The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZOA 03-79 HEIGHT & PARKING 1979 t mn-NUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING VIII . RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 79-118 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 79-68 , AND THUS AUTHORIZING AND AGREEING TO FURNISH GROUP HEALTH, DENTAL, AND LIFE INSURANCE COVERAGE WITH BLUE CROSS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND PHOENIX MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES AND GROUP VISION INSURANCE COVERAGE WITH VISION SERVICE PLAN. Mr. Bouman stated that this request stems from a local collapse of the Mission Dental Health Plan in that there had been a falling out between the carrier and the dentist. This resolution would take about the only avenue open to us which is to transfer the coverage to Blue Cross which they are willing to accept . Through the good graces of Dr. McLachlan, we can still avail ourselves of his services at the old contractual rates. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No . 79-118 . Motion carried unanimously. IX. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 213 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 25 . 30 . 230D AND 25 . 58. 310 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL CENTERS . CASE NO. ZOA 03-79 . Mr. Bouman stated that there had been no further input since first reading of the ordinance , and Staff would recommend approval of adoption. However, he stated that he would like to reserve some judgement concerning not necessarily the number of parking spaces , but the size of parking spaces. There is always concern about vast areas of pavement , and in this time of energy crisis , the size of vehicles is changing, and parking spaces may not need to be 9 ft . by 12 ft. He stated that Staff would investigate what other agencies are doing in this regard and report to Council for possible modification of Municipal Code. Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 213 . Motion carried on a 4-0-1 vote with Councilman McPherson abstaining. X. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER ll None �XI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None XII. NEW BUSINESS None XIII. OLD BUSINESS None September 27 , 1979 Page 7 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * H :, 9 * * : k * * * k * * * k k y, k * x * * Y 1; ;; k * * * * * * * * XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER None B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Councilman McPherson inquired as to the status of the Flood Assessment District Study. Mr. Bouman replied that Mr. Mac Brown' s 30=day time limit was almost up, and Council could expect a report from him at the Study Session of October 4th. Councilman McPherson pointed out the condition of Monterey Avenue in the 700 ' strip that is so far undeveloped and thus has no curbs and gutters and is not as wide as the rest of the street. He asked if the owner of the property could not be required to widen it and install the curb and gutter. Staff was directed to investigate the possibility of requiring the two property owners under the 1911 Act or other ways to install the necessary improvements. Mayor Mullins asked that everyone note the Future Meetings listed on the Agenda noting that the Planning Commission JJJ Meeting of October 4th would be held at the George Washington School rather than Council Chambers . XVI. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Brush and Councilman Wilson seconded to adjourn the meeting . Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mullins adjourned the meeting at 9 : 00 p .m. EDWARD D. MULLINS , MAYOR ATTEST : SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT , CALIFORNIA September 27 , 1979 Page 8 ORDINANCE NO. 213 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL FO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 25.30.230 D and 25.58.310 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAIN- ING TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND PARKING REQUIRE- MENTS FOR EEGJDBjL COMMERCIAL CENTERS. CASE NO 0 03-7 The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION 1: That a portion of Sections 25.30.230 D and 25.58.310 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code is hereby amended, as shown on the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit W . SECTION 2: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this Ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 27th day of September 1979, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Brush, Newbrander, Wilson & Mullins NOES: None ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN: McPherson 7m, l D. MULtln, MAYOR JATTEST: 'lull �/ OG SHEILA R. GILLIBAN, CITY CL K City of Palm Desert, Calif rnia CITY COUNCIL ORDIN ;E NO. 213 EXHIBIT "A" Amend the noted Municipal Code Sections to read as follows : 25 . 30. 230 Regional Commercial Standards . . .D. Maximum building height shall be thirty-five feet . 25 . 58 . 310 Commercial and Industrial Off-Street Parking Sche ule. . . Community and regional shopping centers . 5. 5 spaces for each 1,000 sq . ft . of gross leasable area. J M MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY - AUGUST 15, 1979 1:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order at 1:00 p.m. by Chairman Snyder in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Berkey III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Berkey Commissioner Fleshman Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Miller Chairman Snyder Excused Absence: None Others Present: Paul Williams - Director of Environmental Services Murrel Crump - Principal Planner Stan Sawa - Associate Planner . IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of minutes of adjourned meeting of August 2, 1979. Commissioner Kryder asked that on Page Five under Discussion Item . B, paragraph two, that the second sentence be changed as follows : "Commissioner Kryder stated that each development should be looked at individually. " On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Minutes of August 2, 1979, were approved as amended; carried unanimously (5-0) . V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from C.V.C.W.D. , regarding Cove Communities Effluent Reuse Study. Mr. Crump briefly summarized the letter from C.V.C.W.D. Commissioners felt that a study of this nature is important and could be very beneficial . VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. CUP 10- 78 and 143MF, Duaine K. Bricker, C. Cortland Smith, and Roger M. Walton, Applicants. Request for approval of a one-year time extension for implementation of an approved Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Design Case to allow construction of sixteen condominium units on approximately 1.32 acres within the R-3 (Multi-family Residential ) zone, located south from Palm Desert Drive (Highway 111 frontage road) , between Shadow Hills Road and Deep Canyon Road. