HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1176 ZOA 08-392 Optional Prelim Approval Procedure for HPR ZoneMEETM.; ac)- o
REQUEST:
CITY OF PALM DESER
PASSE;; TO 2 fi READING I a
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment removing Section
25.15.130, Optional Preliminary Approval Procedure, in its entirety
from the Hillside Planned Residential Zone.
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato
Principal Planner
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NO: ZOA 08-392
DATE: November 20, 2008
CONTENTS: Staff Report
Draft Ordinance
Legal Notice
Planning Commission Staff Report
Planning Commission Draft Minutes
Recommendation:
That the City Council waive further reading, approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment
08-392, and Pass Ordinance No. 1176 to second reading, which will remove
Section 25.15.130, Optional Preliminary Approval Procedure, in its entirety from the
Hillside Planned Residential Zone.
Executive Summary:
Approval of staff's recommendation will approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment removing
an optional preliminary approval procedure from the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. This
optional process was intended to streamline processing of development plans for the
hillside, but has not proven to be effective in reducing the time, costs, or work efforts
required of applicants.
I. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION,:
On October 21, 2008, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment was presented
and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The commission
approved it on a 3-2 vote, with Commissioners Limont, R. Campbell and Schmidt
voting in favor and Commissioners S. Campbell and Tanner voting nay. During the
Staff Report
Case No. ZOA 08-392
November 20, 2008
Page 2 of 3
public hearing process, two people spoke against the zoning ordinance amendment
stating that it would make development in the hillside more difficult and costly to
property owners. There were two other residents who asked questions about the
proposed zoning ordinance amendment to get a better understanding of the request.
II. BACKGROUND:
Hillside Planned Residential District
The purpose of the Hillside Planned Residential District is to:
A. Encourage only minimum grading in hillside areas relating 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 landscaping design which blends with the natural
terrain; and
C. Retain and protect undisturbed viewsheds, natural landmarks and features
including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements in the
development proposal in hillside areas.
The City's Hillside Planned Residential District currently has a procedure that allows
an applicant to request an optional preliminary approval of development standards
relating to density, building site locations, and access roads and locations from the
Planning Commission. Section 25.15.130 states:
"Optional preliminary approval procedure.
The applicant may choose to submit information and request 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."
Recently, the Planning Department has processed two requests for preliminary
approval of building site locations. Both cases went to the Planning Commission and
the City Council for review and approval. On one of the properties, a technically
challenging location was identified and approved; the second request was denied in
its entirety. In both cases, the use of this optional procedure has not been effective in
streamlining the process for the applicant.
On September 25, 2008, the City Council directed staff to initiate a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment removing Section 25.15.130, Optional Preliminary approval
Procedure, in its entirety from the Hillside Planned Residential Zone.
G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\ZOA\08-392\City Council VOA 08-392 PC Staff Report 2.doc
Staff Report
Case No. ZOA 08-392
November 20, 2008
Page 3 of 3
III. DISCUSSION:
Section 25.15.130 currently allows a property owner to request preliminary approval of
the development standard options identified above. Staff has recently reviewed and
processed two such requests. The requests were difficult to process since staff did not
have enough information to make a recommendation that would meet the stated
purpose of the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. Without information regarding the
proposed home size, architecture, color and landscaping, this section can be confusing
and makes it difficult to identify and evaluate all potential impacts.
In addition, once a property owner receives optional preliminary approval, he/she is still
required to subsequently go through the Architectural Review Commission, the
Planning Commission and the City Council for approval of the development plan and
home at a later time. The optional preliminary approval does not convey any
development rights. Therefore, the subsequent detailed analysis and public hearing
process can require that the applicant develop a different site (or according to different
standards) than was identified in the preliminary approval process. Staff believes that
this section of the Hillside Residential Zone leads to confusion and is recommending
that Section 25.15.130 Optional Preliminary Approval Procedure be removed in its
entirety.
Submitted by:
Tony Bagato
Principal Planner
Homer Croy
ACM for Dev rrient Services
4011:P"
Carlos L. Ortega
City Manager
Department Head:
Puri Aylaian e
Director of Community Development
G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\ZOA\08-392\City Council\ZOA 08-392 PC Staff Report 2.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 1176
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 25.15 REMOVING SECTION 25.15.130
AS IT RELATES TO OPTIONAL PRELIMINARY APPROVAL PROCEDURE IN
THE HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2489 has recommended
approval of ZOA 08-392; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearings, said City Council heard and considered all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That Section 25.15.130 shall be repealed and removed in its entirely
from the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.15.
SECTION 2: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby
directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation,
published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and
effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 20h day of November 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor
�� � CIIY UF � NIICI UESEl� �(
73'S1�}'Hk:l)V�ARINc:�)klVl�.
Pn�n�Drsea�i,Cnt.n�oeNin qzz6u-�z578
� Te�:760 ;46—o6�i
Ena:76o }qi-7oy8
fnCut p�lm-dcu�rt.��rg
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO.ZOA 08-392
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
TO CHAPTER 25.15 HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF
THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE REMOVING SECTION 25.15.130.
OPTIONAL PRELIMINARY APPROVAL PROCEDURE, FROM THE
ZONING ORDINANCE.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.15.130 currently allows a property owner to
submit information to request a preliminary approval from the Planning Commission to
assign an appropriate development standard option, determine density, and identify
building sites,access roads and locations.
The City of Paim Desert Community Development Department is proposing a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment that will delete Section 25.15.130, Preliminary Optional
Approval Procedure,from the Hillside Planned Residential Zone.
PROJECT LOCATION:
All Hillside Planned Residential Zones within the City of Palm Desert.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, November 20, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm
Desert,California,at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and
be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice
shail 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
November 10,2008 City of Palm Desert,Califomia
(
CIIY OF Pfl � ��I DESERI
]j-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: �60 346—o6ti
Fnx: 76o 34i-7o98
info@pal m-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: October 22, 2008
City of Palm Desert
Re: ZOA 08-392
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and
taken the following action at its regular meeting of October 21 , 2008:
THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2489, RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CASE NO. ZOA 08-392. MOTION CARRIED 3-
2 (CHAIRPERSON TANNER AND COMMISSIONER S. CAMPBELL VOTED
NO).
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. This item is tentatively
scheduled for City Council public hearing on November 20, 2008.
__.�—
�=�'/'%�
Lauri Aylaian, Secretary �
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
��HIN7[0�N AEttQE011/E1
( (
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2489
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REMOVING
SECTION 25.15.130, OPTIONAL PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
PROCEDURE, IN ITS ENTIRETY FROM THE HILLSIDE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
CASE NO. ZOA 08-392
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 21 St day of October, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality AcY',
Resolution No. 06-78, the Director of Community Development has determined that the
project is Class 5 Categorical Exemption under CEQA and no further environmental
review is necessary, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to
the City Council approval of said request:
1. That the optional preliminary approval procedure from the Hillside
Planned Residential Zone does not streamline the entitlement process for
the property owner and/or applicant; and
2. That proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not negatively impact
the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of ZOA
08-392.
,;
PLANNING COMMISSION��.cSOLUTION NO. 2489
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 21St day of October 2008, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: R. CAMPBELL, LIMONT, SCHMIDT
NOES: S. CAMPBELL, TANNER
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
� � /�.��--------�
VAN G. TANNER, Chairperson
ATTEST:
� �-----_
r-' � ,�, --��
—�
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretar�-
Palrn Desert Planning Commission
2
( t
t
Janice C. Wood
P.O. Box 794
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760)341 1184 or(760) 831-3377 cell
October2l, 2008 .,
��� � r ��
City of Pa1m Desert
Planning Commission 0�� 2 � �
73-510 Fred Waring Drive _ . _.
