The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZOA 00-09 SETBACKS 2001 ORDINANCE NO. 972 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 AND 25.30.270 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE OP (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL), C-1 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND PC (PLANNED COMMERCIAL) DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 11 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 28th day of June, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 altering setback requirements in the C-1 , PC and OP districts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2075 recommended approval of Case No. ZOA 00-09 (Revision No. 1 ); and - } WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of I Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its action as described below: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. r ORDINANCE NO. 972 . i 2. That the City Council approves a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 19th day of July , 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, CRITES, SPIEGEL, FERGUSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: KELLY ABSTAIN: NONE JIM F G 0 MAYOR T ST:' SHEILA R. GIUIGA41, City Clerk City of Palm Des California 2 ORDINANCE NO. 972 1 EXHIBIT "A"' 1 ) That Section 25.25.016 C be amended to read as follows: C. Street front and street side yards shall be a minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet measured from the property line or one (1) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location, whichever is greater. On corner lots, buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. Buildings or portions of buildings falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback a minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet measured from the property line or one (1) foot of setback from the ultimate curb location for each foot of building height, whichever is greater. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 2) That Section 25.28.060 be amended to read as follows: I III 3 ti ORDINANCE NO. 972_ 25.28.060 Minimum street frontage setback. The minimum street frontage setback shall be five feet. On corner lots buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from average curb height adjacent to the property. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 3) That Section 25.30.290 Special Setback Requirements be added to read as follows: "Special Setback Requirements" On interior lots in the PC zone districts setbacks shall be the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line) or one (1) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. On corner lots in the PC zone districts, buildings shall be setback from the corner the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 4 1 ORDINANCE NO. 972 25.30.250 for PC(1) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line or a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from adjacent curb height. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. Buildings or portions of buildings on corner lots falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line) or a minimum of one (1) foot of setback for each foot of building height measured from the ultimate 1 curb location. JI On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 5 Ordinance No. ' 972 DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE j I sidewalk DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE .�• fees of Curb Property line i y" . s. Ordinance No. 979 CITY OF PALM DESERT' 'llN n 2001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT O MAINITYDEKELORTNTDEPARTMEN'T CITY OP PALM DESERT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council R. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance amending Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.20 of the Municipal Code, the setback requirements of the OP (Office Professional), C-1 (General Commercial) and PC (Planned Commercial) districts. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 00-09 (Revision No. 1) V. DATE: June 28, 2001 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Ordinance No. K B. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 00-90 C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2075 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 5, 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. * to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: 1 . BACKGROUND: September 5, 2000 Planning Commission directed staff to process an amendment to setbacks in the O.P. district. October 171 2000 Planning r CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Ordinance No. 979 CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 1) JUNE 28, 2001 Commission recommended approval of an amendment which would have added a minimum setback from the curb equal to one foot of setback for each foot of building height in the OP district. This amendment was forwarded to City Council at its November 9, 2000 meeting. The matter was continued several times, a subcommittee of City Council appointed, and the scope of the amendment expanded to include the C-1 (general commercial) areas and PC (planned commercial) areas. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION: This revised code amendment was presented to Planning Commission at its meeting of June 5, 2001 and was recommended for approval on a 3-0 vote with Commissioners Finerty and Campbell absent. 3. DISCUSSION: The main thrust of the revised amendment is the addition of a "daylight triangle" requirement on corner lots in the OP, C-1 and PC zones which will assure greater open space on corners. On corner lots buildings will be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and not encroach into the "daylight triangle." This setback requirement will be measured from the ultimate curb location which is the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan (see attachment 'A' to the draft ordinance). This revised ordinance also provides that in the PC and OP zones the setbacks on interior lots will be the greater of the existing setback provisions or one foot of setback for each foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. Lastly, the ordinance provides that where the City vacates property, buildings shall not encroach onto vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. These new provisions will be "prospective in nature" so that it will only apply to buildings approved after enactment of the amendment. All approved buildings on corner lots meet the requirements. All existing IWpdocsltmonroe\sr\zoaM09.cc11 2 r CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Ordinance No. 979 CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 1) JUNE 28, 2001 buildings not meeting this standard will remain conforming as opposed to becoming legal non-conforming. In the case of a terraced building with a single story element at 18 feet in height and a second story section with 30 feet in height, the "daylight triangle" would have two base lines. The first floor section would be setback 36 feet from the ultimate curb location and the second floor element would be 60 feet from the ultimate curb location. This should serve to create openness on corner lots. 4. CEQA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a class 5 categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: STEVE7SMITH PHILIP DRELL PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Review and Concur: Review and Concur: RICHARD J. LKERS OS L. OR GAASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OFt(CAR ITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED ✓ DENIED RECEIVED OTHER MEETIN DATE - AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IWptlocs\tmonme\sr\...00-09.cc41 ATTAIN: VERIFIED BY- Original on File with City 12lerk' s Office CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance amending Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.20 of the Municipal Code, the setback requirements of the OP (Office Professional), C-1 (General Commercial) and PC (Planned Commercial) districts. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 00-09 (Revision No. 1) V. DATE: June 28, 2001 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Ordinance No. B. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 00-90 C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2075 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 5, 2001 - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: 1 . BACKGROUND: September 5, 2000 Planning Commission directed staff to process an amendment to setbacks in the O.P. district. October 17, 2000 Planning CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 1) JUNE 28, 2001 Commission recommended approval of an amendment which would have added a minimum setback from the curb equal to one foot of setback for each foot of building height in the OP district. This amendment was forwarded to City Council at its November 9, 2000 meeting. The matter was continued several times, a subcommittee of City Council appointed, and the scope of the amendment expanded to include the C-1 (general commercial) areas and PC (planned commercial) areas. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION: This revised code amendment was presented to Planning Commission at its meeting of June 5, 2001 and was recommended for approval on a 3-0 vote with Commissioners Finerty and Campbell absent. 