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 1979 Page Two Mr. Crump presented the case, noting that the considerations relating to the original approval still appear valid and recommended approval . There were no questions from the Commissioner at this time, I` so Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone Present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request. DUAINE K. BRICKER, 48-726 Sageflower Lane, Palm Springs, applicant, asked that the request be approved. There being no one else who wished to speak, Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing closed. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Fleshman, a one-year time extension for CUP 10-78 and 143MF was approved by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 521, as presented; carried unanimously (5-0). B. Case No, ZOA 03-79 City of Palm Des3rt, Applicant. Request for approval of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Text (Municipal Code Sections 25.30.230 D and 25.58.310) relative to the maximum building height and parking requirements for developments in the P.C. (3) (Planned Commercial Regional ) zone. Mr. Crump presented the case indicating that the nature of structures in regional large-scale developments are such that additional height provisions appear warranted. Additionally, Mr. Crump pointed out that the City Redevelopment Agency Traffic Consultant has provided survey information which indicates that our present parking standard is excessive. Mr. Crump concluded by recommending approval of the proposed changes to height limit and parking requirements. Commission discussion ensued with Commissioner Berkey stating that he was not sure that the maximum height limit should be increased unless a good reason existed. Commissioner Fleshman stated that the imposition of a height limit may minimize opportunities for creativity and also suggested other possible alternatives. Chairman Snyder stated that he felt there should be some limitation to the height of structures in regional centers. Chairman Snyder then declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request. There beAg none, he .declared the Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Berkey stated that the parking study appeared to be comprehensive and complete. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, ZOA 03-79 was approved by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 522, as presented; carried unanimously (5-0) . - VII. OLD BUSINESS - None VIII . NEW BUSINESS - None IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - None 1 � • J MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 1979 Page Three X. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None XI . COMMENTS l A. City Staff - Mr. Crump informed the Planning Commissioners of the new Design Review Board member appointments. B. City Attorney - None C. Planning Commissioners - Commissioners asked to have Mr. Clyde Beebe at the next study session to inform the Commission of flood related problems within the City of Palm Desert. XII. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Fleshman, the Commission adjourned the meeting at 1:50 P.M. ; carried unanimously (5-0). PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: WALTER SNYDER, Chairman /cam r 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CAU FORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 August 24, 1979 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE Request for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text (Municipal Code Sections 25.30.230D and 25.58.310) relative to the maximum building height and parking requirements for develop- ments in the PC (3) (Planned Commercial , Reg- ional ) Zone. 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 the City's zoning text for Municipal Code Sections 25.30.230D and 25.58.310 relative to the maximum building height and parking requirements for developments in the PC (3) (Planned Commercial , Regional ) zone. SAID Public Hearing will be held on September 13, 1979 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post August 30, 1979 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALI FORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Pursuant to Title 14, Div. 6, Article 7, Sec. 15083 , of the California Administra- tive Code) Case No. : ZOA 03-79 (E.A. No. 79-04) Common Project None Name ( if any) Applicant/Project Sponsor : Cityof Palm Desert California , Project Description/Location: Amendments to the Palm Desert Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relative to the maximum building height and parking standards for developments in the P.C. (3) zone. The Director of the Dept . of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert , California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment . A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid poten- tially significant effects, may also be found attached . �'�`y�'Paul A. i liams, ICP / Date Dir. of Environmental Services A R CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission REPORT ON: Zoning Ordinance Amendments APPLICANT: City Initiation CASE NO: ZOA 03-79 DATE: duly-18y 1979 aW,. 15 I. REQUEST: Request for approval of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text (Municipal Code Sections 25.30.23ODand 25.58.310) relative to the maximum building height and parking requirements for developments in the PC (3) (Planned Commercial , Regional Zone II. BACKGROUND: A. Present Ordinance Provisions: 25.30.230 "Re Tonal commercial standards. . . .D. maximum building height shall be thirty feet. " 25.58.310 "Commercial and industrial off-street parking schedule. . . .Community and Regional Shopping Centers. 5.5 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. " B. Amendments for Consideration: 25.30.230 Re Tonal commercial standards. . . .D. Maximum building height sha e t irty-five feet. 25.58.310 Commercial and industrial off-street parking schedule. . . .Community and regional shopping centers. 