HomeMy WebLinkAboutSR - ZOA 07-01 - PDMC 25.15 CITY OF PALM DESERT ���
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �;,��
STAFF REPORT
i.
REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned u^
Residential District and Chapter 25.86 Public Hearings. ��� `
t
SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner MFET1yG DArE ?` _�� � C��
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert � ��r���S��E�T�
l.�' P��SE�`i G 2ND READI�G �- ��'-C��
CASE NO: ZOA 07-01
DATE: April 12, 2007 �
CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation
B. Background and Discussion
C. Ordinance No. 1136
D. Planning Commission Minutes
E. Planning Commission Resolution 2439
F. Ordinance 1046A Current HPR Ord.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt the findings to approve Case No. ZOA 07-01 and
pass Ordinance No. 1136 on to second reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval of the staff recommendation will prohibit construction of homes on ridges
in the hillside planned residential (HPR) zone, will increase requirements for public
noticing and will restore the relationship between pad size and house size for
previously approved pads within the HPR zone.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
At its meeting of December 14, 2006 the City �Council discussed possible
changes to the Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) zone. Key issues related to
public hearing noticing requirements, building size and lot coverage and ridge-top
development. The City Council directed staff to initiate a zoning ordinance
amendment for the HPR zone.
Current Public Hearing Ordinance (25.86 Public Hearings):
For projects being proposed within the HPR zone, current code requires that
notice of hearing be given not less than ten days nor more than thirry days prior
to the date of the hearing by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
Staff Report
ZOA 07-01
Page 2
April 12, 2007
the city. Notices must be mailed to all persons whose names appear on the
latest adopted tax roll of Riverside County as owning property within three
hundred feet of the e�erior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the
hearing.
Current Building Size and Lot Coverage:
The current HPR zone contains the following development standards:
Density: One (1) unit per five (5) acres.
Grading: Building Pad Area-maximum of 10,000 square feet. Access
Road/Driveway- maximum of 3,000 square feet.
Maximum Total dwelling unit with garage and accessory building shall
Dwelling not exceed 4,000 square feet.
Size:
Exceptions: The above standards may be modified by the precise plan of
design, taking into consideration any and all circumstances,
including, but not limited to, viewshed, topography, color, texture,
and profile of any structure that the Planning Commission or City
Council may approve.
Current Ridge-Top Deveiopment Requirements:
At this time the HPR ordinance has no specific language relating to ridge-top
development.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
Public Notices (Chapter 25.86):
Staff proposes to revise the ordinance to require mailing legal notices to property
owners within 4,000 feet of the property being developed. Staff arrived at this
number by taking the highest property in the hillside and giving a reasonable
distance that would notify properry owners east of Highway 74 (see attached
exhibit).
Building Size Limitation:
The current HPR zone as amended in 2004 allows a maximum of 4,000 square
feet of living space based on 40% coverage of the maximum disturbed pad area
of 10,000 square feet. The hillside lots within the Canyons at Bighorn were
Staff Report
ZOA 07-01
Page 3
April 12, 2007
approved and graded pursuant to the pre-2004 hillside amendment that allowed
pads of 30,000 square feet and more in areas of moderate slopes. The only
house size limitation in place at that time was standard lot coverage of 35% and
up to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval.
The proposed amendment would restore the relationship between pad and
house size for existing lots approved and graded under the old code. These lots
would be subject to the standard R-1 coverage limitation of 35% up to 50% with
Architectural Review Commission approval. The City Council can call these
cases up for review as necessary. These homes would not need to apply for
size exceptions pursuant to the current section 25.15.030D. Any request to
enlarge an existing pad would trigger the exception provision and associated
public hearing process with Planning Commission and City Council.
Ridge-Top Development:
Most of the City's remaining undeveloped hillside areas involve ridges or steep
canyons. To protect ridges from development it is recommended that we add the
following specific language to 25.15.030 (development standards).
F. Development on or across ridges is prohibited.
G. Building pads and architecture shall be designed to eliminate or
minimize any visual impact on the City to the maximum extent
feasible.
Staff has also expanded on the idea of defining a hillside ridge by developing a
map that identifies all ridges throughout the HPR zone. This map was developed
with City mapping technicians using contour and topographic data that is
available to the City. Staff feels this map will be a valuable tool in developing
within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. (See attached map)
PLANNING COMMISSION:
At its meeting of February 20th, 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed this
matter and directed staff to adjust the draft ordinance in several areas including
public noticing requirements, line of sight and the definitions of a hillside ridge.
The matter was continued to the March 20th meeting.
At the March 20th meeting the Planning Commission reviewed this matter for the
second time. The Commission was pleased with the visual representation of the
hillside ridges within the HPR zone. The Commission also endorsed the
proposed distance notifying method, along with notifying homeowners
Staff Report
ZOA 07-01
Page 4
April 12, 2007
associations south of Haystack Road of proposed projects. With minor changes,
the Commission approved the recommendation to Council by a unanimous vote.
ANALYSIS:
The City Council direction from its December 14, 2006 meeting was to prepare
an ordinance that provided better public hearing notice for hillside homes,
restored the relationship between pad and house size for existing lots and
prohibited developing on top of mountain ridges. The proposed amendments
accomplish those goals.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
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.
Submitted By: Department Head:
Ryan Stendell Lauri Aylaian
Assistant Planner Director of Community Development
Approval: �ZTY COUNCIL�TION:
APPRO�VED DENIED
RECF�.IVE�j,i��drOTHER � �? �
it,I
MEETI G T
City Manager AYES: '
NOE3:
--� ABSENT:
l� �� ABSTATN:
�jA M for Development Services �gIFIED BY:
CITSD �OUNCIL �T=pN; '�'3ginal on File wi h City Clerk's Offi��,
APPROVED ✓ DENIED
RECSIVED -----r"�" OTH£R ��"'
�- �.
NiSBTING I�A�'E ,s �
RYE�: 'Y�Sd�'I- � � - a,
PdOB�•
AB�E1V�': — _.�..
ABSTAIN• �
VERIFIED B • � � -�----_
Original on File wi City C1,�rlt's (��fice