers. First one is...so I'll open the public hearing. The first one is
David Nelson.
Honorable Mayor, Councilmembers, my name is David Nelson. I live at
72595 Beavertail Street, Palm Desert. As I've stated in the past, I am for the
staff recommendation of Alternate A. I am, however, against any square foot
building limitation. It is my contention that the whole premise of square
footage somehow equating to visibility is false. The size of the walls you see
and the contrast of those walls do have an effect on visibility, but there is no
way that you can tell, excuse me, how many square feet a building has by
looking at one or two walls that are exposed to the Valley. l submitted to you,
and...can I get overhead projector...this is a 1,830 square foot home on
Upper Way West (inaudible) and overlaid it with (inaudible)...and that's a
6,972 square feet. From looking at it, you cannot tell that there is an
additional 5,000 square feet of house in behind it because you don't see it. It
has been stated that the limit is being placed on this area in order to preserve
the hillside, but I haven't seen any documentation or evidence stating that
square footage somehow equates to visibility. Again, it is my contention it
does not. The new ordinance as written does have valid constraints and
protections that will ensure that what is built on the hillside will have minimal
visibility. I think proper design and visibility should be the concern, not the
square footage. If you do it right, you can't see it. Thank you.
JMB The next one is Bruce Kuykendall.
1?
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2003
BK
Good afternoon, Councilmembers. My name is Bruce Kuykendall. I've
resided in Palm Desert for 23 years. I'm a grading contractor, and I
specialize in hillside development. I currently own 52 acres of hillside
properties in the upper Cahuilla Hills and also own the adjacent five -acre
piece next to the recently approved Stone Eagle Project. About four years
ago, Bighorn and I helping them, we approached the City in reference to
twelve hillside lots. We got approval for those twelve, that was Phase I, and
we also got another approval for another eight lots in the second phase. The
hillside development consisted of 12,000 to 14,000 square foot pads.
The conditions of approval, which we worked with the Architectural Review
Committee, were some, some ideas that we came up with were natural
colors, rock veneers, non -reflective glass, non -reflective roofing materials,
naturalization of disturbed hillsides, setbacks from the property such as if you
can see my face right now, but if I set back a little bit, you can't see my face
(inaudible). There=s all kinds of tricks to put these projects...put a home on
these hillsides with limited visibility such as the recently completed 12,000
square foot home that was built in Bighorn that was built spread out over two
lots. It's a split-level with a detached casita, a detached garage, and a
detached guest home above the garage. This home is on the market for
$12 million. I recently bought the five -acre parcel next to Stone Eagle which
if we looked at the mural up there I would say I own the last sixth of that
mural. The other part of it is 1,800 running foot with a view corridor. There
will be a roughly a 14,000 square foot clubhouse, 44 units, parking for 200,
golf facility, maintenance facility, driving range. And just across this invisible
line, which is the property line, I=m now being restricted, if this passes, to
4,000 square foot. The lay of my land, I could put a 10,000 or I could put a
20,000 square foot pad on my five acres the way it lays, and you would not
be able to see the structure from the Valley. The Stone Eagle Project=s
usage is roughly about 8,000 square foot per five. We're being limited to
roughly 4,000. So what I'm asking is that you would reconsider this and take
it on a case by case basis, which we've done in Bighorn. It has to be
approved from the homeowners association, then we come down and work
with the architectural board, we submit models with setbacks showing the
rock, the naturalization, and we also put up our 18-foot PVC poles and then
drive the...drove Highway 74 to see the impact of that structure before it was
built and to see the visibility of it. So again, I highly recommend that we take
this on a case by case basis, adopt some, some conditions of natural colors,
rock veneers, non -reflective glass. Thank you for your time.
JMB The next card I have is Fred Messreni.