5 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area. III. DISCUSSION: Staff review of the subject Zoning Ordinance sections indicates a need for amendment to reflect the current evaluation of viable development standards. The nature of structures in regional , large- scale, developments are such that additional height provisions appear warranted. The City Redevelopment Agency Traffic Consultant has pro- vided survey information in the form of an article, titled, "Parking Demand at the Regionals", which indicates that our present standard is excessive. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval to the City Council of the amendments, by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. _ ,i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 522 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATIVE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL CENTERS. IIl CASE NO. ZOA 03-79 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on August 15, 1979, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider a City initiated request for amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance text (Municipal Code Sections 25.30.230 D and 25.58.310) relative to the maximum building height and parking requirements for developments in the PC (3) (Planned Commercial , Regional ) zone; WHEREAS, said applications have complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure, Resolution No. 78-32", in that the activity described has been found not to present a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any; of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify their recommendations and actions on the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, as described below: 1. The proposed text amendment is consistant with the objectives of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. ( 2. The proposed text amendment is consistant with the Il objectives of the Palm Desert General Plan and Palm Desert Redevelopment Plan. 3. The amendments are necessary to produce viable regional commercial centers. 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 an amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance Text, as described in Exhibit "A", attached. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of August, 1979, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Berkey, Kryder, Miller, Fleshman, Snyder NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None WALTER H. SNYDER, Chairman ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary f w PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 522 Exhibit "A" Amend the noted Municipal Code Sections to read as follows: 25.30.230 Regional commercial standards. . . .D. Maximum building height shall be thirty-five feet. 25.58.310 Commercial and industrial off-street parking schedule. . . .Community and regional shopping centers. 5 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area. l l_ PROOF OF PUBLICATION (20109 2015.5 CCP) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO ZONING mo� REQUEST h _ �gQ °ram ° I am a citizen of the United 8 8 0 m States and a resident of the =3 3mm County aforesaid; I am over the n °g �x 0i age of eighteen years# and not a party to or interested in the °na �m _ above entitled matter. I am the <_> 4$'- principal clerk of the printer 0*-N%nU is of PALM DESERT POSTS a newpaper of Sn$'3 ImH general circulations printed and published daily in the frm mom city of Riverside# County of Riverside# and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by they$ 4 _ Superior Court of the County of ro ZG�G An n�G' Riverside# State of California# under date of October 5s 1964, °'_.'- gfo°v��no Case number 83658; that the ��3�g notice # of which the annexed is g��gg$N�3 =. 28xa a printed copy# has been published 8 ;99=< in each regular and entire issue 05- *3 '- of said newspaper and not in any eq4 1— supplement thereof on the following q dates# to-wit: �g' 08/9 11979 - 3g n 8 s I Certify (or declare) under 'o � penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. g . n Dated August 99 1979 at Riversides California CITY OF PALM DESERT + IL CASE NO. f5D/a Environmental Assessment Form TO THE APPLICANT: Your cooperation in completing this form and supplying the information requested will expedite City review of your application pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The City is required to make an environmental assessment on all projects which it exercises discretionary approval over. Applications submitted will not be considered complete until all information necessary to make the environmental assessment is complete. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Name, address, and telepho a number of owner, applicant or project sponsor: ,�//Tf�Df�i&/>l�T� D ,60XZ!i �17T� l<2zloo 2. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted con- , cerning the project (such as arf�hitect, engineer, or other rep,r7p sentative) :�� A L�//LG✓ �i� o�E�/y� 1�i'E5 3. Common name of project (if any): I-10AI0 4. Project location (street address or general location) : 5. Precise legal description of property (lot and tract number, or meets & bounds): 6. Proposed use ctf- (project for which the form is filed; describe the total undertaki g, not just the current application approval being sought) : draiD�!/� �EFLli�— R IL 7. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects (describe how this project relates to other activities, phases, and develop- ments planned, or now underway) : ,a_�� l/� 8. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, to go forward, including those required by the City, Regional , State and Federal agencies (indicate sub- sequent approval agency name, and type of approval required) : EXISTING CONDITIONS: 9. Project site area: (Size of property in sq. ft. or acreage) 10. Pres nt zoning: (Proposed zoning) : 11 . General lan land use designation: 12. Existing u of the project site: 13. Existing use XFaily ent properties: (Example - North, Shopping Center; South, SingleDwellings; East, Vacant, etc. ) . 