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 '0��'��' ,' `�'j r, .�;�
CIT`�OF PALM i?ESERT
Re: Parcel#628-130-014
72375 Upper Way West
Attention: Jean Benson,Mayor
Carlos Ortega, City Manager
Planning commission members
I oppose the adoption of the amendment to Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District of the City's
Zoning Ordinance,Removing Section 25.15.130 Optional Preliminary approval procedwe from the zoning
ordinance.
Along with opposing the above change to the Hillside Zoning Ordinance,I'd like to ta.ke this opportunity to
share my experience with the planning commission and other departments located in the offices of the City of
Palm Desert regarding the adoption of the hillside ordinance during the meeting of March 20, 2007.
Please bear in mind,this is not done to intimidate or embarrass those not responsible for my very negative
experience but instea.d merely have it known and on record. It's a good thing when the people and the City
both understand what has transpired regarding the hillside ordinance.
At some point around the second week of March 2007, my neighbor, Buford Crites phoned me at my home
and told me of a"friend"of his who was interested in purchasing hillside property. Mr. Crites said he heard I
was going to be listing my property for sale and prior to listing wondered if I would be interested in showing
my property and perhaps if it worked out,we could both save a little money. I explained to Mr. Crites that I
had just signed the listing a couple of days prior. But if his friend was interested, I would be happy to show
the properiy. A woman by the name of Conner Limont came to view my home and property that very
afternoon. I was not then aware that she was Commissioner Conner Limont from the City of Palm Desert
Planning Cammission.
Not then nor on March 15`� to my realtors, when she signed the Escrow Instruction and Purchase Agreement
for my property in the amount of$957,500, did she mention it.. This of course, with the realtors involved and
the signatures on paper,it made a sale very unlikely to anyone else.
On March 20�'Commissioner Limont voted for the hillside ordinance to be set in place. I was at that meering
and when I saw and recognized her I was so surprised, I left the meeting upon my recognition of her.
1
�t �... �..�
1 Although other real estate forms had been signed and dated prior to the March 20`�vote, Escrow opened
between Conner Limont and me using Sundance Escrow, on March 25'�, 2007. It is obvious the"intent"of
Ms. Limont was to have a"hillside property purchase" in progress.
Apri125, 2007 newspapers across the west coast broke the story of the Hagadone House in Palm Desert and
the inaccurate reports presented to the City of Palm Desert.
On this same day it was brought to my attention through an email from my realtors that the boundaries of my
property had become"red flagged". The north boundary of my home was located on the City of Palm Desert's
property(APN 628-130-011}a lot line adjustment would be required.
It is also good to take note that the City purchased the parcel of land to the north a considerable time after I
purchased my property in 1996. This information must have been very evident that a portion of my home was
on City land both to the Mayor and to Planning when the transfer of title in the name of the Cifiy took place.
After I beca.me adjusted to the fact that it was Commissioner Limont purchasing my property, I could not help
but wonder how Planning Commissioner Limont and our past mayor, Buford Crites could not have known of
the boundary situa.tion prior to the escrow. However I extended the escrow with Commissioner Limont with
the hope of completing the sale after the lot line adjustment was obtained.
On July 26,2007 Planning Commissioner Limont, canceled her escrow because I could not present clear title
to my property due to part of the north boundry being in conflict with the City's property.
Now,just doing the math; If Commissioner Conner Limont was engaged in the purchase of my property and
signed and dated documents prior and within five days she voted for the hillside ordinance which due to
restrictions would change my property's value it does appeaz to be a conflict of interest to me.
My property has continued to be shown,but when it's explored wha.t can actually be done to the property
because of the hillside restrictions, interest is lost.
Each meeting I have attended I hear the panel of Council members and Planning alike pledge allegiance to our
flag. The last line of the Pledge rings in my ears. "Liberty and Justice for all? Where is the Liberty to
improve, extend and profit from our homes? Where is the justice for the property owners that own hillside
land within the City of Palm Desert?
We hear you speak of"your" hillsides. Do you pay the taxes? Do you maintain the insurance expenses? It is
your"privilege"to look at the privately owned land above you and for that you believe it is "Yours"? Well, it
shouldn't be "Yours" until you pay for it.
That is what most of us aze asking of the City. If you want our land to be`�our hillside" it's no more than
"Just"for you to pa.y for it because that's what we had to do in the first place to make it"ours"before you
thought it was"yours".
I respectively thank you for your time and consideration regarding these issues.
__._.
Si r y,
��.�-�.�. �c'
Janice C. Wood.
2
Uct 19 08 03: 43p Richard Fromme 360 679 3355 p. l
. • � � �
�ttit' Fax Note 7672 L - �.�� - T��. _. _ � T� ,�;�._
�, ..�: . .,,. ,
To �. � , ,.� ,.� ' .._ . � - `__'
a�:,<'r'.. ;..�=�r��;-•i� 1�,f • c� — - . .. .-_
� -'f�1- �•�.:r . . .. . .. . ,
�7 • ��Y
loc�on LOCatlon ��
Fau# `�� J'� / �?�� . Te�ephor�e� Fax# TelePhone i .. - -
',�;;7, ';�.'�- . , _ _, ..
C0^�� � �p�q �p� �Cat(or picktp
,...1 ... .. .
.__ / /. i_��; 'i,/. .. � . �1"! � ,�.�`�� . � . _ .� � . . .
.y..L.s ."?"�•\'' i � '_ o . . •• -. . _ ._ �. . . , . . .. ..
� . ,,.J 1 _
�..� ._ _ . ,.,., _. - f _ l�y %%:C''-
, ,.----
� F�`�•,;:�-� �'- .. �,
- %-�
.. ,
. ', i r' ,d
' �--� �^T��.i%� � '�- �.
;�' .�i� .�':
..=-� � ,_,-',-
- - • _ ,;Y--j:..�
_-,.�
_ ._:
�.._:.7 ..1:'�
L.1
..� f.'^' '.
�} -
• -„', �, '
�.'v 1..7':�'�.� .�..
� � ��'' .
.•�':�......
�Y'�
' '� ie ff}� �.
_.w� ._..���rt..
1� ��
.• C"J-r;
Gll .�`�,
— r�
Oct 19 08 03: 43p Richard Fromme 360 679 3355 p• 2
, �� f' ��
Marilyn A. Fromme
Richard H. Fromme
48-625 Paisano Rd.
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
October 19,2008
City of Palrn Desert
Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260-2578
Subject Case No. ZOA 08-92 �
Dear Commission Members:
I oppose the adoption of the above amendment of the hillside, the
removing of section 25.15.130 for the following reasons:
The Hiilside ordinance now in effect took away the hillside
property owners right to develop their property. There was some
hope remaining that maybe a staff inember would give preliminary
approval to develop a property and give some hope to a
prospective buyer or to a property owner. This change in the
ordinance, as I understand it, "is the final nail in the coffin" of the
hillside property owners hope of selling or developing their
property, constituting a taking of their property. Most of these
properties represent the savings of their owners and their ability to
be financially independent in their retirement years. Why doesn't
the City of Pa1m Desert buy these properties at market value and
proceed with this "taking" in the honorable and proper way?
The City of Palm Desert seems to treat the country clubs
preferentially. Properties in these developments are allowed to
build on the hillsides and sidestep the Hillside Development
Oct 19 08 03: 43p Richard Fromme 360 679 3355 p. 3
, , �� �,
Ordinance in size of the sL7ructure and the visibility of the
improvement from the valley floor.
The original intent of the Federal Homestead Act was �o encourage
development of these properties. This ordinance takes all of this
intent away.
We have two 5 acre parcels in the Cahuilla Hills section of Palm
Desert. We have been desert residents since 1965. We find it hard
to understand the why the City of Palm Desert sees fit to punish
those that had nothing to do with the huge house in The Canyons
At Big Hom. The ones that issued the permit to build the house
are the ones that should be punished.