FM
Thank you Madam Mayor. Honorable members of the City Council, staff, my
name is Fred Messreni. I reside at 72-910 Homestead Road, Palm Desert,
actually within line sight of the properties in question. It's my neighborhood, it
is the backdrop of my view corridor, so to speak. And I'm one of those
fellows who shows up at City Hall every very now and then, and nobody
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2003
knows who I am because I'm just no hanging out at City Hall but not because
I'm not interested in the community, I'm very familiar with these kinds of
proceedings. I, like you, at a (inaudible) point in my life shared community
service in the San Francisco Bay area, I was their Mayor, Councilmember,
and served in elective office. And I came here today because it's my back
yard issue. But it's my back yard issue in a perspective that I'd like to share
with you. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder obviously. Those hills can very
easily become the eyesore this Council, this City, is attempting to prevent by
being overly rigid, by painting yourselves into a box with specifications that
were talked about very briefly in some of your earlier comments...18 foot
heights, two-story buildings...and to try and engineer n an ordinance those
kinds of specifications I believe has the possibility, in fact the probability, of
the law of unintended consequences coming into play, and when that
happens, it has been my experience, such as it was, that good intentions are
not spared the law of unintended consequences. I have the recent
opportunity to go up to the Bay area to visit family. My daughter was getting
married. And I was horrified. I left the Bay area some eleven years ago, and
at the time I stepped down from public service, there was a group who called
themselves "Save our Hills" rallying behind the emotion in the community to
not damage the pristine beauty of the Las Pampas hillside in the San Ramon
Valley, and I went back and it was tier upon tier of naked, un-softened, un-
vegetated houses and facades as far as the eye could see. I wanted to
vomit. It was caused by a group of well-intentioned people who in the final
analysis were struck by the law of unintended consequences and the power,
the ability to control it after the fact, just went away. In architectural review,
you have the opportunity to deal tastefully with design that is appropriate for
a specific site and do what is in the best interests of the view (inaudible). I
happen to believe that something that is more massive can be more
attractive than something, especially in the distance, that might be large in
square footage and shows up like a sore thumb. Something small may look
like a little ticky tack house and a shack, and large does equate to some
extent with value, and value does equate to some extent to affordability of the
individual who owns it. We may be better off by not restricting ourselves to
smaller is better. From a distance of Homestead Road or Highway 74, they
may look like a bunch of ticky tack matchboxes. You get too many of them
up there that look like that, it's going to look like a shanty town. (Inaudible)
and size can create architectural magnificence. There have been some
excellent examples of how natural materials can blend into the background.
Please don't limit yourself. We may live to regret it. Thank you for your time.
JMB Might try Scottsdale if you want to see what they did (inaudible) in the Bay
area.
(Inaudible)
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2003
JMB I said Scottsdale has the same problem after they let the first house up there,
too.
(Inaudible)
JMB Right. Okay, the next card I have is Jerry Meints.
JM Madam Mayor, honorable Councilmen, my name is Dr. Jerry Meints. I reside
at 71-450 Painted Canyon, Cahuilla Hills, Palm Desert. I've been up there for
35 years. I'm also the Director of Village Counseling here in Palm Desert,
and I have a lot of respect for this city and this council; in fact, I've been
involved intensely with both Planning, Architectural Review, the Council, and
the changes actually that the City helped me do to my building on Highway
111 next door to the infamous Red Barn have been really most appreciated.
So 1=ve really had an opportunity to see this city in action and its ability to
require and encourage and really mandate tasteful architectural design,
quality aesthetics, and even a preference in this city for naturalistic colors
and architectural styles. It's pretty good. The City even helped me do a face
lift on my building which, without a doubt, was one of the ugliest buildings on
Highway 111. It undoubtedly also was one of the oldest, built in 1956, and
my hat's off to the City for them helping me take a really good design and put
it into a finished product that I think we're all proud of. What I know about
this process here, having lived in Cahuilla Hills for over 35 years and
considering myself a recovering naturalist, a person who believes in fitting in
to nature, I built my home to not stick out like a sore thumb, to fit in to the
natural terrain, it was placed in a saddle where it wouldn't be visible and ugly.
