HomeMy WebLinkAbout1860 ORDINANCE NO. 1860
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PDD 232 AMND IN LIEU OF A
CHANGE OF ZONE FOR A RESIDENTIAL GATED
DEVELOPMENT OF 72 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS ON
INDIVIDUAL LOTS AND 114 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS IN 19
6-UNIT BUILDINGS ON FOUR LOTS LOCATED ON A
ROUGHLY 24-ACRE PARCEL AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND FARRELL
DRIVE (CASE 5.1046 PDD 232 AMND / TPM 36767 / TTM
36689).
City Attomey's Summary
This Ordinance approves a preliminary planned development project for
72 single family homes and 114 multi-family homes on an approximately
24 acre parcel at the southwest comer of Tahquitz Canyon Way and
Farrell Drive.
WHEREAS, Family Development, LLC, ("Applicant") has filed an application with
the City pursuant to Section 94.03.00 (Planned Development District), 94.04.00
(Architectural Review), 94.07.00 (Zone Change) of the Zoning Code seeking approval
for a preliminary Planned Development District in Lieu of a Change of Zone proposing a
residential gated development of 72 single family units on individual lots and 114 multi-
family units in 19, 6-unit buildings on four lots on a roughly 24-acre parcel located at the
southeast corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and South Farrell Drive, with deviations in
the underlying development standards; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Springs to consider Case 5.1046 PDD 232 AMND /TPM 36767 / TTM 36689, was
given in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2014, a public hearing on the applications was held by
the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing the Planning Commission carefully reviewed and
considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project,
including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented
and voted 6-0-1 (Klatchko recused) to approve the preliminary PDD in lieu of Change of
Zone and to recommend its approval by Ordinance of the City Council and approve the
Tentative Tract Map and Tentative Parcel Map by Resolution, subject to Conditions of
Approval; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms
of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
Ordinance No. 1860
Page 2
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm
Springs to consider Case 5.1046 PDD 232 AMND / TPM 36767 / TTM 36689, was
given in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2014, a public hearing on the application for the
project was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, a Planned Development District in lieu of a Change of Zone is
adopted by ordinance and includes two readings and a thirty-day period before it is
effective; and
WHEREAS, an ordinance was prepared for two readings before Council for the
approval of Case 5.1046 PDD 232 AMND; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the
evidence presented in connection with the meetings on the project, including but not
limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, the PDD and TTM applications are considered a project under the
guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An initial study was
conducted on behalf of the City by Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc., which
concluded that there were aspects of the project that may cause a significant impact on
the environment. Mitigation measures were proposed to reduce these impacts to less
than significant. A 20-day public review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration (DMND) was held beginning on April 17, 2014 and ending on May 6, 2014.
No comments were received that would require modification or recirculation of the
DMND. The City Council hereby adopts this Mitigated Negative Declaration as an
adequate analysis of the project's environmental impacts pursuant to the guidelines of
the CEQA.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 94.07.00 (Change of Zone), "the
council in reviewing a proposed change of zone shall consider whether the following
conditions exist in reference to the proposed zoning of the subject property".
A PD may be approved in lieu of a change of zone as specified in Section 94.07.00 as
follows:
1. The proposed change of zone is in conformity with the general plan
map and report. Any amendment of the general plan necessitated by the
proposed change of zone should be made according to the procedure set
forth in the State Planning Law either prior to the zone change, or notice
Ordinance No. 1860
Page 3
may be given and hearings held on such general plan amendment
concurrently with notice and hearings on the proposed change of zone.
The project was reviewed for conformity with the General Plan as follows:
General Plan Policy CD5.2 "When new residential structures are
developed in existing neighborhoods with established uniform or
consistent non-conforming setbacks, allow the setbacks of new structures
to be consistent with those of the existing surrounding development".
The proposed development is not consistent with many of the existing setbacks of the
surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission imposed conditions for
enhanced landscaping at the perimeter of the project to buffer the surrounding
community from the development. With this condition, the Planning Commission
determined that this inconsistency to be adequately mitigated.
Policy CD 14.4 "Prevent long monotonous walls and fencing through
undulation, modulation, surface articulation and landscaping.
Perimeter walls appear consistent with this policy.
Policy CD 14.5: Limit heights of walls and fencing and encourage the use
of wall breaks and transparent fences to protect views.
It does not appear that the perimeter walls incorporate breaks or open fence sections,
however the Planning Commission conditioned the project for more undulation and
enhanced landscaping on the outer side of the perimeter walls.