Please consider the impact of your decision on your neighbors.
Sincerely. �
/ ,
� �. � - -�..�
., � _,
,/ /.4.0 t�•c:w.c i/��f���_�'r��lJL<�'=C.��� ".. - �t . .,. . .�`'• - ;� �'�..�i- /':'�"`-�^'`--�_ ..
i��,.
Marilyn A, Fromme, Richard H. Fromme
_ — —- --- --- ------- -- -------- ,�.,.,�, .,.,.,
' ' j
� SLOVAK BARON & EMPEY, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1800 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Telephone(760)322-2275
Facsimile{760}322-2107
FAX TRANSMITTAL CUVER SHEET
TO: Attention: LAURI AYLAISAN—SECRETARY
FACSIMILE NO.: (760) 341-7098
FROM: Celine M. Lewing,Legal Assistant to Thomas S. Slovak,Esq,
DATE: October 21, 2008
RE: OBJECTION RE LEGAL NOTICE ZOA 08-342
GES SENT (INCLUDING COVER SHEE'T}: 3
Dear Lauri:
Please present this to the City P2anning Commission for your meeting tonight.
Celine M. Lewing, Legal Asst. to Thomas S. Slovak
, (760) 322-2275 —Extension 44
Please notiCy sender immedfately at(760)322-2275 if aU pages are not received.
AGE DED THE US �1ND R ENTITY HI H IT I E ED
ONTA RMATI THAT I EG ONFiD . IF YOU ARE THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,O
E EMl'LOYEE OR AGENT RES�'ONS[BLE FOR DELIVERIfiG THE MESSAGE TO THE IN'['ENDED RECIP[ENT, YO
ARE HEREBY NOTIFiED THAT ANY DISSEMINAT[ON, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION
TRICTLY PROH[BPTED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THLS COMMLP.VICATIOPI IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY TH
UNDERSIGNED IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPFIONE APID RETL'IL'V THE ORIGINAL v1ESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOV
DDRESS VIA THE U.S.POS'C'AL SERVICE. THANK YOU.
��_ � (
ST.ov� B�oN � E�rn��
A T T 0 R N E Y S A T L A W
T410MAS 5.SLOVAK 1800 E.TAHQURZ CANYON WAY, PALM SPRW�S, CA 92262 ORANCE COUNTY OFFICE
D�viD L.BnxOPt PHONE(160)322-2275 FAX(760�322-2107 650 TOWN CFNIER DRNE,SUfIE t400
M,,nc E Ei.�NEv COSTA MESA.CALIFORMA 92616
JASON D.DABARGNEfi PHONE(714)435-9591 FAX(714)850-901]
P�R M.Boatrrt�vricN
CFIA0.LES L GALLAGHER
BRFNT S.CLEAAMER -
Mnut�wa+F.CufNnra
SHnur+M.Muter�ir
Irri 0.GNianM�C
OUENTHER A.R1CHlER
OF CAUNSEL
MYRON MEVE1Ls,P.C. �
H.N�L WELts 111
October 21,2Q08
VIA FACSIMILE (760)341-7098 and U.S.MAIL
Chair and Members of the City Planning Commission
Mr. Van Tanner
Mr..Russell Campbell
Ms. Sonia Campbell
Ms. Connor Limont
Ms. Mary Schmidt
73-510 Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260
Re: Obiection to ZoninF Ordinance Amendment RemovinF Ontional Preliminary
Approval Procedure
Deaz City Planning Commission Members:
Norman E. Matteoni of the law offices of Matteoni' O'Laughlin & Hechtman and I
represent Barracuda, LLC and its members Bruce Kuykendall and David Baron, and Mr.& Mrs.
David Nelson property owners in the City of Palm Desert who have previously utilized the
Optional Preliminary Approval Procedure now existing in Palm Desert's Hillside Zoning
Ordinance. Our Clients oppose the proposed Zoni.ng Qrdinance Amendment that will delete
Section 25.15.10 entitled "Preliminary Optional Approval Procedure from the Hillside Planned
Residential Zone.
The purpose of the existing procedure is to provide citizens an efficient and reasonable
procedure to determine, prior to the expenditure of substantial sums including architectural plans,
whether a proposed site Iocation would be acceptable to the City. In connection with David
Nelson's application, City staff acknowledged that this procedure benefited all concerned and
particularly land owners who wished to obtain preliminary direction and approval by the City
before further engaging in substantial expense. Specifically,Mr. Stendell aclrnowledged that this
procedure "...give[s] the applicant some certainty where the applicant could build his house,
(
` City Planning Commission
October 21, 2008
Page 2
because the Hillside Planned Residential zone was very strict and they wanted to make sure they
were encouraging people to propose developments consistent with the zone. " [See Planning
Commission Minutes of June 3, 2008]. Our clients and their counsel believe there is no
justification to adopt the present amendment and every reason to keep it in place.
This is to confirm that any such amendment would not apply retroactively and,
specifically would have no application to our clients. As the Plaru�ing Commission and the City
are well aware, restrictions have now been placed on the development on our clients' hillside
property that effectively renders it valueless and constitutes, in our opinion, an unlawful taking
of our clients' property through inverse condemnation. While our clients intend to proceed to
exercise their rights and remedies in that regard, they hereby object to any interpretation or
suggestion that this atnendment,if passed,would be applied to them retroactively.
Sincerely,
SLOVAK B ON&EMPEY LLP
/ � �
Thomas S. Slovak
TSS/cml
Cc: Barracuda LLC
Mr. &Mrs. David Nelson
- � �,
Sl,ov� BaRON E���
A T T 0 R N E Y S A T L A W
ri ioMns s.s�ovnK 1800 E.TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 ORANGE COUN-IY OFFICE
D��vtu L.BnHUN PHONE(760)322-2275 FAX(760)322-2107 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE,SUITE 1400
Mnttc,e.en�r[v COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92026
),�x>N D.DniinKeiNeK PHONE(714)435-9591 FAX(714)850-90t 1
Pt n-a M.&x:i iNtW iCti
CI IAIiLEti L.CALL\GI iGR
BRIiN I�S.CLEAiM1:R
MAUREGN F.GUINAN
SiIAUN M.MURPfIY
INI D.GIIIDIRMIC
Gu i.N n u K A.Rici{'Ii:fl
or CuuNse�
M�'tic�N ME:n:HS,P.C.
H.Nrni_W I�-i_is III
October 21, 2008
VIA FACSIMILE (760) 341-7098 and U.S. MAIL
Chair and Members of the City Planning Commission
Mr. Van Tanner
Mr. Russell Campbell
Ms. Sonia Campbell
Ms. Connor Limont
Ms. Mary Schmidt
73-510 Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260
Re: Obiection to Zoning Ordinance Amendment Removni.�Ontional Preliminary
Approval Procedure
Dear City Planning Commission Members:
Norman E. Matteoni of the law offices of Matteoni' O'Laughlin & Hechtman and I
r�present Ba:-rac�:da, LLC and :ts mer:�bers Bruce Kuykendall and Davi� Baron, and Mr.& Mr�.
David Nelson property owners in the City of Palm Desert who have previously utilized the
Optional Preliminary Approval Procedure now existing in Palm Desert's Hillside Zoning
Ordinance. Our Clients oppose the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment that will delete
Section 25.15.10 entitled "Preliminary Optional Approval Procedure from the Hillside Planned
Residential Zone.
The purpose of the existing procedure is to provide citizens an efficient and reasonable
procedure to determine, prior to the expenditure of substantial sums including architectural plans,
whether a proposed site location would be acceptable to the City. In connection with David
Nelson's application, City staff acknowledged that this procedure benefited all concerned and
particularly land owners who wished to obtain preliminary direction and approval by the City
before further engaging in substantial expense. Specifically, Mr. Stendell acknowledged that this
procedure "...give[s] the applicant some certainty where the applicant could build his house,
• �.��� � �
City Planning Commission � �
October 21, 2008
Page 2
because the Hillside Planned Residential zone was very strict and they wanted to make sure they
were encouraging people to propose developments consistent with the zone. " [See Planning
Commission Minutes of June 3, 2008]. Our clients and their counsel believe there is no
justification to adopt the present amendment and every reason to keep it in place.