3. DISCUSSION: The main thrust of the revised amendment is the addition of a "daylight -triangle" requirement on corner lots in the OP, C-1 and PC zones which will assure greater open space on corners. On corner lots buildings will be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and not encroach into the "daylight triangle." This setback requirement will be measured from the ultimate curb location which is the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan (see attachment 'A' to the draft ordinance). This revised ordinance also provides that in the PC and OP zones the setbacks on interior lots will be the greater of the existing setback provisions or one foot of setback for each foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. Lastly, the ordinance provides that where the City vacates property, buildings shall not encroach onto vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. These new provisions will be "prospective in nature" so that it will only apply to buildings approved after enactment of the amendment. All approved buildings on corner lots meet the requirements. All existing Iwpd.mm.n,. ...O0.09..cQ 2 i i CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 1) JUNE 28, 2001 buildings not meeting this standard will remain conforming as opposed to becoming legal non-conforming. In the case of a terraced building with a single story element at 18 feet in height and a second story section with 30 feet in height, the "daylight triangle" would have two base lines. The first floor section would be setback 36 feet from the ultimate curb location and the second floor element would be 60 feet from the ultimate curb location. This should serve to create openness on corner lots. 4. CEQA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a class 5 categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: ST5V15-SMITH PHILIP DRELL PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Review and Concur: Review and Concur: RICHARD J. FOLKERS CARLOS L. ORTEGA ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (Wotloc.Umome\sAma00-09=4) 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 AND 25.30.270 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE OP (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL), C-1 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND PC (PLANNED COMMERCIAL) DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 1 ) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 28th day of June, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 altering setback requirements in the C-1, PC and OP districts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2075 recommended approval of Case No. ZOA 00-09 (Revision No. 1); 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its action as described below: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. ORDINANCE NO. 2. That the City Council approves a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM FERGUSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "A" 1) That Section 25.25.016 C be amended to read as follows: C. Street front and street side yards shall be a minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet measured from the property line or one (1) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location, whichever is greater. On corner lots, buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. Buildings or portions of buildings falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback a minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet measured from the property line or one (1) foot of setback from the ultimate curb location for each foot of building height, whichever is greater. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 2) That Section 25.28.060 be amended to read as follows: 3 ORDINANCE NO. 25.28.060 Minimum street frontage setback. The minimum street frontage setback shall be five feet. On corner lots buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from average curb height adjacent to the property. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 3) That Section 25.30.290 Special Setback Requirements be added to read as follows: "Special Setback Requirements" On interior lots in the PC zone districts setbacks shall be the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line) or one (1) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. On corner lots in the PC zone districts, buildings shall be setback from the corner the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2►; Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 4 ORDINANCE NO. 25.30.250 for PC(1) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line or a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from adjacent curb height. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. Buildings or portions of buildings on corner lots falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4►; Section 25.30.250 for PC(1) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line) or a minimum of one (1) foot of setback for each foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 5 DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE eldwelk DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE �• feCe of cure Property Ilse } PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) o t-. c Ferry Z '.s71 =Xy T 3 !.8i STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to or interested in the No.8457 above-entitled matter.1 am the principal clerk of a CITY OF PALEGAL NOTDESERT printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Cltyy Counc9 printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, to consider a re uest by the CITY OF PALM Count}'of Rly'CrsidC,and N'hlCb newspaper has been DESERT 530 2202320, 5 02 025. 0 250and 5. 0. 3 , 2343 j adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Z�3enstth municipal ( oce the k irmetto e O.P. (Office Professio aOC-1 Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of (General Commercial) and PC(Planned Commar- clap districts. California under the date of March 24,1988.Case SAID ublic hearing will be held on Thursday, Number 191236;that the notice,of which the et aerpno7ncil Ihr atthePalmDesrt Civic Ceter. 3-510Fred annexed is a printed co set in a not smaller Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which P PY( ty'P time and place all interested persons are Invited than non pariel,has been published in each regular to attend end be heard. Written comments con- canning all Items covered by this public hearing and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed Supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: protect and/or negative declaration Is swells Is for rev(ew in the Department of Community Develop- ment at the above address bobveen the hours of -- —'---- June 1$th 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 correspon- dence delivered to the dity Council at,or prior to, the public hearing. 1II SHEIIA R. GILUGAN, City Clark All in the year 2001 PUB: June 15, 200Ciry of Palm'Desert. California I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the " foregoing is true and correct 19th Dated at Palm Springs,California this - day June of 2001 Signature CITY 01 P M OESERT s 73-5i0 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061 I FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-deserr.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: June 7, 2001 City of Palm Desert Re: ZOA 00-09 (Revisions No. 1) The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of June 5, 2001 : PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 1) TO CITY COUNCIL BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2075. MOTION CARRIED 3-0 (COMMISSIONERS CAMPBELL AND FINERTY WERE ABSENT). 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. Phili p Dre II, S Palm Desert P nning Commission /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal ",eixFFO Ox A((Y[LFG,A,FA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2075 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 AND 25.30.270 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE OP (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL), C-1 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND PC (PLANNED COMMERCIAL) DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 1 ) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of June, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 altering setback requirements in the C- 1 , PC and OP districts; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; 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 its recommendation as described below: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans; and 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve 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 Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2075 EXHIBIT "A" 1 ) That Section 25.25.016 C be amended to read as follows: C. Street front and street side yards shall be a minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet or one (1 ) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location, whichever is greater. On corner lots, buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. Buildings or portions of buildings falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback a minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet or one (1) foot of setback from the ultimate curb location for each foot of building height, whichever is greater. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 2) That Section 25.28.060 be amended to read as follows: 25.28.060 Minimum street frontage setback. The minimum street frontage setback shall be five feet. On corner lots buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2075 be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from average curb height adjacent to the property. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 3) That Section 25.30.290 Special Setback Requirements be added to read as follows: "Special Setback Requirements" On interior lots in the PC zone districts setbacks shall be the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1 ) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line) or one (1) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. On corner lots in the PC zone districts, buildings shall be setback from the corner the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1 ) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line or a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from adjacent curb height. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2075 measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. Buildings or portions of buildings on corner lots falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1 ) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line) or a minimum of one (1 ) foot of setback for each foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION sESOLUTION NO. 2075 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of June, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: JONATHAN, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ NOES: NONE ABSENT: CAMPBELL, FINERTY ABSTAIN: NONE JI PEZ, air son ATTEST: PHILIP DR ELL, ecretary Palm Desert Pla ning Commission 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 5, 2001 CASE NO: ZOA 00-09 (Revision No. 1 ) REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance amending Section 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 of the municipal code, the setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional), C-1 (General Commercial) and PC (Planned Commercial) district. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: September 5, 2000 Planning Commission directed staff to process an amendment to setbacks in the O.P. district. October 17, 2000 Planning Commission recommended approval of an amendment which would have added a minimum setback from the curb equal to one foot of setback for each foot of building height. This amendment was forwarded to City Council at its November 9, 2000 meeting. The matter was continued several times, a subcommittee of City Council appointed, and the scope of the amendment expanded to include the C-1 (general commercial) areas and PC (planned commercial) areas. II. DISCUSSION: The main thrust of the revised amendment is the addition of a "daylight triangle" requirement on corner lots in the OP, C-1 and PC zones which will assure greater open space on corners. On corner lots buildings will be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and not encroach into the "daylight triangle." This setback requirement will be measured from the ultimate curb location which is the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan (see attachment 'A' to the draft ordinance). This revised ordinance also provides that in the PC and OP zones the setbacks on interior lots will be the greater of the existing setback provisions or one foot of setback for each foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. The ordinance notes that ultimate curb location is the curb location when the street is constructed to the ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 JUNE 5, 2001 Lastly, the ordinance provides that where the City vacates property, buildings shall not encroach onto vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. These new provisions will be "prospective in nature" so that it will only apply to buildings constructed after enactment of the amendment. All buildings not meeting this standard will remain conforming as opposed to becoming legal non-conforming. In the case of a terraced building with a single story element at 18 feet in height and a second story section with 30 feet in height, the "daylight triangle" would have two base lines. The first floor section would be setback 36 feet from the ultimate curb location and the second floor element would be 60 feet from the ultimate curb location. This should serve to create openness on corner lots. III. CEQA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a class 5 categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of ZOA 00-09 (Revision #1 ). V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by Steve Smith Planning Manager Reviewed and Approved P Drell Director of Community Development Am 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 AND 25.30.270 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE OP (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL), C-1 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND PC (PLANNED COMMERCIAL) DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 1 ) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of June, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 altering setback requirements in the C- 1 , PC and OP districts; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; 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 its recommendation as described below: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans; and 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve 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 Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of June, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" 1 ) That Section 25.25.016 C be amended to read as follows: C. Street front and street side yards shall be a minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet or one (1) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location, whichever is greater. On corner lots, buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. Buildings or portions of buildings falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback a minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet or one (1 ) foot of setback from the ultimate curb location for each foot of building height, whichever is greater. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 2) That Section 25.28.060 be amended to read as follows: 25.28.060 Minimum street frontage setback. The minimum street frontage setback shall be five feet. On corner lots buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from average curb height adjacent to the property. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 3) That Section 25.30.290 Special Setback Requirements be added to read as follows: "Special Setback Requirements" On interior lots in the PC zone districts setbacks shall be the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PCO ) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line) or one (1) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. On corner lots in the PC zone districts, buildings shall be setback from the corner the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1 ) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line or a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from adjacent curb height. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. Buildings or portions of buildings on corner lots falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1 ) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line) or a minimum of one (1) foot of setback for each foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 5 ; IIV OE PRIM 0ESE 1 ,..` 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9 2 260-2 5 78 TEE: 760 346-11611 - - FAR: 760 341-7098 info®palm-desm,.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT to amend Section 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 of the municipal code, the setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional), C-1 (General Commercial) and PC (Planned Commercial) districts. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 5, 2001, at 7:00 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 PHILIP DRELL, Secretary May 22, 2001 Palm Desert Planning Commission DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE •f welk 2H Where H Equals Building Height DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE �• ffeee of Curb Property lone 4 . '01 MY 29 PM 2 50 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Thiel ee ft a�x Clerks Film�tamp (2015.5.C.C.P) MAY 3 0 2001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMS 5UN"BEVELOPN,ENT DEPARTMENT County of Riverside CIiYOFPALAIDESERT I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen No.5215 -- 7 years,and not a party to or interested in the CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL above-entitled matter. 