And I also think that other building has been encouraged by this city to do
the same thing. We also know that a lot happened in the Cahuilla Hills
before this city was incorporated, and some of it is very unsightly. And most
of them that are very unsightly are very small. And the reason they're
unsightly is that the City really didn't have any control in those days. What I
know about control is that sometimes it can be phenomenal, and we have a
city to be proud of. I tell people from other parts of the country, we live in
Disneyland, this is a magic kingdom, and we have a city that's run well and
operates in the black, and that's pretty amazing. Controls, however, can be,
as was stated earlier today, overly rigid, arbitrary, and create limits that
produce consequences that later we're really not happy with. I'm going to
butcher some Greek mythology here, if you'll bear with me, and that's...what
we=re proposing tonight, and what we may vote on, unless some clarity
comes to bear, is a Procrustean bed, and Procrustes was a big tall guy, he
was about seven feet tall, and he had to sleep in this castle in a bed that was
only five feet tall. And every night about midnight, Buford will never forgive
me for this because I know he knows the myth, every night about midnight,
this big guillotine drops down and cuts off the legs of anybody hanging
outside that five feet. And I think that's what we're doing here with these
arbitrary limits. In Other words, we're taking really more general limits that
J(1
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2003
apply to most other areas in our City and reducing them to a Procrustean
bed. What I prefer instead is a dynamite Planning Department and a really
aesthetically oriented Architectural Review Committee and ultimately the
approval of City Council that can take these homes that are asking to be
developed in different sizes on a case by case basis. Let's trust these fine
people that you've employed and let them do their job, and if they tell you
something's going to stick out like a sore thumb like some of those that are
up there right now, well don't pass it. Let's not build a bed that's going to cut
off the legs of people in an unfair way. And I say unfair because I happen to
be not only a homeowner inside the Cahuilla Hills of Section 36, which is
inside the County, but I'm also a property owner inside Section 30. I'm one
of the nine folks that's being annexed against their will into the City, and this
City Council promised that they would protect us and not allow our lights, our
rights rather, to be reduced. But that's not happening. We're looking at
reduced home sizes, reduced lot sizes. We've lost our equestrian rights and
as you know, because I've spoken to this Council, my wife and I, who have
four children, all of which are all grown up now and in college and away from
the home except for our 12-year-old daughter, we wanted to build a much
smaller house on our three acres where my daughter can ride her little
ponies and we wanted to down -size our life and live a little more simply.
That's not possible being annexed into the City, and moreover, I want you to
know, Fred, you can't see me from your house because only seven of us
nine properties up there in the Crest can be even seen from the City. So, to
impose restrictions on us that you can't find unless you're in an airplane or
hiking up there, to impose restrictions on us that maybe should apply and
should be dictated by Planning and Architectural Review, on folks that are
visible from the City, is unfair, and it creates a drastic Procrustean bed. So
once again, I implore this Council to consider the absolute viability of the
great staff you have that would back you in your quest to make this city as
beautiful and as naturalistic as possible and to protect the unsightly
development on those hills but at the same time allow us homeowners to
develop our properties in line with the aesthetics that your staff would dictate
instead of cutting off our feet right below the knees before we even get out of
the starting gate. Moreover, since you can't see us, and also since Dave
Kelley showed us some pretty convincing pictures that really if it's done right,
if it's designed properly, you can't tell a 7,000 square foot house from an
1,800 square foot house, and that's what the fine architects in this community
can produce. So I want to challenge this Council not to create a Procrustean
bed. I want to encourage that one little piece I like, Mr. Ferguson, in proposal
B, you know a minimum of 10,000 square foot pad to be slid over to proposal
8. I also want to encourage this Council to allow your staff to evaluate these
homes case by case. Stop it where it needs to be stopped. Don't create a
Procrustean bed. Don't lop us off without giving every property a fair chance
to be head and to be reviewed and to be evaluated and to be voted on by
you folks. Finally, I want to suggest that this is going to be an easy vote if
you just take what's written and move forward. But that may not be the best
.' I
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2003
path. It might be wise to, you know, stretch the bed here a little so
Procrustes can keep his legs and some of us property owners up there can
keep the value that we've worked so hard to purchase in our homesites.
Thank you.
JMB That's all the cards I have. Are there anyone else that would like to speak?
HP Yes, Hayward Pardue, 47455 South Cliff Drive, Palm Desert. In my opinion,
a limit on the size of the residential structures in appropriate in an area where
the City has already imposed a five -acre minimum lot size to reduce the
density in any further development. (Inaudible) there's nothing similar to
these proposed size restrictions on hillside parcels in other parts of the City.
It seems more appropriate means to assure the home blends in with the
surrounding hillside would be through architectural controls and site selection
of proposed elevations and the color and texture of the finish. Thank you.
JMB Anyone else that would like to speak?
DC Dori Cree, 47205 South Cliff Road. I very much agree with the speakers who
have gone before me. I live in a two-story house which is on a very steep
slope on the hillside, and you absolutely cannot see the other half of my
house, it's in the back. All you see is the front part, that's the only part that's
visible to the City. And I also would recommend that the City look at this on a
case by case basis because those lots up there on the hillside, they vary so
greatly, and there's just so much room on a five -acre parcel to put a guest
casita or to put another little building that nobody would see unless as the
other gentleman said you were in an airplane flying over it. And I implore
Council not to restrict us in the manner you=re thinking of doing. Thank you.
JMB Thank you.