This is to confirm that any such amendment would not apply retroactively and,
specifically would have no application to our clients. As the Planning Commission and the City
are well aware, restrictions have now been placed on the development on our clients' hillside
property that effectively renders it valueless and constitutes, in our opinion, an unlawful taking
of our clients' property through inverse condemnation. While our clients intend to proceed to
exercise their rights and remedies in that regard, they hereby object to any interpretation or
suggestion that this amendrnent, if passed, would be applied to them retroactively.
Sincerely,
SLOVAK B ON& EMPEY LLP
� ��"'--� � i�E�����
Thomas S. Slovak
TSS/cml
Cc: Barracuda LLC
Mr. & Mrs. David Nelson
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Recommendation to City Council for approval of a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment removing Section 25.15.130, Optional Preliminary
Approval Procedure, in its entirety from the Hillside Planned
Residential Zone.
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato
Principal Planner
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NO: ZOA 08-392
DATE: October 21, 2008
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval of staff's recommendation will recommend to the City Council approval
of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment removing Section 25.15.130, Optional
Preliminary Approval Procedure, in its entirety from the Hillside Planned
Residential Zone.
II. BACKGROUND:
Hillside Planned Residential District
The purpose of the Hillside Planned Residential District is to:
A. Encourage only minimum grading in hillside areas relating 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 landscaping design which blends with the
natural terrain; and
C. Retain and protect undisturbed viewsheds, natural landmarks and
features including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements in
the development proposal in hillside areas.
'
Staff Report
� Case No. ZOA 08-392
October 21, 2008
Page 2 of 3
The City's Hillside Planned Residential District currently has a procedure that
allows an applicant to request an optional preliminary approval of development
standards relating to density, building site locations, and access roads and
locations from the Planning Commission. Section 25.15.130 states:
"Optional preliminary approval procedure.
The applicant may choose to submit information and request 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."
Recently, the Planning Department has processed two requests for preliminary
approval of building site locations. Both cases went to the Planning Commission
and the City Council for review and approval. On one of the properties, a
technically challenging location was identified and approved; the second request
was denied in its entirety. In both cases, the use of this optional procedure has
not been effective in streamlining the process for the applicant.
On September 25, 2008, the City Council directed staff to initiate a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment removing Section 25.15.130, Optional Preliminary
Approval Procedure, in its entirety from the Hillside Planned Residential Zone.
111. DISCUSSION:
Section 25.15.130 currently allows a property owner to request preliminary
approval of the development standard options identified above. Staff has recently
reviewed and processed two such requests. The requests were difficult to process
since staff did not have enough information to make a recommendation that would
meet the purpose of the Hillside Planned Residential Zone stated above. Without
information regarding the proposed home size, architecture, color and
landscaping, this section can be confusing and makes it difficult to identify all
potential impacts.
In addition, if a property owner receives optional preliminary approval, he/she is
still required to go through the Architectural Review Commission, in addition to
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval
of the development plan and home at a later time. Staff believes that this section
of the Hillside Residential Zone leads to confusion and is recommending that
Section 25.15.130 Optional Preliminary Approval Procedure be removed in its
entirety.
G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports�ZOA\08-392�ZOA 08•392 PC Staff Report.doc
Staff Report
� Case No. ZOA 08-392
October 21, 2008
Page 3 of 3
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the findings and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. , recommending to City Council approval of
ZOA 08-392, which deletes Section 25.15.130, Optional Preliminary Approval
Procedure, in its entirety from the Hillside Planned Residential Zone.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Legal Notice
Submitted by: Department Head:
�� �
Tony Bagato Lauri Aylaian
Principal Planner Director of Community Development
Approval:
�
Homer Croy
ACM for De opment Services
G:\Planning\Tony 0agato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports�ZOA\08-392�ZOA OS-392 PC Staff Report.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REMOVING
SECTION 25.15.130, OPTIONAL PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
PROCEDURE, IN ITS ENTIRETY FROM THE HILLSIDE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
CASE NO. ZOA OS-392
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 21 St day of October 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of the above noted; 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. 06-78, the Director of Community Development has determined that the
project is Class 5 Categorical Exemption under CEQA and no further environmental
review is necessary, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval to the
City Council of said request:
1. That the optional preliminary approval procedure from the Hillside
Planned Residential Zone does not streamline the entitlement process for
the property owner and/or applicant; and
2. That proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not negatively impact
the public health, safety and general welfare that the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of ZOA
08-392.
, � �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 21 St day of October 2008, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
VAN G. TANNER, Chairperson
ATTEST:
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\StaN Reports�ZOA\OS-392�ZOA 08•392 PC Resolution.dce
2
� CIIY Ok PNL (� DESERT
� 73-510 FIiED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-25'78
re�,:760 346—obn
F�+x:760 34i-7o98
injo�palm-dexrc.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA OS-392
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
TO CHAPTER 25.15 HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF
THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE. REMOVING SECTION 25.15.130
OPTIONAL PRELIMINARY APPROVAL PROCEDURE FROM THE
ZONING ORDINANCE.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Palm Desert Community Development
Department is proposing a Zoning Ordinance Amendment that will delete Section
25.15.130, Preliminary Optional Approval Procedure from the Hillside Planned
Residential Zone.The code currently states:
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 �nal approval is obtained. (Ord. 1046A § 3 (Exhibit 8
(part)), 2004)
This section will be removed from the ordinance and the optional preliminary approval
will no longer be available for property owners in the Hillside Planned Residential Zone.
PROJECT LOCATION: All Hillside Planned Residential Zones within the City of Palm
Desert.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 21, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm
Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and
be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice
shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed
project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of
Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
� Commission at,or prior to,the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun Lauri Aylaian, Secretary
October 10, 2008 Palm Desert Planning Commission
MINUTES
ALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
'_�..
Reports and documents re/ating to each of the #�t/�owlri� items listed on the
agenda are on file in the Department of C �unity E?eve/opment and are
available for public inspection during norm�� usiness hou�;:Monday-Friday,
8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 735i0 Fred Waring Drf ` `'"Palm Desert, C� �,�260, (760) 346-
0611.
� �
�
£."
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS �
�. �;-1
Anyone who challeng�� �y hearing ��m�er in court may be limited to
raising only those issu�� h�,�����he or soi�rt�e else raised at the p�ublic
hearing described here�i�,- or irr t�ri�t�n cor�e�ondence delivered to the
Planning Co ; ission at, a�^prior t+t�,,t��public hearing.
�,,y k .N . '. �. �3a��� .��.- �����.
'—'7�'� A. `� No.���- � 08 392'�t'�ITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
E:e.
quest f " � a recomm��dation to the City Council for
��
a v�� `�� �� �� ��`tlinance Amendment removing
R reM2 9 E+.,"
Se � 25.15.�� �� �ptional Preliminary Approval
�� ������ � ����� oce����� in its entirety from the Hillside Planned
:��; F� 'den one.
�,
�; ` �
��. Ms. Aylaiar��;��„ plain `� that this item addressed a request put forth by the
���City Councit �� a change to the current Zoning Ordinance as it deals with
Ft�l�side planni�i residential development. Currently there are th'ree places
thr�c�hout t�city with Hillside Planned Residential District zoning. One is
at the sou�`end of the city on the eastern side of the Canyons at Bighorn.
The se��nd area encompasses Stone Eagle and Cahuilla Hills within the
city limits, as opposed to some of the Cahuilla Hills area located in the
county territory. The third area is behind Painters Path.