1 am the principal clerk of a CASE NO. 20A NOTICE000-09 Printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm G Desert Planntnp COMPAN]'a newspaper of general circulation, OF PALM DESERT fort amend Section 25.25 the 016 printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 of the munlclPsl.code , County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been the setback requirements In the O.P. (Office Pro- fesadjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the tannedl)Commercial)(General ices. clal) end PC Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of AID panic nearing will be hen on Tuesday, P h e, June ,public at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Cham- California under the date of March 24,1988.Case ber at the Palm Desert Civic Center. 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which Number 191236;that the notice,of which the ume end place all Interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments con- annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller earning all Items covered by this public hearing than non pan notice shall be accepted up to the date of theel,has been published in each regular hearing. Information concerning the proposed and entire issue of said newspaper and not in an pmfect and/or negative declaration Is svelte Is for Y review In the Department of Community Develop- supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: ment 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 misl only those issues May 22nd described in this notice, or ni wr8nenbloomespon- - - -- denoe delivered to,.be Planning Commission"et. or prior to,the pubSm heedr�g Commission" PHILIF DRELL,Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUB: May 22PUB: May 22, 20011 All in the year 2001 1 certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 22nd Dated at Palm Springs,California this day May of 2001 oah i Signature ClIY Of PH M OESERI 73-5io FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8 TEL: 760 346—o6i i FAX: 760 341-7098 info@patm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT to amend Section 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 of the municipal code, the setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional), C-1 (General Commercial) and PC (Planned Commercial) districts. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 28, 2001 , 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 shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk June 15, 2001 City of Palm Desert, California I Confirmation Report — Memory Send Time May-17-2001 05:Olpm Tel line 7603417098 Name PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT Job number 951 Date May-17 05:00pm To 7784731 Document pages 001 Start time May-17 05:00pm End time May-17 05:Olpm Pages sent 001 Status OK Job number 951 *** SEND SUCCESSFUL *** C I T Y O F P H L M D E S E R T 79—Slo rn nA \�A3NG Duavn Pn au Duxn n'r, Cnz3ros Nan 9nxRu—a s7n 7Ro s.14—o6a a 7Gu y9a.-9oAB CITY OF PALM OESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. 20A oo-an NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be hale before the Paim Oesart Planning Commission to consider a raqunav by the CITY QF PALM DESERT to amend S.CTIen 26.26.016, 26.28.060, 25.30.220, 26_30.230, 26.30.240, 25.30.260 and 26_30_270 cf the municipal coda, the aatl anek raquiramants in the O.P. (Offica Profeasional), C-1 (General Commarolal) and PC (Planned Commarclal) districts. ppa[-IY Fux Noce 4691 r� To rnm-r '"•3 G/ SAID public hearing will be hsld on Tusaeay, Juna 5, 2001 , at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambar at the Palm Desert Clvlc Canter, 73-510 Free Waring Oriva, Palm Dasar[, C.lif.ml., at which time and Places all interested parsons are invited to attend and be haard. Written ..mments concerning all items covarae by this public hearing notice shall be a...pt.d up to Th. eat. of the hearing. Information concerning the prpppaed project and/er negativa daclarat)on is availabla for raviaw in the Oepartmant of Community Davalopmant at the abova address batwaan the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m_ Monday through Friday. If you chall.nge the proposed actions In court, you may ba limited to raising only These issues you or someone else raised at the publio hearing daacrlbee in this notice, or In written corraapondanoa delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public CITY Of PR , M 0ESER � 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8 TEL: 760 346-o6i 1 FAX: 760 341-7098 info @palm-desert,org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT to amend Section 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 of the municipal code, the setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional), C-1 (General Commercial) and PC (Planned Commercial) districts. _ __ _____ ___ _ __q- Da9es► Date I / 7671 From oil post-it®Fax Note , Go. rJ All to phone#3 -�O 'i Go./Dept"��5� 1i phone It Fax Fal# 7 SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 5, 2001 , at 7:00 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 PHILIP DRELL, Secretary May 22, 2001 Palm Desert Planning Commission Ordinance No. '972 r r CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor And City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.25.016 setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional) district. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 00-09 MEETING DATE I I - q -0 0 V. DATE: November 9, 2000 &CONTINUEDTD I - I I - 0- VI. CONTENTS: ❑ PASSED TD 2ND READING A. Staff Recommendation *With Councilman Kelly an Counci mem er B. Discussion Benson appointed to evaluate the matter C. Draft Ordinance No. .972 prior to its next consideration. D. Planning Commission Minutes for Case No. ZOA 00-09 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 3, 2000 G. Related maps and/or exhibits ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. _972 to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: 1 . BACKGROUND: Over the recent past, Planning Commission has expressed concern that some office buildings were located too close to the street and of particular concern were two-story structures. Commission felt that taller buildings needed greater setbacks and on September 5, 2000, Planning Commission directed staff to process a setback amendment which would be based on the height of the building. IWP\sr\z0a00-09.cc1 N Ordinance No. 972 2. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the setback provisions for the O.P. district. The basic front and street side yard setbacks will remain at a minimum of 12 feet with a required average of 15 feet measured from the property line. We will add a provision requiring a minimum setback from any curb equal to one foot of setback for each foot of building height. The amendment also provides that this setback is to be measured from the location of the curb after the street is widened. The current setback provisions generally assures that all buildings are setback 27 feet from the curb (15' from the property line and 12' of parkway). In the odd instance when the parkway is less than 12 feet the buildings can have less than 27 feet of setback from the curb. The amendment will assure that all 25 foot high two-story structures are setback at least 25 feet from the curb. We are making this section "prospective in nature" so that it will only apply to buildings constructed after enactment of the amendment. All existing buildings not meeting this standard will remain conforming as opposed to becoming legal non-conforming. The planning commission considered this amendment at it's October 17, 2000 meeting and wholeheartedly endorsed it on a 4-0 vote with Chairman Beaty absent. There was no public comment at the planning commission hearing. 3. CEQA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. Prepared by: Reviewed and/Approved: ST VE SMITH PHILIP DRELL PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Review and Concur: Review and Concur: 0/0 RIC ARD J. VOLKERS CARLOS L. ORTEGA ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER/RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES /sm (WO ,k\oa00-09.cc) 2 RECEIVED PROOF OF PUBLICATION „iQQspeTfol aruyigdk ir5slamp (2015.5.C.C.P) CITY CLERK'S OFFICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to or interested in the No.o3a1 above-enlitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a CITYLEGAL NOTICE F PALM ERT printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, DESERT to amend Section 25.25.016 of the mu- niclpel code,the setback requirements In the O.P. County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been (Office Professional)district. adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday,No- vember 9, 2000. at 7:00 P.M. In the Council Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center,73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. at California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case nvited to attend and be heard.Written comments Number 191236; that the notice,of which the concerning all hems covered by this public hear- ing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller hearing. Information concerning the proposed than non ariel,has been published in each regular Pnect and/or negative declaration is available for P P g re�ew In the Department of Community Develop- and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any ment at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raisin gq only those Issues you or someone else raised al the public hearing October 23rd i described In this notice or In written comespon- — 1 dance delivered to the dity Council ot,or prior to, the public RACHrrELLE,KLASSEN, Acting City.Clerk City of Palm Desert, Caldomia PUB:.Oc[ober23_20(tn All in the year 2000 I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 23rd Dated at Palm Springs,California this day October of 2000 Signature BUILDING SETBACKS IN THE O.P., C-1 AND PC ZONE DISTRICTS A. CORNER LOTS: In addition to the setback requirements of Chapter 25.25, 25.28 and 25.30 on corner lots in the O.P., C-1 and PC zone districts, buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from ultimate curb height. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. Buildings or portions of buildings falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback a minimum of one (1 ) foot from the ultimate curb location for each foot of building height. B. INTERIOR LOTS: On interior lots in the O.P. and PC zone districts setbacks shall be the greater of the setback requirements of Chapter 25.25 and 25.30 or one (1) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. C. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. D. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. (W pEscs\sft1dgsetb.srs) CORNER LOTS IN THE O.P.. PC AND C-1 ZONES On corner lots in the above zone districts buildings shall be setback a minimum two feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach within the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from ultimate curb location. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the existing or future curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See Figure A attached. Interior Lots Look at buildings they don't like and how they could be improved Single two-story elements should not exceed feet long WP\sr\cornrltssrsl DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE i •1 rrelk 2H Where H Equals Building Height i DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE �• face of Curb property lino l COO �ySM_t �ysa`✓ - - cepa4� - AL 3 '7 - �K W c�.�o so � �.-a-�.-- I��a/- c��•�✓coo�-•L oc�oC ICJ � ��'��a�+y-B•.' Si�P Goc�C.�� - -y W- .s-07,7 416 2 1/i/1 i rc,a.M —(�o cc� o�o_o r� �.cir ii�✓G — /1��cn a.ttic.JLiap_,s Cam'chi taw Y� w ry �/ , �a.cZTXw l_L 11�1 +J6 �Co(t'rJG Se'!`=�4T f�eJ 6�C e_1�15_7`r�P� wat Co,GJe e- Y 5i w_a Gad 2CIle 44.2 41 Wo .y et 14 i yytvyr�u_(,has.. 1 � A)oeo g: tvrri✓j- 4. .i G � +. � -7 1 st ��.1-a4Juc ffTG�AN_6_('s �=✓0,__-1-`? ' ?�3�t-1'tGS p_on�e�f To.w_eK—�t�a8' , III — � 5•�at� 30 ' � L�%f✓G - III 30 Ih III �5 CroSsiN WA);-. �A f / IIIC7 ' Lip -r 8'��.ev_wm��a_�' � p� ��✓. III L d,5 w � - lii Ld Ali _,�• s �� III - � o S� j�5 P� ��yt�1_o►�'P ni ��Slwy ,Go G�c�rr_Y✓_G 111 1l fA IIl III III III WA� III AI F / - -- - - - III III Ili - - - - - - - - IIIS� _ G�s III III xf--L ,�, r III S C-4 - I III II III III III III III III - 11 111 Ili III III II III I III .. s / Ze, - z �, CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor And City Council 11. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.25.016 setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional) district. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 00-09 V. DATE: January 11 , 2001 continued from November 9, 2000 VI. DISCUSSION: This matter was continued to allow a subcommittee of council to meet to discuss specific problem areas. December 19, 2000 staff met with Mayor Pro Tempore Kelly and it was determined that additional time was needed to review this matter further. VII. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Case No. ZOA 00-09 be continued to February 22, 2001 . Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: STE SMITH PHILIP DRELL PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Review and Conc r: Review and Concur: RI HARD FOLKERS CARLOS L. ORTEGA ASSISTA CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER/RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Am FWEETINGDATE — (_ e7EADING 1 W p\sr\zoa00-09.cc2� CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor And City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.25.016 setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional) district. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 00-09 V. DATE: January 11 , 2001 continued from November 9, 2000 VI. DISCUSSION: This matter was continued to allow a subcommittee of council to meet to discuss specific problem areas. December 19, 2000 staff met with Mayor Pro Tempore Kelly and it was determined that additional time was needed to review this matter further. VII. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Case No. ZOA 00-09 be continued to February 22, 2001 . Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: r STE - SMITH PHILIP DRELL PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Review and Conc r: Review and Concur: i RI HARD FOLKERS CARLOS L. ORTEGA ASSISTA CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER/RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES /tm f W p\sr\zoa00-09.cc2) City of Palm Desert Council Agenda Request Meeting of— To be considered under: Consent Calendar Resolutions Ordinances_ New Business Old Business__ Informational Items_ Public Hearings X Other_ z. Item Till Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.25.016 setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional) district. — 1. Financial: p e e r ap (a) AccountiProjecl# (b) Amount Requested _ (c) In the Current Budget?_ (c) Appropriation Required? Approved by Director of Finance: 4. Submitted by: — --- Approvals_ I?Cparement H City Manager Following is a verbatim transcript of Public Hearing Item B from the Regular City Council Meeting of Thursday.November 9,2000. XVI. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 25.25.016, RELATIVE TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O.P.) DISTRICT Case No. ZOA 00-09 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 222 to second reading, approving ZOA 00-09. BAC Buford A. Crites, Mayor RSK Richard S. Kelly, Councilman SS Steve Smith, Planning Manager PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development IF Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro-Tempore JMB Jean M. Benson, Councilmember RAS Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, Deputy City Clerk BAC Public hearing B is approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding setbacks. We have a staff report. Are there questions about the staff report? Mr. Smith. RSK Yes. SS Any questions? BAC Yes, sir. RSK I guess I have...my...it's difficult. It seems like the setbacks that I read here...what worries me is I've had some setbacks that I thought looked pretty good in the past year, and when the building went in, it looked terrible. And also it seems like on corners, where we want to keep a corner open, that I'd like to see something different, especially on our main thoroughfares, like 111 and Monterey, Country Club, and some of those, that corners would be treated different than just a center block. And then I think El Paseo, which is set up the way it is, a building can be right at the sidewalk, and it's okay; but on 111, especially where we've had a frontage road before, I don't think we should infringe past what was originally a frontage road setback. Because of all the trouble we had with the frontage road, the one thing it has done for us is when you enter Palm Desert, all of a sudden it's open. And it's become a tremendous advantage to us to have all that opening and the ability to put all that landscape in. So I don't know...I'm not...unless...I haven't had time to go out and look at some of these and step...see about where they come out. BAC How about this? Is this an urgency item? SS No, it's not. This only applies in the office professional district. Verbatim Transcript-Public Hearing- ZOA 00-09 Regular Palm Desert City Council Meeting 11/9/00 * * * * x * x x x * * * * * * * * * * * * * x * x * * x x x x x BAC Right. Then as a suggestion, maybe we could take a couple of buildings and look at how they would have been treated... RSK Yeah. BAC ...under this proposed zoning versus how they are/were treated under the existing way of doing it. And I think all of us can think of several examples. PD Yeah. Another suggestion-- as part of the General Plan we're going to be doing an urban design element, and it's going to be...this is an examination of, you know, all our standards will be part of that. IF Did this go to Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee? SS It did; they chose not to take it up. BAC Okay. IF Okay. SS Planning Commission then reintroduc-...redirected staff to process it, which we did at their direction. RSK I would volunteer to serve on a committee... IF Yeah, I would. RSK ...that looked into this further and went out and tramped around somewhere and compared some buildings. BAC Okay. Who else would join Richard on that? IF I would like to. RSK Jean is on the...Jean, you're the representative on the...do we just have one Councilmember on that? BAC Why don't we ask two members of our Council if they would? JF Okay. JMB I'll go with...(unclear) RSK I'll volunteer to serve on...