JCO Hi, my name is Juan Carlos Ochoa. I'm not a resident of this Cahilia Hills
area, although I am a local architect. And I have worked in Bighorn, I have
designed several homes there. But really what I would like to point out is I
don't know if many people here are aware of a development above the
Andreas Canyon in Palm Springs, homes that you can virtually not see, and
those homes are blended real well with the environment and most of them
have rock facades so it is really almost impossible without really paying
attention that the homes are there. I don't know how many there are, there
are at least seven, maybe more than that. And the point that I'm trying to
make is that if you give us an opportunity to work with not only colors,
materials, the design, how the site is, really making a challenge for us, we
can be creative. And so, I definitely would echo the words of all the people
who have come in front of me that this amendment should not be passed. I
think that we can surely be (inaudible) just we do in Bighorn and other
developments on a case by case project. Thank you.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2003
JMB Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak?
LG Lori Gagnon, I reside at 46211 Edgehill in Palm Desert, and our family is
definitely in favor of A, but again we need to have the flexibility for everyone
there to have, to work with the lay of the land and also with the landscaping
and not to be restricted on building size. We've been there for 27 years.
JMB Thank you. Anyone else?
GG Good afternoon. My name is Gina Gagnon, I reside at 46211 Edgehill. And
would just like to say that I agree with my neighbors in terms of the present
ordinance and its restrictive nature as well as the...as the wording is currently
on the limitation of dwelling size, the restriction of property rights. I would like
to recommend, if it hasn't been done already, if perhaps City Council has
staff take a look at what's been done in the other communities, city
communities, as it relates to hillside development, and in that context, see
how we can adapt what is currently written into the ordinance in terms of a
framework for responsible standards which does not limit the house, the
dwelling size. And, again, I second the or agree that every parcel should be
looked at on a case by case basis. Every parcel is extremely unique there,
and that's what gives us the beauty that we have to look at, at the mountain
and its diversity. Thank you.
JMB Anyone else? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Questions?
JF I would like...this is a procedural question for the City Attorney. We had an
ordinance that we passed on first reading. Is that gone now? Is this a new
first reading? (Inaudible) ordinance for adoption. Where are we at in this
whole process?
RH If we have an ordinance and we make any substantial change, it comes back
for first reading.
JF First reading?
RH This would be a first reading.
RSK Well, it seems to me that we are dealing with size when color is a lot more
important than size because you see buildings on hillsides that are...has the
colors that are in the hillsides and they just blend in. And I know the ones in
Palm Springs that were mentioned, they've been there for 50 years, some
of...in one location. You wouldn't even know they're there. So maybe we're
dealing with too much with size and not paying more attention to color
restrictions. The other thing is I have a tendency to concur that hillsides is a
special place and it has a lot of...seems like every lot is a different
configuration, and to try to set certain rules that will fit all situations. it's kind
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2003
JF
of like setting the rules for the size of a suit when everybody's built different,
so you know the best suit is one that you get tailored. And I think maybe we
should think more about the architecture and the color and the idea that there
are so few building locations left there that it wouldn=t be that big a deal if the
Council looked at every one.
I don't disagree with anything that you've said. I think at the first reading
made a suggestion that we limit the size. I'd have to go back and look at the
Minutes, but I think it was me, and I don't mind taking responsibility for that, if
I was wrong, and I wanted to hear from you folks and obviously we have.
don't know in my head right now what is the right restriction. I think we
try to...want to get us all to start at a point where we agree and then kind of
fan out and see where we disagree. The one common thread I'm hearing
among everybody is that we all want to preserve the nature and the beauty of
the hillsides. Having said that, that was real easy to do with The Canyons at
Bighorn because you did it all at once, and you knew that of 57 acres that
CVWD owned on the east side, you were only going to have 18 and 14 pads
ultimately drawn, and they were contoured into bowls, they were deliberately
hidden and set back, and everything that you folks have been talking about
was done on paper beforehand, and the whole thing went in as one project.