The purpose of the Hillside Planned Residential District is threefold. First
of all, it is to encourage minimal grading and disruption to the natural
hillside areas. Secondly, it is to encourage architecture and landscaping
which blends with the natural terrain. And thirdly, it is to protect the
undisturbed view sheds and features seen in the hills. As part of the
2
MINUTES
ERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2008
ordinance as it now reads, there is something called an Optional
Preliminary Approval Process" which reads:
The applicant may choose to submit information and request
preliminary approval from the planning commission which
will assign the appropriate development standard option,
determine density, identify building sites, cess roads and
locations. No permits shall be issued un, al approval is
obtained. ��J
;.�;
:��r
This final approval that would be requi� '°� � 3 preliminary approval
includes review and approval by th . `` itectur` g view Commission,
the Planning Commission and th � CounciL is process was
intended to streamline the front .`����q�� of what will be tively lengthy
�-.
process for any project pro F ��' in the illside Plan'' Residential
District. Unfortunately, we hav�,., ently h , couple of ap'� tions and
requests for identification of s t ` the Optional Preliminary
Approval that have n come to a ��` ssful resolution. This particular
clause in the ordinan ' ever beer��' lied for or tested until recently.
Recently we had two �� �e �� rward,�'��r� er of which really came to a
successful resolution. A ch, Cou `� ,�bserved that the process
itself was not �articularly'� ctiv �� � �rp ef�" , doesn't benefit anybody
to have th�`�p�a�i�t go tt� �� is Ar���"°� an application is submitted
to the Pt�ining L� "�artme � „�� d is processed through the various staff
revi�w�� and apprc��l, onto ` ; Plannin g Commission and to the Ci t y
Coun���;� there's a c�rtain inves ` nt of time on behalf of the applicant and
staff, and�e Cor�tnis�i�t� and G'�� ncil as well. Not only time, but in many
��s ther���ar��� great���dea�a�"�i�esources that are applied for a particular
� "�ap��on. �����;ritt� if it is ultimately not going to result in a successful
r �
� ,-c' outcori��',�r art���i�tcome which is meant to be a streamlining of the
process, t���perhapsa.it is not a wise investment of time and resources on
behalf of th�� �plican�or behalf of the City to process it.
�
;;
�� �
��iat they'���found is that for development in the hills, any project
prc��sed i� �ing to have nuances peculiar to its particular site that don't
appl}��t� ,�� other site and it's going to have a great deal of complexity
involve�,�n it. As it goes through the full processing, rather than just the
optional preliminary process, going through the full process there is a
need for the applicant to provide topographical maps, locations of cut and
fill, quantities of the cut and fill, and circulation for vehicles to the site.
They need to provide architectural drawings in plan view and in elevation,
and in sections they need to provide landscaping drawings, hydrology
reports, percolation data and all kinds of detailed engineering information
that would allow the Planning Commission and the City Council to make a
meaningful evaluation of the proposal. When they tried to streamline it by
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 nnR
getting kind of a shortcut to the answer or shortcut to the eventual
outcome, they found. it wasn't effective because it is difficult to make a
meaningful evaluation and meaningful decision on abbreviated
information. Therefore, the Council requested that this particular clause be
� eliminated, or be removed from the ordinance as it now stands, and that is
what was before the Planning Commission for consideration.
The notification of this proposed change in the; -" ance was sent to all
property owners in the Hillside Planned Re s' ial District so that they
were aware of this. In response to that ." tion, three letters were
received, and one telephone call. The � a� 'nquiry for information
and resulted in neither support nor o� ���� ion bei ` � � ressed. The three
letters that were submitted were. ' ibuted to f ,: ommission. Ms.
Aylaian said she would briefly �"' ess a couple o�"� _ es that were
brought up in the letters. �, ""a ,���
�:��, �
Starting with the letter from Mari � n � �rr ard Fromme, the Frommes
indicated some frustr 'on. They sa' ere was some hope remaining
that maybe a staff rr�� ould giv�� liminary approval to develop a
property and give so a pro" , tive buyer or to a property
owner." She thought th�'` efle ; ot co �_� te understanding of what
r. ���, ,z
is proposed i�t the chan or w� � ° in � e current ordinance. The
� ,-.
current ordin�tc��id not �" � ' n an` ��-�� �� for a staff member to give
any a��r�ual, whe�r preh'`� �, ry or otherwise. It is always required that
� the a��r`oval, eve�t `� prelirr�����, approval, goes through the Planning
Commtssion and th�n appeal up to the City Council. There was no
removai a�decisic��t m�kint�at a �' ff level basis because currently there is
r� staff I�v��� decision��� m�tung: Ms. Aylaian said the Frommes also
� �%' �� d ca �riC�rn that this could constitute a taking of their property.
� „
� Staff d` q�t believ� this was the case because it does allow developers or
' property �cr�ers �c�� develop their properties. It requires that they go
through a c��iprehensive analysis and investigation of exactly what they
��ropose an� �t does allow for a very high level decision making or
�r�lolvement a� behalf of the Planning Commission and the City Council
a� �ey loa��at the exact details of what is proposed and they can truly
mat��"�a�: rr�aningful review of the proposal and can suggest revisions,
modific�fons, or conditions on a development, but it did not prohibit a
developer or property owner from developing their property.
The second letter was from Slovak, Baron and Empey, an attorney firm
that represents several property owners in the area. The one thing Ms.
Aylaian wanted to address was that they indicated that the purpose of the
letter was really to confirm that if the zoning ordinance is amended, that
amendment would not apply retroactively. She confirmed that was the
case. The two cases that have been processed previously, on one the City
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2008
Council did in fact preliminarily identify a site. That preliminary
identification still stands and the applicants, in order to develop on their
property, will need to go through the complete submittal review and
approval process, so they will need to submit the full information she
indicated earlier. It was a complete comprehensive package and that
would then go through the Architectural Review, the Planning Commission
and the City Council for consideration.
The third letter was from Janice Wood and M�� 1�Vood had a number of
concerns: she addressed opposition to this �rap�sed change, but she also
addressed a number of concerns. Most of tfiern ���med to be relative to
the adoption of the current hillside ord�ance, whick��in��s passed in March
of 2007, and her letter was distribut w �r the Commiss�n's review. Many
of the concerns would be review� '�staff -- this letter"iii�s just received
this afternoon, but they did not ���ear to be directly on p���-with what is
being considered by the Comrni .on toda���,�hich is whethe�'`or not this
optional streamline process should� el�m�i�i��ted.
That concluded the o�r� �taff report ��l Ms. Aylaian asked for any
questions. z
Commission� .. chmidt as�d wht� st�r'��one�� i� granted this preliminary
approval � : as any ([it��ta�n to t�e� t�me it is valid. Was it for finro
years � "� �ever'��� . Aylaia���aid there wasn't a specific limitation called
out .w cally with ", er appr�als a permit has to be pulled within one
year���� e appro� ecomes �rtualid. She wasn't sure if that applied here.
Mr. Har �. , ve� ��� � �� r ere�.�vas nothing within the ordinance itself
oul�� ` � T ica ,< , ,
ttt�� . yp they go through the process that might
; ���� of t�` nditions. They didn't have anything else like this in the
�� zonm�° inar�`�� , which was a preliminary optional pre review. It was
�� intended t�� � ive so „ guidance to kind of direct the process going forward
t � and it turnec���„ut nof������ be a very efficient way of handling it. Because they
a�ad never r� ��ly approved one, he didn't know how it would work out if
t�tey did. �
�� ���
Commissit�er Schmidt asked if it would pass from owner to owner. If for
instane�t�is was granted to one owner, then that owner sold the property,
would it continue on. Mr. Hargreaves said yes, typically entitlements do;
the type of entitlements that Planning Commission grants are property
specific.