(unclear) BAC Okay, the two of them, and then we'll bring this back to our next meeting, then? JF Also, I'd like to ask, you have a, basically, a one to one setback requirement, which is a 45' angle, did you evaluate 60' , and maybe a 1.5 per 1, or a 2 for 1, what the feasibility of those were? 2 Verbatim Transcript-Public Hearing- ZOA 00-09 Regular Palm Desert City Council Meeting 11/9/00 SS No, we did not. RSK We'll do that. IF Maybe we could do that. BAC Yeah. JF Forty-five degrees is still pretty ominent. RSK Yeah, that's what I'm interested in. BAC And when it comes back, I'm also going to be curious about why we don't make buildings not meeting this "legal nonconforming" versus "conforming." IF That was... RSK Yeah, that's one of the questions I had. BAC So I want to have a chat about that, we don't need to do it now; but at least on first glance, I can't...it's not a vote I'd have to do that. So with that, then, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to offer testimony on this? There being no one, then I'll leave the public hearing open and ask this be taken to our December meeting. Is there a motion? RAS Will there be time in December? Do you want January? SS Perhaps January. BAC To the first meeting in January. Okay, is there such a motion? RAS So moved. IF Second. BAC Moved and seconded, please vote. RDK Motion carries by unanimous vote. Action: Continued to the meeting of 1/11/01 with Councilman Kelly and Councilmember Benson appointed to evaluate the matter prior to its next consideration. 5-0. 3 CIIY 91 P n I M 01 1 P I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6i I FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-des ea...g PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: October 19, 2000 City of Palm Desert Re: ZOA 00-09 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of October 17, 2000: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF ZOA 00-09 TO CITY COUNCIL BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2023. MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (CHAIRPERSON BEATY WAS ABSENT). 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. c PHILIP DRELL, ECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2023 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.25.016 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE O.P. (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL) DISTRICT. CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, ,did on the 3rd day of October, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to October 17, 2000, to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25.016 setbacks in the O.P. (office professional) district; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project . is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; 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 its recommendation as described below: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent .with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans; and 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve 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 Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.25.016 C. • rF t PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2023 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day of October, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, JONATHAN, LOPEZ NOES: NONE ABSENT: BEATY ABSTAIN: NONE JAMES K. LOPEZ, Vice Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2023 EXHIBIT "A" That Section 25.25.016 C be amended to read as follows: C. Street Front and Side Yard Setbacks. 1 . Street front and side yard setbacks shall be setback the greater of the following: A minimum of twelve feet with an, average of fifteen feet as measured from property line. 2. For buildings approved after October 2000 a minimum of one foot of setback for each foot of building height as measured from the face:of curb based on ultimate planned street section. 3 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 3, 2000 CASE NO: ZOA 00-09 REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.25.016, setback requirements in the O.P. (office professional) district. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: September 5, 2000 Planning Commission directed staff to process the above noted amendment. II. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the setback provisions for the O.P. district. The basic front and street side yard setbacks will remain at a minimum of 12 feet with a required average of 15 feet. We will add a provision requiring a minimum setback from any curb equal to one foot of setback for each foot of building height. We are declaring this section to be "prospective in nature" so that it will only apply to buildings constructed after enactment of the amendment. All buildings not meeting this standard will remain conforming as opposed to becoming legal non-conforming. This new code section will assure that new buildings will hove at least one foot of setback for each foot of building height. The amendment also provides that this setback is to be measured from the location of the curb after the street is widened. III. CEQA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a class 5 categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of ZOA 00-09. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 OCTOBER 3, 2000 IV. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by , WL �Cc Ste a Smith Planning Manager Reviewed and Approved Phil Drell Director of Community Development /tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.25.016 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE O.P. (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL) DISTRICT. CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of October, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to October 17, 2000, to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25.016 setbacks in the O.P. (office professional) district; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; 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 its recommendation as described below: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans; and 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve 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 Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.25.016 C. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of October, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" That Section 25.25.016 C be amended to read as follows: C. Street Front and Side Yard Setbacks. 1 . Street front and side yard setbacks shall be setback the greater of the following: A minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet as measured from property line. 2. For buildings approved after October 2000 a minimum of one foot of setback for each foot of building height as measured from the face of curb based on ultimate planned street section. 3 25.25.010 Chapter 25.25 H. Residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ZONE permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity. (Ord.791 Exhibit B (part), 1996; Ord. Sections: 343, 1983: Ord. 273 (part), 1981) 25.25.010 Purpose. 25.25.011 Development standards. 25.25.015 Site size. 25.25.012 Precise plan of design. Minimum site size for property zoned office professional 25.25.013 Permitted uses. shall be fifteen thousand square feet; the site shall have 25.25.014 Permitted uses subject to a minimum width of seventy feet and depth of one hundred conditional use permit forty feet. (Ord. 273 (part), 1981) 25.25.015 Site size. 25.25.016 Building heights and setbacks. 25.25.016 Building heights and setbacks. 25.25.017 Second-story windows. Building heights and setbacks in an office professional 25.25.018 Nonconversion. zone shall be as follows: A. Interior rear and side yards adjacent to single story 25.25.010 Purpose. residential zones. The purpose of the office professional (C-P) zone, is 1. Minimum average twenty-foot setback for buildings to classify and set standards for those businesses,offices, up to eighteen feet in height. administrative or professional land uses which by their 2. For each additional foot of building height above nature are of relative low intensity and, therefore, when eighteen feet,average setbacks shall be increased by 6.43 properly located and designated, are compatible with to sixty-five feet for a maximum twenty-five feet of building adjacent residential zoning and the development therein. height. (Ord. 273 (part), 1981) 3. To avoid architectural monotony,the planning com- mission may require setbacks to vary plus or minus five 25.25.011 Development standards. feet around the required average. The development standards set out in this chapter shall 4. Maximum building coverage not to exceed fifty apply to all developments in the office professional zone. percent. r.� (Ord. 273 (part), 1981) B. Interior setbacks adjacent to two-story multifamily and commercial zones. 25.25.012 Precise plan of design. 1. Zero or setback standard of the adjacent zone,which- A precise plan of design will be required as specified ever is greater. in Chapter 25.73. (Ord. 273 (part), 1981) C. Street front and side yards shall be a minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet. 25.25.013 Permitted uses. D. Height shall be measured from the lower of the Permitted uses in the O-P zone shall be as follows: following two points:(1)average adjacent curb elevation, A. General offices; or(2)average of pad elevations of directly adjacent proper- B. Medical offices; ties and curb elevation point.Elevation of vacant lots shall C. Laboratories(medical and dental).