When you go in on a hillside with multiple owners, multiple lots, and multiple
motivations behind the property owners, not necessarily bad but just different
in varying degrees, it's hard to master plan a hillside, and so at least my
desire in taking a look at this ordinance was to try and get something that we
could all agree on, that gave you guys fair notice from what our current
ordinance is, which is high rating, wide open, vary ambiguous, everything is a
case by case basis, and when two homes get treated differently, the first
thing they want to talk about is how they're being discriminated against if they
don't like it or why they're special and should be treated differently if they do
like it. And that to me is just a wavering standard that goes back and forth
and at no point in any discussions on the ordinance was any expression
taken away from the Architectural Review Commission or the Planning
Commission or the Landscape Committee or ultimately this Council. What I
was hoping for was that we would get some standards that we can all agree
on and from what I'm hearing tonight the one that we don't agree on is the
limitation on the pad size. And I think (inaudible) had one of the better
suggestions in contrast with one of the earlier gentlemen that spoke. I would
be more than inclined to continue this and take a look at jurisdictions that
have effectively handled hillside growth instead of looking at ones that didn't
and blaming environmental groups or well -intended citizens or whomever
else. I don't want to repeat their mistakes, but I sense that if we do nothing,
by default we will be repeating those mistakes. And commissions change,
councils change, we're in the middle of a General Plan Update to design a
set of blueprints for our city for the next 25 years, and if takes a little
additional time to see what communities have done it right and we can
incorporate that into a master plan that you folks oar! agree with, that we can
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2003
JMB
RAS
agree with, maybe, just maybe, you know, by the time your children are
looking to build homes, that hillside will look roughly the same way that it is
now. I think...at least that=s my goal, and I guess my preference, rather than
try and hammer out square footages or disregard them tonight, would be to
continue it and take a further look at it.
would just add to what you said. I agree with it. I think we also were
looking for something in case the ownership of the lot changes as well, we'd
know that people that have it now have a good intention, but we don't know
what the people they're going to sell it to might have the same good
intentions, so I think that's what... trying to come to some common ground on
was the purpose of doing this.
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I'd be very happy if nothing was
built on the hillside. I have taken that stance for the last ten years, on the
Planning Commission and on the City Council. With that said, that will never
happen. But I do believe that pad size is important because if you don't have
pad size, you can have row houses. And 1 don't think we want row houses
on the hillside. Also, Dr. Meints, the Procrustean bed, I don't know that I'm
pronouncing it correctly, would fit inside a 4,000 square foot house, I would
think, because it's only five feet long. In fact, you could have a seven -foot
bed, I think, inside a 4,000 square foot house. Someone made the comment
that they want a fair chance to be heard. This is like the fifth time, I think, that
we've had it on our Agenda, so I think everybody's had a fair chance to get to
us. I just don't want row houses on the hillside. I don't want our hillside
destroyed. The comments were well -taken that you have a setback and it's
the back of it and so on, size isn't that important. Well, that's true, probably is
true. But I think we have to have some kind of restrictions because without
that we're going to end up with something that I don't think anybody in Palm
Desert will be happy with.
RSK One more comment. I feel a little bit hurt that...by the statement that if we
don't do something, we're doing nothing since the first committee I sat on 20
years ago when I was elected to the Council was the committee that wrote
the existing hillside ordinance. And it seems to me that it's done a pretty
good job over the last 20 years, so I don't call that doing nothing.
JF
I apologize if I implied that. What I intended to mean is that one thing I'm
fairly sure of is that none of us will be here 25 years from now, and it would
be nice to have some greater guidelines. Our current ordinance has a lot of
discretion in it, and we have gone on a case by case basis to the chagrin of
some property owners. But the desire was to get something more definitive
going into the future, not to be critical of what we've done in the past.
RSK Thank you.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2003
RAS So are you suggesting that we continue this?
JF I would, yes.
RAS Is that a motion?
JF I'II make that motion.
RAS I'II second it.
RDK Did you want to reopen your public hearing in order to do that or was it time
uncertain?
JF I would make it time uncertain at this point. I don't know that we're going to
get it done in two weeks.
RSK I don't see the urgency. We've been playing with it for 20 years, so...
JMB Vote.
RAS Just one last comment. We've heard from all of you. You're more than
welcome to come to all the meetings, but just make a recording this time and
send it to us, and we'll listen to it before the meeting if you have any changes
in your views.
RDK Motion carries 4-0.
For purposes of clarification: Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion,
continue consideration of Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06 (Hillside Ordinance and
West Hills Specific Plan) this matter indefinitely. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and
carried by 4-0 vote, with Councilman Crites ABSENT.
B. CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY MANAGER'S AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S PROPOSED FINANCIAL PLAN FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2003/04 (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE
PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE PALM DESERT
HOUSING AUTHORITY).