Commissioner S. Campbell asked if this would be a pretty costly
procedure for the applicants. They do all of this, come in, and could still be
told they don't have a pad where they could build their home. What
happens then? Ms. Aylaian said depending on the applicant, the cost
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 nnA
varies. They have seen two applicants that have made it through the
process and one she thought actually put in a great deal of time and
money into architectural renderings, and model building it, and has
thoroughly analyzed the site. The second one took a more abbreviated
form of essentially writing a letter saying please identify a site. They had
done a little bit of investigation, but probably not the same investment of
money. She indicated there was actually a third re uest that was received
recently and again, that individual has retainec�� out-of-state architect
and put some time in architectural renderings `c couple of studies. She
thought it was fair to say that yes, even th�, ' line process represents
an investment of both time and resource ° ` e'� an power if they do it
themselves, or in hiring a consultant,��; �` o throu �, process that could
ultimately not be productive for th �"`� at being sa ' was also fair to
say that going through the full '�' ess would be mo ostly than the
abbreviated process, but goin� �' ugh the breviated p�" , s first of all
was no assurance of approval final t, nor did it c mvent the
need to eventually go through the�"�� ��� ��� ssociated with going through
the full process. �`� = �� ��
...,.
Mr. Hargreaves clarrfi� � Fi " ,��� ' respor��� This would be a preliminary
y _
approval so it did not g � q any `�" lar ri L „'n the sense that a normal
site lan wauld. The ` Id '� �
p Y , p ' liminary approval for a
particular sit�, ��through ��. , ���� ess,�`�"��� ��� en decide it didn't work and
have th�r�back u��nd doi �� mething else. So even an approval, while
it he(��1 direct th� proces� 't wasn't a guarantee that they would
ultimate�i� be abl� t� build on " site. Also, if someone goes through a
proces� lii�� that with th�ir prop ` , ultimately the City has to identify a
si�� �hat th$y ��n build orr or tt�e City has to buy the properry. They don't
�,���ju�� ��� th� a�tion of just telling them no. It was a question of how they
��� get tl����� hov�� t�ey explore all the options to find what the best
K arrangem��is for developing that property. This particular avenue proved
to be a dea�"��d.
�
�#�airpersor��;'�anner asked him to repeat what he said about the City
be�`�joy respc�rt��ble for buying the property. Mr. Hargreaves explained that
und����h���ifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, and the State
Constif�;�'6n actually, the City has to allow people to make an
economically viable use of their property. The City cannot restrict a
property in such a way that physically renders it valueless. So they
couldn't just tell them they couldn't build anything up there. They do have
wide latitude in terms of restricting development to meet objectives, but
ultimately they have to provide some avenue to get a reasonable return on
that property or they have to buy it. Chairperson Tanner asked if it had to
go through the process of being presented to Planning Commission,
passed, and then went to Council and was rejected, or if it comes to
6
MINUTES
DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2� �
Planning Commission, gets rejected, they have a right to appeal and then
it goes to Council and if they object to it, then the City has to buy the
property. Mr. Hargreaves said that if the City Council ever got to the point
where they said there was just no way they would ever allow them to
develop anything on this property, if the City Council said that, it would
pretty much be on the hook to buy that property. Mr. Hargreaves also
indicated there is a provision in the City's code th t kind of addresses this
that basically says if you could show that the z : ordinance applied to
their property doesn't allow them to make pr ,, `; ve use of their property
in any manner, then they could overn � aspect of the zoning
ordinance. Basically it was a waiver. If th. �� � against something in
the zoning ordinance that basically s ` ou can`� ,, elop your property,
then you can get that overridden �� y can show`" don't have any
economically viable use. That'��\�� d of a safety v� in the whole
process. Like on a hillside, if„ ' ` say they, can't build o ,,, ridgeline or
anything else, if they could corr� ,,, and s `" hat there's ju o feasible
way to develop without building �� �eline, then there is a waiver
provision in the ordina e.
�u.
Commissioner Limont�`� ' cause� ; ridgelines and the difficulty
in bui l ding in t he Ca h Hi C� , , roce n't helping because they
really do neec� to know h� � muc ���� ,y-� s t��e moved. In other words,
they could�,'�ju�t�ke a g � ause��� ��� eren't looking at a flat pad,
the w�r� lookir� t a ner`� , � rhood, and the weren't lookin at certain
Y � ��� Y 9
grade�,t�iat go with �specific` et. Ms. Aylaian said yes, to make a good
decisic��- they neec�.�greater in ation than is required for an optional
preliminaf`y appraval.
:5 � ' �� .... , .
���� ��i „ son "f��ner o ened ���the public hearing and asked if anyone
� wishec�� `,_,spea�� �� FAVOR of or OPPOSITION to the issue before the
� Planning � missiar�,
�� °:� ,.
� MR t�� ID NELSON, Beavertail Street in Palm Desert, stated that
��a he own d land in the area that would be affected b thi
y s change.
���� He wv` present to speak out against removal of this ordinance.
� Du� �o the already vague nature of the Hillside Ordinance, if they
r�rnove this section of the ordinance, it would create an
unnecessary and undue burden on the land owners, causing them
to try and guess where the City would like the home to be built. It
could cost enormous amounts of money to submit all the plans that
would be required without this ordinance, all without knowing
whether or not it is even the location that the City would want the
home to be built on. That simply did not make any sense since with
this ordinance a site location could be determined prior to the land
owner having to incur that enormous expense. So again, he asked
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 008
that they leave this ordinance in tact as it is a logical step in
determining where a land owner may build their home. He thanked
them.
MR. DEL GAGNON, Palm Desert, stated that he lives in Section 30
in Cahuilla Park, not Cahuilla Hills. He said he only had a vague
understanding and asked what was being changed.
Ms. Aylaian explained that they would be d�leting a process in the
ordinance. The process would have given preli�t�t�nary approval of a site to
an applicant when they provided minimal in�rmati��,. They were removing
that. After that preliminary approval w g(�ven, they`i�v4uld still have to go
through the full submittal and app�t�v� process. M�� that site would
ultimately be approved, maybe ° ``'�ut what they wou��C�;be doing was
removing that optional prelirni��`��`� approv�l and sayin�. �t�iat anybody
needs to go through the full app �tion pro� in order to ct�velop in the
hills. ��
-��
r��
Mr. Gagnon ask�d° i� there was � f��son they needed to change it.
They still had to g� thr��g,h the proc��.
Ms. Aylaiar�; �� lied that they fawund th�t wifh the applications they
received ,� �' g throug� #t��scrutiny���ossible from the information
given . ����" an o� al pre�i�rinary site approval, did not effectively
stre �` e the pro� s and ge�the applicant closer to a project approval
then would h if they had not gone through that. It did not seem to
t� ����
be an e 've � ��
� ;�.,, .�� �.�.
; � � � � �;.,
� r. U� "` , n said that as difficult as it is now to develop anything, if
��� ��s��,ebo � ants to develop, he thought they should leave it alone
���� if i� �"worki:� .. nd leave it like it is and let them go through the
'� proc���� and `�'���at happens happens because he lives up there and
��. they a; all protected by the City and it was very hard to develop
��y and k�tt d anything without going through strict regulations and
`�, rule�, �nd that's okay in his estimation. He thanked them.
�
�
IVI�''.� JANICE WOOD, 72-375 Upper Way West in the Cahuilla Hills
area located within the city limits of Palm Desert. She opposed the
adoption of the amendment. She said the hillside ordinance frankly
for her had been a pain in the neck as it had been to many of the
property owners. She was going to throw her notes to the winds
tonight because much of it wasn't applicable from what she
understood, so she would skip over a lot of it, but she was sure
they had read it anyway regarding Connor Limont's escrow with her
property and the situation that resulted because of it.