(Ord.273(part), be measured at the center of the lot.Average shall be the 1981) sum of each elevation divided by the number of elevations. a. (Ord. 449 § 2 (part), 1986) 25.25.014 Permitted uses subject to conditional use permit 25.25.017 Second-story windows. Permitted uses subject to conditional use permit in any There shall be no second-story windows with open views m� O-P zone shall be as follows: to adjacent single-story residential zones. (Ord. 449 § 2 .d A. Professional schools; (part), 1986) B. Business schools; C. Art galleries; 25.25.618 Nonconversion. D. Art studios; No single-family residential structure may be converted E. Financial institutions; to a nonresidential use without approval of a precise plan. F. Commercial parking; (Ord. 273 (part), 1981) G. Churches; 385 (Palm Dexrt 8-96) ' @'1 a� E� CIIY Pr PDEDI DESERT 73-510 FREO WIRING DRIVE PALM D!s[µT, CAI.I FORNIA 92260-2578 TEE: ]GO jq(,-1,611 FAX: 760 341-7098 Info@p11m-dvsne.o„ CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT to amend Section 25.25.016 of the municipal code, the setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional) district. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 3, 2000, at 7:00 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 isavailable 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 PHILIP DRELL, Secretary September 22, 2000 Palm Desert Planning Commission ClIy I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8 TEL: 760 346—O6I I FAX: 750 341' 7098 info@palm-descrt.nrg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT to amend Section 25.25.016 of the municipal code, the setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional) district. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, November 9, 2000, at 7:00 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 h issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in those ssu y p g written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN, Acting City Clerk October 23, 2000 City of Palm Desert, California IIIV 01 P h A DESERt / 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA ALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-oGx x FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: October 4, 2000 City of Palm Desert Re: ZOA 00-09 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of October 3, 2000: PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 TO OCTOBER 17, 2000 BY MINUTE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-0 (COMMISSIONERS JONATHAN AND LOPEZ WERE ABSENT). 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. PHILIP DRELL, ECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Am cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal CITY Of P9 _' M 91SfR1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8 TEL: 760 346—o61 I FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT to amend Section 25.25.016 of the municipal code, the setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional) district. Post-It®Fax Note 7671 RFrorn � pagesCo./Dept. 64 _ or'Phone# v Fax#—7`7 `7 7 / I-J SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 3, 2000, at 7:00 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 PHILIP DRELL, Secretary September 22, 2000 Palm Desert Planning Commission Oil RECEIVED PROOF OF PUBLICATION '00 Winn+Re12C54ty Clcrk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) CITY CLERK'S OFFICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen -- years,and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter.1 am the principal clerk of a printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING o.0035 COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been willllnbeE hold bef IS ore GheEPalmat Desertl�publicheari adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the commission PAILM DESERT t to o amerequest d sects by the s 016 Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of of the munci I code. the setback requirements P h' er in the O.P. ('Vice Professional)district. California under the date of March 24,1988.Case SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesdayy Oc- tober 3,2000.at 7:00 p.m. in the Council C{1am- Number 191236;that the notice,of which the ber at the Palm Desert Civic Center,73-510 Fred annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller time agnd Drive Interested personsse el Invited than non ariel,has been published in each regular to attend and be Heard. written comments cou- p p g ceming all items covered by this public hearing, and entire issue of said newspaper and not in an notice shell be anon c tl concerning to the data of the Y noticehearing.s Information concerning the proF f the supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: protect and/or negative declaration is svelte Is for rev((ew In the Department of Community Develop- ment at the above address between the hours of September 22nd 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. -- P If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to reising only those issues you or someone else rsisetl al the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspon- dence delivered to the Planngging Commission et, or prior to, the publ'ro hPHILIP DFELL, Secretary`( Palm Desert Planning Commission All in the year 2000 PUB: September 22, 2000 1 certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 22nd Dated at Palm Springs,California this day September OfJ,, '2000 Signature ORDINANCE NO. 972 I! AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF I PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 AND 25.30.270 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE OP (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL), C-1 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND PC (PLANNED COMMERCIAL) DISTRICTS. CASE NO ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 1) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did ,on the 28th day of June, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 altering, setback requirements in the C-1, PC and OP districts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2075 recommended approval of Case No. ZOA 00-09 (Revision No. 1 ); and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of jPalm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, _ - Resolution No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its action as described. below: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives_ of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. ' i I ORDINANCE NO. 972 . i 2. That the City Council approves a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 19th day of July , 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, CRITES, SPIEGEL, FERGUSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: KELLY . ABSTAIN: NONE JIM F G 0 MAYOR i i T ST L SHEILA R. GI IG , City Clerk City of Palm DesetV California 2 :snnopol se peal of papuawe eq pgo-gZ'gZ uoiloag legl (Z •ueld leiauaE) aqi to ivaw913 uo!lelnono aqi uj unnogs se gip!M alew!lln sl! of paloniisuoo s! ;sails aqi uegm uopeool gino aqi ueaw ;legs „uoijeool gino aiew!lln„ uo!loas s!gi;o sesodind io3 •sig6u luawdolanap 10 6wpeil aql uegl iaglei Aliodoid papaau aqJ to esegoind g6noigl pags!ldw000e aq pegs uo!;!s!nboe p!es 'idaouoo Moolq iadns a luaweldw! of Aliadoid aimboe of sags!nn Al!o aqi aiagM •aouais!xe ul p!is seen awl Aliodoid iawiol aqi l! se joeglas aq pegs pue Aliedoid paleoeA aqi olu! goeoioue iou ;legs s6ulpl!nq nnau 'idaouoo luawd0lanap loolq iadns a to ionel u! Aenn-to-lg6u paleoeA seq Al!o agi aiagm siol uo •ialeai6 s! ianago!gnn 'lg6!9q 6wplmq to fool goea iol uolleool qmo alew!lln aqi woil )loegles to Jool (t) auo io ou!l Aliedoid aqi woil pamseaw Joel uaall!l to a6eiane ue qJ!M Joel enlannl to wnw!u!w a )loegles aq pegs „al6ueuJ lg6!lAep„ aqi to ap!slno 6uplel s6u!plmq to suolliod io s6u!ppnq �— •pagoelie „y„ am6!l 99S -awl aseq eqJ qJ!M al6ue ig6!i a wiol of uo!Joasialui agi le gjno ay} to sn!pei aqi uo Ju!odp!w aqi woil poinseaw Jg6!aq 6u!ppnq to lool goea iol Joel onnl to aouels!p Noeglas a le pegs!lgeise aq pegs awl aseq agi •sau!l qmo oml aqJ 6u!loauuoo ou!l aseq a pue soul qmo alew!lln aqi Aq pewiol ease ieln6ueul agi ueaw pegs „GjBueuj Jg6!lAeo„ •uo!leool qmo alew!lln aqJ woil pamseaw aq pegs )loeglas p!eS •nnolaq pou!lep „916ueul ig6!lAep„ agi olui goeoioue iou pegs pue 1g6!aq 6u!ppnq to loot AiaAa iol Joel (Z) oMl 10 wnw!u!w e )loegles eq pegs s6u!pinq 'slol iauioo uo •ialeoi6 s! ianago!gm 'uolleool gjno alew!lln eqJ woil pamseaw lg6ieq 6wppnq to loot AiaAa iol )loegles to cool (0 auo io ou!l Aliadoid aqi uioil pamseaw Joel uaaJl!l ;o a6eiane ue gl!nn Joel aAlannl to wnw!ww a aq pegs spieA ap!s iaaiis pue Juoil ;sails •o :snnollol se peal of papuawe aq 0 g l p gZ gZ uo!loa.3 Jegl I L „V,, iISIHX3 Z[6 *ON 33NVNIaIdO i� � } ) ORDINANCE NO. 972_ 25.28.060 Minimum street frontage setback. The minimum street frontage setback shall be five feet. On corner lots buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from average curb height adjacent to the property. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the . curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 3) That Section 25.30.290 Special Setback Requirements be added to read as follows: "Special Setback Requirements" On interior lots in the PC zone districts setbacks shall be the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line) or one (1) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. On corner lots in the PC zone districts, buildings shall be setback from the corner the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 4 1 ORDINANCE NO. 972 25.30.250 for PC(1) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line or a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from adjacent curb height. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached: Buildings or portions of .buildings on corner lots falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25,30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1► or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from,the planned street line) or.a minimum of one (1) foot of setback for each foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 5 _X � �' Ordinance No. ' 972 DAYLIGRr TRIANGLE 61dow alk DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE 1 fie• of curb Property Ile• - i DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE •i walk 211 Where H Equals Building Height DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE �• t000 o ff curs Provorty Ile* DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE .IA•n•Ik DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE /• f•O• of Curb prop•rfy lino DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE •ld6willk DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE ' /• f@C• of curb property lino DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE eldowelk QC i y DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE _ too* of curs property line C� � We II O CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 5, 2001 CASE NO: ZOA 00-09 (Revision No. 1 ) REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance amending Section 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 of the municipal code, the setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional), C-1 (General Commercial) and PC (Planned Commercial) district. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: September 5, 2000 Planning Commission directed staff to process an amendment to setbacks in the O.P. district. October 17, 2000 Planning Commission recommended approval of an amendment which would have added a minimum setback from the curb equal to one foot of setback for each foot of building height. This amendment was forwarded to City Council at its November 9, 2000 meeting. The matter was continued several times, a subcommittee of City Council appointed, and the scope of the amendment expanded to include the C-1 (general commercial) areas and PC (planned commercial) areas. II. DISCUSSION: The main thrust of the revised amendment is the addition of a "daylight triangle" requirement on corner lots in the OP, C-1 and PC zones which will assure greater open space on corners. On corner lots buildings will be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and not encroach into the "daylight triangle." This setback requirement will be measured from the ultimate curb location which is the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan (see attachment 'A' to the draft ordinance). This revised ordinance also provides that in the PC and OP zones the setbacks on interior lots will be the greater of the existing setback provisions or one foot of setback for each foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. The ordinance notes that ultimate curb location is the curb location when the street is constructed to the ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. STAFF REPORT f. CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 JUNE 5, 2001 Lastly, the ordinance provides that where the City vacates property, buildings shall not encroach onto vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. These new provisions will be "prospective in nature" so that it will only apply to buildings constructed after enactment of the amendment. All buildings not meeting this standard will remain conforming as opposed to becoming legal non-conforming. In the case of a terraced building with a single story element at 18 feet in height and a second story section with 30 feet in height, the "daylight triangle" would have two base lines. The first floor section would be setback 36 feet from the ultimate curb location and the second floor element would be 60 feet from the ultimate curb location. This should serve to create openness on corner lots. Ill. CEQA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a class 5 categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of ZOA 00-09 (Revision #1). V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by Steve Smith Planning Manager Reviewed and Approved bPhil Drell �— Director of Community Development /tm 2 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 AND 25.30.270 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE OP (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL), C-1 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND PC (PLANNED COMMERCIAL) DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 (REVISION NO. 11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of June, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 altering setback requirements in the C- 1 , PC and OP districts; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; 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 its recommendation as described below: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans; and 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve 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 Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of June, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 I ! PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" 1) That Section 25.25.016 C be amended to read as follows: C. Street front and street side yards shall be a minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet or one (1) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location, whichever is greater. On corner lots, buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. Buildings or portions of buildings falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback a minimum of twelve feet with an average of fifteen feet or one (1 ) foot of setback from the ultimate curb location for each foot of building height, whichever is greater. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 2) That Section 25.28.060 be amended to read as follows: 25.28.060 Minimum street frontage setback. The minimum street frontage setback shall be five feet. On corner lots buildings shall be setback a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ? be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from average curb height adjacent to the property. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 3) That Section 25.30.290 Special Setback Requirements be added to read as follows: "Special Setback Requirements" On interior lots in the PC zone districts setbacks shall be the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1 ) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line) or one (1 ) foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. On corner lots in the PC zone districts, buildings shall be setback from the corner the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line or a minimum of two (2) feet for every foot of building height and shall not encroach into the "daylight triangle" defined below. Said setback shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. Said building height shall be measured from adjacent curb height. "Daylight triangle" shall mean the triangular area formed by the ultimate curb lines and a base line connecting the two curb lines. The base line shall be established at a setback distance of two feet for each foot of building height 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. . measured from the midpoint on the radius of the curb at the intersection to form a right angle with the base line. See figure "A" attached. Buildings or portions of buildings on corner lots falling outside of the "daylight triangle" shall be setback the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.220 for PC(2); Section 25.30.230 for PC(3); Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); Section 25.30.250 for PC(1 ) or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (building setbacks from the planned street line) or a minimum of one (1) foot of setback for each foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. On lots where the City has vacated right-of-way in favor of a super block development concept, new buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and shall be setback as if the former property line was still in existence. Where the City wishes to acquire property to implement a super block concept, said acquisition shall be accomplished through purchase of the needed property rather than the trading of development rights. For purposes of this section "ultimate curb location" shall mean the curb location when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 5 CIIy of PflA RE5ER1 73-5(o FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8 TEL: 760 346-061 I PAX: 760 341-7098 in(oQ p.lm-dn<n.orR CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 00-09 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by the CITY qF PALM DESERT to amend Section 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250 and 25.30.270 of the municipal code, the setback requirements in the O.P. (Office Professional), C-1 (General Commercial) and PC (Planned Commercial) districts. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 5, 2001, at 7:00 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 PHILIP DRELL, Secretary May 22, 2001 Palm Desert Planning Commission