Policy CD 14.6: Prohibit gated community entries and perimeter walls
around entire neighborhoods. Instead, provide privacy through design
features such as meandering streets, ample landscaping, and house
placement that provides privacy and exclusivity.
The proposed gated development does not conform to this General Plan policy. The
Planning Commission concluded that with its condition for enhanced landscaping, more
undulation and variety in the perimeter walls, and pedestrian entry doors at all single
family units backing onto public streets, the project can be deemed consistent with this
finding.
Policy CD.22.1; Require new and infill development to be of compatible
scale, materials, and massing as existing development. Also ensure that
the design character of the new development is appropriate to the area.
The proposed development is of a similar scale to the development to the north, but
does not relate as well in scale to the existing development to the west, east and south.
As noted above, the Planning Commission's conditions of approval provided sufficient
Ordinance No. 1860
Page 4
buffer that these inconsistencies in scale could be deemed adequately mitigated.
Policy CD.22.7 Ensure that residential communities are well connected
with each other and with nearby commercial uses through the inclusion of
pedestrian and bicycle friendly design feature such as trails, paths, and
pedestrian oriented streets in the neighborhood's design.
As noted above, the Planning Commission's conditions for added pedestrian gates and
connectivity to the public streets would render the project consistent with this policy
"...Private streets provide access to individual parcels of land in planned
development communities approved with privately maintained access.
Private streets in any residential or mixed use land use designation may
be reduced to a minimum of 28 feet (curb face to curb face) provided that
(1) additional off-street parking is provided as determined by the City
Engineer, the Fire Chief and Director of Planning, (2) rolled or wedge curb
is provided such that vehicles may park partially out of the traveled way,
and (3) pedestrian paths or sidewalks, if located along the street, ,
separated from the curb by a minimum five-foot parkway are provided."
The project does not conform to this General Plan policy. The Planning Commission's
condition that the roadways be revised to this standard would render the project
consistent with this policy.
The project appears consistent with the General Plan in terms of density.
2. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
zone, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related
uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the commission and
council.
The applicant proposes 71 single family residential units (SFR's). SFR's are permitted
in the many multi-family zones subject to the R-1-A development standards. The
applicant is seeking relief from these development standards including lot area, lot
dimensions, setbacks, lot coverage, and building height. The project is surrounded by a
variety of related (residential uses), including multi-family condominiums, apartments,
and estate-sized single family homes. The project only partially conforms to this finding
because it does not relate in its proposed development standards to the single family
homes to the south. It also does not relate well to the commercial/mixed use
development to the west because it proposes the back yards of single family residences
to back onto a secondary thoroughfare and the commercial/mixed-use/and future
educational development to the west. With the incorporation of the Planning
Commissions conditions, the project can be found consistent with this finding.
3. The proposed change of zone is necessary and proper at this time, and
is not likely to be detrimental to the adjacent property or residents
Ordinance No. 1860
Page 5
The proposed PD in lieu of a change of zone proposes small-lot single family units and
multi-family units that are considerably different from those in the existing development
surrounding the site. The proposed arrangement of back yards of single family units
backing up to a secondary thoroughfare and a commercial/educational center does not
reflect good planning principles. The Planning Commission imposed conditions for
enhanced landscaping at the perimeter of the project to visually buffer the surrounding
community from the development. With this condition, the Planning Commission
determined this inconsistency to be adequately mitigated so as to not be detrimental to
adjacent properties.
SECTION 3. The City Council approves PDD 232 AMND (Case 5.1046) with
conditions as outlined in Resolution No. 23660.
SECTION 4. The City Council approves the zone map change from PD 71A to
PD 232 for a roughly 24-acre parcel at the southeast corner of East Tahquitz Canyon
Way and South Farrell Drive in conjunction with Case 5.1046 PDD 232 AMND and TTM
36689 and TPM 36767 subject to conditions as outlined in Resolution No. 23660.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty
(30) days after passage.
SECTION 6. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered to and directed to
certify to the passage of this Ordinance, and to cause the same or summary thereof or a
display advertisement, duly prepared according to law, to be published in accordance
with law.
ADOPTED THIS 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014.
'�4z l0e,
TEP N P. POUGNE , MAYOR
ATTEST:
MES THOMPSON CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 1860
Page 6
CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do
hereby certify that Ordinance No. 1860 is a full, true, and correct copy, and was
introduced at a regular meeting of the Palm Springs City Council on September 17,
2014, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on October 1, 2014, by
the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember Lewin, Mayor Pro Tem Hutcheson, and Mayor Pougnet.
NOES: Councilmember Foat.
ABSENT: Councilmember Mills.
es Thompson, City Clerk
ity of Palm Springs, Calif orniai4?Zolz '`,