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 �nnA
She felt that City organizations should strive not only on having
their way, but they should also strive for fairness: fairness to the
property owner and fairness to the citizens. She didn't feel this
fairness had been projected to them; she didn't feel it had been
projected to the McCormick property, to the Kuykendall properry,
the David Nelson property; it has not bee fair. And they paid big
money for their property and then t find that there are
restrictions that have been imposed, " they purchased their
property, that they cannot do wha� set out to do with their
properties, there is something , If they were to put
themselves in her place, the w` Id be `��� ding where she is
standing now. That was so ""���� ing she wa���� to get off of her
chest. She knew that th�;' mme letter was "' tioned. It was
mentioned that the Ci '� ould be nder obliga , to buy this
property in the event th � buildi uld take plac he asked
by saying that if they me h��" e ridgeline ordinance is in
effect and it w against the� � ' ine ordinance, if it was against
the ordinance'� tatus, did� ean they could go ahead and
say to them so` eline or� ce is in and you can't build
period and we d���� ha��� yo�`:� ,, perty because there is a
ridgeline ordinanc� he �, � w2� correct.
� ,���
N� ,E� b�,�.
Mr. Harg�r+�aves ex�ained � hat he intended to say was that if the
ridget��°ordinance� fpr whate' reason rendered her property completely
unbuildable, and he wasn't e they had seen that situation, but
assumin� her �rop€�rf� vrr�s. all eline and there was nothing else she
��I� do, fh�t� there is a prt���ss in the code whereby the prohibition of
� ��� �uift���on t�ie�ridgelines could be waived to make her property buildable.
� „/� ���
� M� '�,lood ask�d even after this ordinance is in effect that staff was
tryin��� get passed tonight, it could be built.
�
' �.
�, Hargrea��� said yes. This really just eliminated a potential sidetrack in
th�"��ocess����ut it didn't change the developability of any particular piece
of prope����
�
Ms. Woods said they've had a lot of ineetings here and each time
there is a little bit of a change and the changes get tighter and
tighter. So forgive them as properry owners if they get a little
paranoid when there is a change coming about. She thanked them.
MS. MARY HECKMAN GRIFFIN said she has an elevated lot in
Bighorn on Summit Cove and she had been out of town, so she
needed a clarification of the ordinance because she didn't
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2008
understand it as it was explained to her. She asked if there was a
preliminary approval process before building.
Ms. Aylaian explained that currently in the ordinance there is an optional
preliminary approval process that seeks to streamline the permitting
process. What they've found is when people have tried to use it, it hasn't
streamlined the process, it hasn't gotten through y easier, so they were
suggesting the removal of that process from t dinance. Even in the
existing ordinance had they gone through t ` reamline process, they
would then have to back through the full °` s when they were done
with the streamline process. So what th„ e x; ggesting is removing
the streamlining process so that the� ' ' go thr ` the full process for
approval of a project.
is�°
fx
r�,
Ms. Griffin asked if tha� any diffe, ent procedu°; then if they
owned a lot on the flats f �, t Porto ��` Haystack ��°_
�
^ y � ;:.
Ms. Aylaian indicate H at hillside and hillside developments are
treated quite a bit diff� � rom devef�� , ent on the flat areas.
�. �
Ms. Griffin aske ��� wh from���� ��Ocedural point, what was
subm' : when, w�� look� ���' .
��1
�F
Ms. A��w ����� expl`�'� that i � `� s through�different levels of approval. For
a ho ,.� on a hills , , you h' , to submit more information and it goes
throu� : 7 e Arch�° �� ural Revi�._ the Planning Commission and the City
Counci��� , e � ` �� � � n`i��� of a home in the flats, it might be as
�i�p�e as� �. �� pproved���� �,� counter by staff when you walk up. If you
�:�� v�ier���ing�� ` ething different, it might have to go to Architectural
��� Revievv� `�� „;
�� ;
�.
. ,� Ms ���„ in st ���� d that her lot happens to be on a lot that faces away
� ��.� from ttt;, city of Palm Desert, so it wasn't in anyone's view and was
��� kind o��,�idden behind. She purchased the lot three years ago and
�; was ��ncerned about changes. She supported the ideas and
tho�g�its that when you buy something, and she bought the
property as an investment and never was going to build on it, so
when she sells it, she wants to make sure she can at least capture
what she put into it. To purchase property and then have the rules
change, that's why she wanted clarification. She asked if there
were stricter guidelines than three years ago.
Ms. Aylaian explained that there are different guidelines and invited Ms.
Griffin to talk with staff about her particular property because some of the
properties in Bighorn are different because some already have existing
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21. 2008
pads constructed that get grandfathered in. The decision tonight by the
Planning Commission wasn't final. This would be a change to the
municipal code which would have to go to the City Council for review and
action. They would have two different readings on it, so she would have
time to come in, talk to staff, and find out the specifics for her particular
parcel. If she still had concerns, she could express them to the City
Council.
Ms. Griffin asked what kind of complaiu���Yior dissatisfaction was
received that made them change th�o�tlfi�ance.
�� ��.
�,., a.
Ms. Aylaian explained that it was at thte'request o���ity Council that the
ordinance be revised, and it was :q�servation by staff, as well as the
City Council, that the streamlinint� �����cess was not effect�,ly streamlining
anything. `
�' �'�
Ms. Griffin asked if thing��t�,,r� �tfing approved that shouldn't
have been. ��
���
Ms. Aylaian said no; a;�����f y��;�only two fo��l cases have been brought
forward and neither of th��n had re�t�hed fruitic�i�,
M� ' anked #��rr�� �he sa'rd t�iey drove from San Diego to
�..
� `�� of h`��� what sh�'� couldn't understand in the letter and
�� ologized f"'" being lat�-�>,
There ��� "� . o o :����.:� � �a� ft�'�speak. Chairperson Tanner closed the
.,
p�!c hea , � �"��'�d askec�� �:` r ��mission comments.
�.� �, � �
� Comrri�`� � �ner �' nt agreed with staff. She thought they headed into
�� this, staf�, �, , nnin��; „� mmission and City Council, with the best intentions,
;� but the d�ffi�[�; is th �' it feels like it is a step that is not benefiting anyone.
�� '°��They have la��owners who are spending their time without getting a solid
r'� ult. The C� mmission was spending time in trying to decipher what
co�or c�ut�' not be built without any inclination of what the design was
goin� tQ I�v�C like, what the grading was going to entail, that type of thing,
and the�r�'they send it on to Council and it hasn't made it through Council.
It just felt like a step put in with the best intent, but it wasn't working well.
As with most processes in the City, someone comes in with a plan that
folks can see and say okay, this is going to be how it sits on the hillside.
She agreed with staff on this.
Commissioner R. Campbell also agreed with staff on this. He thought it
became a waste of time for both the applicant and the City and a waste of
11
MINUTES
ALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2008
money. If they get the preliminary approval and have to start all over
again, he thought it was a waste and supported the change.
Commissioner S. Campbell disagreed. Mr. Nelson came in front of them. If
he chose a pad and went through all the costs and came in front of them
and they still didn't approve it, she thought they should be able to come to
an understanding or approval. There were only fo r Commissioners when
it came before them, so it always seemed t ,, a 2-2 vote, but she
thought it should stay as it is, have them co "J front of them and she
was sure there would be a site somewher�� eir piece of property that
they would have the approval to build they could go ahead
and go through the process of archit� `" nd so ��� She wasn't in favor
of changing it.
s�.