Mr. Ortega noted the staff report and recommendation in the packets and
offered to answer any questions. He noted that the proposed budget was a
balanced budget. He stated that Ordinance No. 1051 dealt with Council
salaries and provided for a cost of living increase for Council, provided for
compensation as members of the Housing Authority, and also provided for
compensation as members of the Redevelopment Agency. Upon question by
Mayor Pro Tempore/Vice Chairman Spiegel, Mr. Ortega responded that the
,41
CITY OF PALM DE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
STAFF REPORT
MEET, '.SATE L/ -,2y c
CONTINUED TO
Eff
PASSED TO 2N0 READING
REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Hillside Planned
Residential District Chapter 25.15 and the West Hills Specific Plan.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NOS: GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
DATE: April 24, 2003
CONTENTS:
Draft Resolution No. 03-53 amending the West Hills Specific Plan
Draft Ordinance No. 1046 amending Chapter 25.15 of the Municipal Code
Planning Commission Minutes involving Case Nos. ZOA 02-06 and GPA 03-04
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2193
Planning Commission Staff Reports dated March 4 and April 1, 2003
West Hills Specific Plan
Related maps and exhibits
Staff Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 03-53 amending the West Hills
Specific Plan (Case No. GPA 03-04).
That the City Council pass Ordinance No.1046 to second reading
amending Chapter 25.15 of the Municipal Code (Case No. ZOA 02-06).
Executive Summary:
November 14, 2002 the City Council directed staff to process an
amendment to the Hillside Ordinance.
Staff Report
Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
Page 2
April 24, 2003
Specifically, the City Council "moved to, by Minute Motion, in concept, initiate
an amendment to Municipal Code Section 25.15, Hillside Residential District,
to reduce density in the HPR zone to one unit per five acres and one unit per
acre on areas having an average slope of less than 10%, subject to the
receipt of further input from affected residents and the City Council. Motion
was seconded by Benson and carried by a 3-0-1 vote, with Councilman
Crites ABSTAINING and Councilman Spiegel ABSENT."
Planning Commission held hearing on the matter March 4 and April 1, 2003.
At the Planning Commission hearings nine property owners spoke with some
urging no change, some supporting Alternative A and some supporting
Alternative B.
Ultimately the Planning Commission at its April 1 meeting voted 3-1-1
(Commissioner Finerty voting nay and Commissioner Jonathan abstaining)
to recommend approval of Altemative A (i.e., one unit per five acres for areas
in excess of 10% average slope and one unit per acre for areas with less
than 10% average slope). Commissioner Finerty preferred Altemative B.
Discussion:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (WEST HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN):
The development policies in the West Hills Specific Plan are identical to the
development standards in the zoning ordinance. Any changes to the zoning ordinance
text will also need to be changed in the West Hills Specific Plan.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS:
Staff has prepared two alternative code amendments which were circulated to owners
in the HPR zoned properties along with a copy of the current hillside ordinance.
Both of the proposed code amendments contain minor changes to the purpose and
permitted uses sections of the ordinance. Significant change is proposed in the
"Development Standards" section of the ordinance.
This report will review the development standards of the current ordinance, Alternative
A and Alternative B, delineating the major areas of difference.
Staff Report
Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
Page 3
April 24, 2003
CURRENT ORDINANCE:
The current hillside ordinance was prepared and adopted in 1983. The ordinance
contains an "average slope formula." Density and grading limitations are based on the
average slope of the property.
The current code provides four options which the owner can choose from to process
his request. On some properties more than one option can be used (i.e., Option 2 used
for areas of Tess than 10% average slope and Option 1 for areas greater than 10%).
OPTION 1: Parcel Average Slope Method
This option requires use of the "average slope formula" and then based on the
"average slope" provides a series of six density categories and six grading limitation
categories as follows:
DENSITY:
Minimum Acreage Per
Percent Slope Dwelling Unit
1. 10 - 15
2. 16-20
3. 21 - 25
4. 26 - 30
0.66 acres
1.00 acres
1 .25 acres
1 .66 acres
Minimum Acreage Per
Percent Slope Dwelling Unit
5. 31 - 35
6. 36 or over
GRADING:
2.50 acres
5.00 acres
Percent of the Lot to
Percent Slope Remain in the Natural State
1. 10-15
2. 16-20
3. 21 - 25
32.5
47.5
62.5
Staff Report
Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
Page 4
April 24, 2003
(GRADING Continued)
Percent of the Lot to
Percent Slope Remain in the Natural State
4. 26 - 30
5. 31 - 35
6. 36 or over
OPTION 2: Toe of Slope
77.5
92.5
95.0
This option may be applied to areas having Tess than 10% average slope and allows
three lots per acre, minimum 1/3 acre Tots (14,520 square feet). Grading is not limited
under this option.