14. Site topography (describe) : 15. Are there any natural or manmade dr inage channels through or adjacent to the property? NO YES 16. Grading (estimate number of cubic yards f dirt being moved): 17. List the number, size and type of trees bein removed: 9 18. Describe any cultural , historic, or scenic aspects f the project site: 19. Residential Project (if not residential do NOT answer) A. Number and type of dwelling units (Specify no. of bedrooms) : B. Schedule of unit sizes: C. Number of stories Height feet. D. Largest single building (sq. ft. ) (hgt. ) E. Type of household size expected (population projection for the project) : F. Describe the number and type of recreational facilities : G. Is there any night lighting of the project: H. Range of sales prices or rents: $ to $ I . Percent of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . . . % Landscaping, Open, Recreation Area . . . . . . % F ` 20. Commercial , Industrial , Institutional or Other Project: A. Type of use(s) and Najor function(s) (if offices, specify type & number) : e' �/� �STff%GG.�/f�6�TS B. Number of square feet in total building area: i4i�2�y �'RoPosE ' C. Number of stories Qi Height 35 feet.rM+jVd-�E MOM 30 D. Largest single building (Sq. Ft. ) (Hgt. ) E. Number of square feet in outdoor storage area: F. Total number of required parkingparking spaces J� , number provided ' %-, ,P656D ffF4NlvS� G. Hours of operation: H. Maximum number of clients, patrons , shoppers, etc. , at one time: I. Maxi number of employees at one time: A11A J. If patron seating is involved, state the number: K. Is there any night lighting of the project: Yes No A114 L. Percent of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . . % Landscaping and Open Space (Recreation). . % ` II �pu-c-D Q�AuC� 77JI5 ` aF 3i� � �I Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects : Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 21 . Change in existing features of hillsides , or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in the dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in the project vicinity. 23. Subject to or resulting in soil errosion by wind v or flooding. 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 25. Change in existing noise or vibration level in the vicinity. Subject to roadway or airport noise (has the required acoustical report been submitted?) 26. Involves the use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances , flammables or explosives. 27. Involves the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. 28. Changes the demand for municipal services (police, fire, sewage, etc. ) 29. Changes the demand for utility services , beyond those presently available or planned in the near future. 30. Significantly affects any unique or natural features, including mature trees. 31 . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public land or public roads. 32. Results in the dislocation of people. 4 , YES NO 33. Generates controversy based on aesthetics or y� other features of the project. [5e] Additional explanation of "yes" answers �. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation, to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Name Print or Types For Signature oF Date INITIAL STUDY FEE: $30. 00 (Make check payable to the City of Palm Desert and sub- mit with this form. ) � Y f CASE NO. 7 � o3-7y 79-0# ENVI'AOMI$NTAL SERVICES DEPT. INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) . Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements , compaction, or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering., or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Z. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? — — b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ 2, Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a._ C.hanges in currents, 'or the course or f; direction of water movements? L/ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? C/ c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? — — 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass , and crops)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 5. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, or v insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat? v 3. Yes- M�be No 6. Natural Resources_. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in -the rate of use of any natural resources? - b. Depletion offiany non-renewable natural resource? 7. Energy.. Will the proposal result in: i a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — — b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.deselopment of new sources of energy. 8. .Risk of Upset:tiDoes the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, pesticides, oil , chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 9. Economic Loss. Will the proposal result in: A a. A change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? t. — — — b. A change in the value of property and improvementsrexposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted community risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing = noise levels toethe point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? fi a — — — 11. Land Use. Willethe proposal result in the as to ation of the present developed or planned land use of an area? — — 12. Open Space. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the namount of designated open space? 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration ol= the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of' the City? b. Change in the population distribution by ht age, income,_-religion, racial , or ethnic group, occupational class, household type? _ _ — 4. Yes Maybe No 14. Employment. Will the proposal result in additional new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? _ 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? — — e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? — — — 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. fire protection? fr�aa xow•v. Foy — b. Police protection? c. Schools? '--� d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 4 5. Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? c/ 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? c. Water? c� d. Sewer or septic tanks? L/ e. Storm water drainage? [� f. Solid waste and disposal? 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health care provided? 21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? c. L'essening of the overall neighborhood (or area) attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness? L� 23. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? ✓ 24. Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration— of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? 