��. �,
Commissioner Schmidt thougk� `f: as a tou issue beca' she thought
it was intended to show a prop��,,, owner �� had an idea,������ e them an
� ,
opportunity to run that idea by the� =w o getting into soil testing and
all the rest of it that is quired, and � � s very serious about planning a
development, partic ' the hills�" , But she didn't think it really
worked. She had not� � e :� ved in "�� , the cases, but there is an
ability to take an option ��' a si ' very �� roversial and ve difficult
>y; ��� ry
to build on and run it by Ci � in� f a preliminary okay and
then sell fh�� pr�p+�rty. Thi���, � hy ������ ��� sked the question with that
caveat;at�ched t� �. She ���� ever known of other cities that have this
proces���in the v�l��y here ��;�� s. Aylaian wasn't aware of any cities.
Comrnis�ioner Sch{midt indica that if they had been caught up in a
change, 11�,, Harg�eaves explain" that there is a grandfathering process
ar� �also art e�aordinary eircumstances process to waive certain things
�:;,�� �c� I��neon�* build or they would purchase the property. She knew that
,� Counc�c��1n't w�in# this to go on, and she was quite certain staff didn't,
� '��, and she d�'t see��tt�� need for it, so she was in favor�of eliminating it.
�
`,; ;,
° Commiss�on��Schmidt read the hillside ordinance and asked for the
�t�cation of t�no building on the ridgeline section in the ordinance. Ms.
Ay��ian sai� is in 25.15. The first definition was for a hillside ridge and
then i� 2�.f5.030 3-F prohibited building across a ridge. Commissioner
Schmid�;t�ianked her.
Chairperson Tanner was also opposed to the proposal. He did it with
hesitation, but at the same time he was looking at the residents of Palm
Desert and the potential cost to residents if they put this into the actual
planning stages. He heard that the two times staff has come before them
and asked them for the optional preliminary approval it had been difficult
for staff to pick out the pad site, and he understood that, but he also
thought that staff was qualified to do it and this was what they were asked
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2008
to do and what they shouid do. And to give them a site to take to Council
and have Council approve it, and then they could actually start their work
in progress with the architectural design and go through the normal
process. He understood that the hillside ordinance was created because
they are in a very unique area here and they do need to desperately
protect the views, but at the same time he thought they needed to protect
the interest of those who bought in the hills. To go through the money
exercise they would have to, and then to bring i� lanning Commission
and have it fall outside of their pleasure, _ would be spending a
tremendous amount of money and then tF��""� Id have to go back and
do it again. So he knew it created more fo ff, but he thought they
were qualified to do it with the help o � ' owners�' ' r e land. They might
have to spend a little money to do i1�. they would ` ve to go through
the entire process. So again, h�. �� not in favor and ' d vote against
the passing of the request.
:�_
� "
He asked for a motion. ;� ��:� �
_ �� ���;
Y
�
Action: ���_;
�.
It was moved by Comti�'t�ssi��ti�_S. Carri` , seconded by Chairperson
Tanner, to leave the ordir�nce a�written 7`� ; otion failed on a 2-3 vote
(Commissio. R. Campk�ll, Lim�� arrd Sch"��'dt voted no).
�'" �r ��� �t
,-�. ��
It was.� � ed by� mmissip�r Limont, seconded by Commissioner R.
Cam � , approvi he findin�s as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2
(Cha� � son Tan,'�� and Comrn�ssioner S. Campbell voted no).
�,. ,
, y,� ����; 3
^%�� ��.,�� �'� �.
� �s m Comm�� Limont, seconded by Commissioner R.
, � �ar�r � s II, ����� ting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2489,
recomr^� ing �� z he City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 08-392,
which d�r,, es ion 25.15.130, Optional Preliminary Approval
���„� Procedure, � � its e'���� rety from the Hillside Planned Residential Zone.
�:Motion carri�` 3-2 (Chairperson Tanner and Commissioner S. Campbell
��v��ed no). ,o�<
IX. MI��LL.�I�EOUS
; ��
None.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Commissioner S. Campbell noted that the next meeting was
October 22, 2008.
13
Mnv 14 08 09: 37p Richard Fromme 360 679 3355 P, 1
pest.;�` Fax Note ?672 ;� , ,. ...� ��� -� T�ey�o�l,//� °� � �.r���
/
� � Fram �/f/] �
ro ���y� ,�tES�i2a�"CT� L.E.�rriLlL�.,. lG/-��� t�/`"/�1 L'`�(��2�rYt W�.,
�rn+D�Y ' ��y
Loc3ti0n �G�9e
Lvcation
` � / Te�ep+wr�e# Faz� Tekphane� '�D ��Ilo 5727
�� '71.�� �3�t! �i7��
�� ��. ��� 0�,�, ❑�n����
�:
� �..--,.
�� (�,s ra��,��zr-.e.- /��� � �s�i�p� �T�-K�= C.c¢-u.n..��i�
��'✓IL �L!'S� ��Z T�- -�xT'��'� c*� l� � ��� .
r�'�-� �
. ,
. � ,��.,� i �����l2�CZ._
�
,...z
<,-,
,f; :_..
p,�.
�� .
:� ..
r.,,
__ , ,
� ;��+�a,
;�7-., .
..'� "�:ti i.i 5- ,
� a�7
-�w,
� {����`..
+'°.-�
� �
Nov 14 08 09: 37p Ric�ard Fromme 36D 679 3355 p, �
Marilyn A. Fromrr�e
Richard H. Fromme
48�625 Paisano Rd.
Palrn Desert, Ca. �2260
�(ovember 14, 2008
City of 1'alm Desert, Ca
City Cvuncil Members
73-510 �red Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260-2578
Subject Case No. ZOA OS-392
1'�eax Council Menabers:
I oppose the adop�ion of the above arnendment of the "Hiliside
Pianned Residentiat Distr�ct of the Ci�y's zoning ordinance,
removing section 25.15.I30, optionaX preliminary approval
procedure, from the zoning ordinance for the following reasons:
This wi�l make it impossible to sell or develop the hillside property
because �here is no way to determine what can be built on �he
property withou� first prepa:�ing the plans for gradiz�g permits and
bu��di�ng p�ax�s to submit to the Planning Comnaission and C�ty
Council for approvax. The expense of this process would prohibit
development, which is the obvious intent of this zoning ordinance.
None of these restric�ions are placed on other properties in Pa�m
Desert. The country clubs that build on the hillsides do not have to
go thru any of the restrictions tha�the zoning p�aces on the owners
of these 5 aere parcels in section 30. This entire ordinance is
d�scri�inates against the property owners in section 30. The
purchase of all of these properties by th.e ciiy would be the
honorable way to proceed with this "taking" of the pxoperties.
Nov 14 D8 09: 37p Richard Fromme 360 679 3355 p. 3
We have been residents of the desert for 42 years and own two five
acre parcels in section 30. We have had buyers interested in the
propert�y and send the buyer to city hall to inquire as to what can be
built on the property. Whoever they tialk to discourages them so
rnuch that they back off_ We know the cause of these res�rictions
were brought on by Mr. Hagadon's huge house on the ridge and
�he uproar that it caused voters, b:rought this action by the City on
the property owners in section 30, as stated by Councilman Hobart
in a prior me�ting.
The original intent of the Federal Homestead Act was to encourage
deveiopxnent af th.ese properties. The resirictions the council has
placed on these propert�es takes this intent away.
I would also encourage the Council to i�.vestigate the appearance
af"hanky panky" by cornmissioners a�.d ci�y employees when this
ordinance was being hea�rd by planning and Council.
Please consider the impact of your decision on youx neighbors and
Councilman Ke11y should remember the xZ.otary 4-way test and
pass it on to the Nlayor and Remainder of the Councii. The 4-way
Test is:
1. Is it the "Truth"?
2. Zs it"Fair"to all concez-ned?
3. Wi11 it build "Goodwill and Better Friendships"?
4. �Vxll it be "Beneficial" to a.11 concerned?
Sincere(y, r� - ��
� � . � �
r % ��
� J� �
����,���, �-�� �C �'..�.!l�=����
f� :�cc.-� ! .,,�
Maxilyn A. Fromme .Richard H. Fromme