Remaining hillside areas in excess of four acres are entitled to an additional unit. If the
remainder is Tess than four acres, it must remain undeveloped. For remainders greater
than five acres, density is determined per Option 1 or 3.
OPTION 3: Dwelling Unit Building Site
This option allows an applicant to delineate specific dwelling unit building sites in
hillside areas with less than 20% slope. The building sites must meet the following:
1 . Minimum one half acre
2. Minimum dimension 100 feet
3. Maximum density one unit/acre
If aesthetic and environmental impacts caused by the plan cannot be mitigated, this
option cannot be utilized. Grading is limited to the minimum necessary to provide safe
access.
OPTION 4: Preferred Development Area
This option offers increased density for larger parcels/combined parcels if at least 10
acres are located in the preferred development area shown on the zoning map.
Staff Report
Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
Page 5
April 24, 2003
Density on projects of 10-19 acres is allowed at two units per five acres, and on 20
acres and greater three units per five acres.
This option cannot be combined with other options and has not been utilized by
applicants.
ALTERNATIVE A:
Alternative A retains the average slope formula but reduces the six categories of
density to two (2). Areas of Tess than 10% average slope have a density of one unit
per acre and areas greater than 10% are allowed one unit per five acres. All lots are
entitled to at least one unit.
As in the current ordinance, if a remaining hillside area is at least four acres in size, an
additional unit may be developed. Applicants may request density transfers from areas
above "the toe of slope" to areas with less than 10% average slope if it results in units
being placed in a less visible location.
This option reduces the number of grading categories from six to three (3). Areas over
36% slope may disturb 5% of the lot; Tots with slopes between 10% and 36% may
disturb 7.5% of the lot and on areas less than 10% slope disturbed area up to 50%
is permitted.
All lots are entitled to a minimum 2,000 square foot building pad.
This alternative allows a maximum driveway area of 3,000 square feet. Any driveway
area greater than 3,000 square feet must be deducted from the permitted building pad
area.
This alternative allows the applicant to transfer density from hillside areas to areas of
less than 10% average slope if it results in a less visible dwelling unit.
ALTERNATIVE B:
This alternative does away with the average slope formula.
Density is set at a maximum of one unit per five acres regardless of average slope. For
the building pad area grading is limited to a maximum of 10,000 square feet.
Staff Report
Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
Page 6
April 24, 2003
Maximum permanent grading disturbance of natural terrain for development of access
to the approved building pad is limited to 3,000 square feet. Any excess grading
needed for the driveway would be subtracted from the 10,000 square foot pad.
Mountain Areas
Minimum Slope
Minimum Lot Size
Maximum Density
Permitted Grading
Grading Limitations
(area to remain natural)
Toe of
Slope
Max. Avg. Slope
Min. Lot Size
Min: Lot Dimension
Maximum Density
Grading Limitations
CODE PROVISIONS IN CHART FORM
10%+
.66 acres for
areas with 10%
to 15% average
slope
3 units/2 acres
67.5% to 5%
depending on
average slope
ranges from 32.5%
to 95% depending
on average slope
Current
Ordinance
10%
14,520 sq.ft.
100 feet
3 units/acre
N/A
10%+
5 acres
1 unit/5 acres
5% to 7.5%
depending on
average slope
92.5% to 95%
depending on
average slope
Alternative A
N/A
5 acres
1 unit/5 acres
10,000 sq.ft. pad
3,000 sq.ft. access
= 6%*on 5 acres
94%*
10%
43,560 sq.ft. (1 acre)
100 feet
1 unit/acre
50%
Alternative B
N/A
5 acres
N/A
1 unit/5 acres
10,000 sq.ft.
building pad
3,000 sq.ft.
driveway
*Based on maximum graded area of 13,000 (10,000 square feet and 3,000 square
feet) on a five -acre (217,800 square foot) site.
Staff Report
Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
Page 7
April 24, 2003
CONCLUSION:
The City Council direction from its November 14, 2002 meeting was to prepare an
ordinance that limited density to one unit per five acres in the steeper areas and one
unit per acre in the areas with less than 10% average slope.
Alternative A provides these standards and reduces permanently disturbed graded
areas in the hillside to a maximum of 7.5% of the site versus 67.5% in the current
ordinance for areas of average slope between 10% and 15%. Grading on areas less
than 10% slope is limited to 50%, whereas they are currently not limited.
CEQA REVIEW AND AB 2292 COMPLIANCE:
Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist Form and Initial Study responses.