6. Yes nL a No 25. Mandatory findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? — — b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into c/ the future. ) — — c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) _ _ — d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: —_ of MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18 , 1979 Page Four COMMISSIONER FLESHMAN RE-ENTERED THE ROOM. VII . OLD BUSINESS - None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for consideration for City initiation of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text (Muncipal Code Sections 25. 30 .230 D, and 25. 58 . 310) relative to the maximum building height and parking requirements for developments in the PC (3) (Planned Commercial, Regional) Zone. Mr. Williams presented the Staff Report noting that material had been received from the City' s traffic consultant regarding the paking demand for regional centers , compared to what is now required under our Ordinance; and, also that he wished for the opportunity to discuss with the Commission Height Standards and the realities of construction of two story facilities of the magnitude of a regional center, and the re- quirement for equipment. He concluded his report by suggesting the Commission hold a Public Hearing to consider reducing the parking requirement from 5. 5 spaces per 1 , 000 square feet of gross floor area to 5 spaces per 1, 000 square of gross leaseable area; and, increasing maximum building height from 30 feet to 35 feet. Chairman Snyder indicated his reluctance to initiate a hearing to reduce these standards. Commissioner Kryder" clarified the need to conduct a hearing on these matters, and offered his evaluation of parking in nearby regional centers. Discussion regarding building height, was continued by Commissioner Fleshman, followed by an exchange of thoughts on these matters between the Commission and Staff. It was concluded that it might serve a purpose to have a hearing and receive more information. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Commission initiated a Public Hearing for Case No. ZOA 03-79 , by adopting Planning Commission Resolu- tion No. 512; carried unanimously (4-0) . B. Case No. TT 14968 Request for comments from the City of Indian Wells. Mr. Crump presented the background of this matter requesting that Staff be authorized to transmitt a response letter indicating concern for City review,of portions of the project within Palm Desert corporate limits, recommending a special condition regarding undergrounding of a transmission line now existing on the west side of Toro Peak Road, and any other matters the Commission deemed appropriate. The Commission viewed the Tentative Map exhibit and discussed with Staff the inclusion of an additional response item relative to the improvements along Portola Avenue. It was directed by Chairman Snyder that Staff be authorized to transmitt the concerns as discussed, with the other Commissioners unanimously concuring. I CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission REPORT ON: Zoning Ordinance Amendments APPLICANT: City Initiation CASE NO: (Tentative) ZOA 03-79 DATE: July 18, 1979 I. REQUEST: Consideration for City initiation of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text (Municipal Code Sections 25.30.230D and 25.58.310) relative to the maximum building height and parking requirements for developments in the PC (3) (Planned Commercial , Regional Zone) II. BACKGROUND: A. Present Ordinance Provisions : 25.30.230 "Regional commerical standards. . . .D. maximum building height shall be thirty feet. 25.58.310 "Commercial and industrial off-street parking schedule. . . .Community and Regional Shopping Centers. 5.5 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area." B. Amendments for Consideration: 25.30.230 Regional commercial standards. . . .D. Maximum building height shall be thirty-five feet. 25.58.310 Commercial and industrial off-Street parking schedule. . . .Community and regional shopping centers. 5 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area. III . DISCUSSION: Staff review of the subject Zoning Ordinance sections indicates a need for amendment to reflect the current evaluation of viable development standards. The nature of structures in regional , large-scale, develop- ments are such that additional height provisions appear warranted. The City Redevelopment Agency Traffic Consultant has provided survey information in the form of an article, titled, "Parking Demand at the Regionals" , which indicates that our present standard is excessive. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Initiate Public Hearing for Case No. ZOA 03-79, by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 512 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATIVE TO MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL CENTERS. CASE NO. ZOA 03-79 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the standards now contained in Municipal Code Sections 25.30.230 D. and 25.58.310, and found that amendment may be warranted; and WHEREAS, Section 25.82.020 of the Muncipal Code provides for Planning Commission initiation of hearings for purposes of recommending Zoning Ordinance Text amendments to the City Council . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That it does hereby initiate case no. ZOA 03-79, concerning the maximum building height and parking requirements for regional commercial centers. 2. That the Commission does hereby direct the Secretary to establish a Public Hearing for such purpose on August 15, 1979, at the regular meeting of the Commission. ( PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Il Planning Commission, held on this 18th, day of July 1979, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WALTER H. SNYDER, Chairman ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary /lr 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 July 30, 1979 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE Request for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text (Municipal Code Sections 25.3O.230D and 25.58.310) relative to the maximum building height and parking requirements for develop- ments in the PC (3) (Planned Commercial , Reg- ional ) Zone. 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 the City's zoning text for Municipal Code Sections 25.3O.23OD and 25.58.310 relative to the maximum building height and parking requirements for developments in the PC (3) (Planned Commercial , Regional ) zone. SAID Public Hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 15, 1979 at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested per- sons are invited to attend and be heard. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post August 2 , 1979