Based on this review, staff concludes that the proposed code amendment as
recommended will not have a significant impact on the environment and certification
of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended.
AB 2292, which became effective January 1, 2003, limits the City's ability to down -
zone residentially zoned properties. The proposed amendment will result in a decrease
in the ultimate number of homes constructed in the hillside.
A memo from the City Attorney notes that the City cannot down -zone residential Tots
"...unless the city makes certain written findings or unless the city up -zones other
property so that there is "no net Toss of residential unit capacity." The written findings
required by the new law include: (1) that the reduction is consistent with the adopted
general plan, including the housing element; and (2) that the remaining sites identified
in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of
regional housing needs. The findings must be supported by substantial evidence."
The City recently redesignated 35 +/- acres of service industrial land to residential,
allowing construction of 279 residential units of which 161 are under construction.
Staff Report
Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
Page 8
April 24, 2003
The increase in residential units from this redesignation will be more than sufficient to
offset the minor decrease in the number of units in the hillside area resulting from this
ordinance amendment.
Submitted by:
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
Appr•v
Homer Croy
ACM for Develo • - t Services
Department Head:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
Approval:
Carlos L. Orte
City Manager
* Staff recommendation approved, CITY COUNCIL,ACTION:
as amended to include additional APPROVED DENIED
conditions of a 10,000 square foot RECEIVED OTHER
maximum pad size and unit size
limited to 25I thereof.
3-1 (Benson NO; Crites ABSENT)
(Wpdocs\lm\sr\zoa02.06. cc)
MEETING DATE -"
AYES: YSYj4���-( r U
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
VERIFIED BY.
Original on File Ci=ty Clerk's Office
�O:�i
MEETI
DATE — o� o - 03 °
* By Minute Motion, continued the matter to
June 26, 2003, with staff directed to renotice the
cases for public hearing at that meeting.
4-0 (Crites ABSENT)
REQUEST:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPLICANT:
CONTINUED To
0.3
CITY OF PALM DE ' Ele PMSEDTO 2NO READING
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Hillside Planned
Residential District Chapter 25.15 and the West Hills Specific Plan.
Steve Smith, Planning Manager
City of Palm Desert
CASE NOS: GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
DATE: May 22, 2003
CONTENTS:
Related May 8, 2003 City Council Verbatim Minutes.
Staff Recommendation:
By Minute Motion, continue the matter to the meeting of June 12, 2003, and direct
staff to amend Resolution No. 03-53 and Ordinance No. 1046 consistent with the
City Council clarification of its action.
Discussion:
During the May 8, 2003 meeting, the City Council took several actions relating
to this matter. Based on comments by Councilman Ferguson and the City
Attorney after the vote, there appeared to be confusion concerning the exact
wording of the motion.
A reading of the verbatim minutes indicates that at page 5 Councilman Spiegel
moved approval of Alternative "A" with a caveat that the houses be limited
25%." That motion failed 2-2. There was discussion and a failed motion
regarding Alternative "B." Later at page 7 Councilman Spiegel stated, "I would
like to reconsider "A," with the same caveat." That motion passed 3-1 with
Mayor Benson opposed.
Staff Report
Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06
Page 2
May 22, 2003
After the motion passed, the City Manager clarified, "so the staff
recommendation with the 25%..." The City Attorney says "with the 25%."
Councilman Ferguson states, "And that was with the 10,000 foot maximum
pad." The City Attorney replies "Yes, that was stated."
According to the verbatim minutes, the 10,000 square foot pad maximum was
not included as part of the motion.
Since there appears to have been some confusion on the part of Council, the
City Attorney, staff and the general public as to the exact wording of the
motion, it is recommended that the Council clarify the nature of the action at
first reading and continue the matter to June 12, 2003 to allow staff to amend
the exhibits to the resolution and ordinance accordingly. This will also give the
public the opportunity to understand and respond to the proposed amendment.
Submitted by:
Planning Manager
Approva
Homer Cro
ACM for De
(Wpdocs1tm\srizoa02.06.cc5)
ment Services
Department Head:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
Approval:
Carlos L. Ort
City Manager
CITY Of PRIM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 76o 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-desert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. GPA 03-04 AND ZOA 02-06
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to consider an amendment to the General Plan text, West Hills Specific Plan and the
Hillside Planned Residential District Chapter 25.15, as they relate to permitted density, limit
of grading activity, maximum dwelling unit size and other matters, and a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto.
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 13, 2004, 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 end 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
April 30, 2004 City of Palm Desert, California