HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 04-01 OFFICE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 2004 9�-ODD.
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O.P.)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 25.25 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, RESTRICTING BUILDING HEIGHT
AND REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL SCALE ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS WHICH MAY BE
DEVELOPED IN AN O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON
PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 23rd
day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to
the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2291 has
recommended approval of the proposed amendment; 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. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of CEQA Guidelines; 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 approval 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 then the current regulations.
i
r
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
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.
2. That ZOA 04-01 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this 14th day of October , 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CRITES, FERGUSON, BELLY, SPIEGEL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BENSON
ABSTAIN: NONE
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, May r
ATTEST:
RA ELLE D. KLASSEN, Ci y Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
t
\t
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
1
EXHIBIT A
That Section 25.25.019 be added to read:
25.25.019 Building limitations for O.P. zoned lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story with a
maximum basic height of 15 feet and in no event shall the height exceed 18 feet in
height. Approval of a building height over 15 feet shall be discretionary based on
architectural merit. Project to be subject to O.P. setback standards. Overall
architectural design shall be consistent with the residential character of the
surrounding area.
3
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
text, Chapter 25.25, to restrict the height and design of buildings in
the O.P. zone on lots fronting on Portola Avenue between Fred
Waring Drive and De Anza Way.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NO: ZOA 04-01
DATE: September 23, 2004
CONTENTS:
Recommendation
Discussion
Draft Ordinance No. 1078
Legal Notice
Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 7, 2004
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2291
Recommendation:
That the City Council pass Ordinance No. 1078 to second reading.
Discussion:
Background:
During the review of the General Plan there was considerable discussion as to the
appropriate land use along the west side of Portola Avenue south of Fred Waring
Drive. Ultimately, the City Council dual designated the area residential medium
density/office professional and directed staff to return with appropriate amendments
to the O.P. standards to provide buildings which are architecturally residential in
character.
Ordinance No. 1078
Staff Report
Case No. ZOA 04-01
Page 2
September 23, 2004
Program 10.13 of the Community Design Element states:
"The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance implementing the C-OP
designation to assure that appropriate, more restrictive architectural
standards affecting building heights and setbacks, and other
development standards are applied to office development along non-
arterial street corridors to ensure compatibility with surrounding
residential areas.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning
Commission, City Council
Schedule: 2004-05"
Concurrent with this code amendment we are processing an application for a two-
story office building in this same area. (McFadden/Portola Properties on this same
agenda through the appeal process.)
Planning Commission:
This code amendment was considered by Planning Commission at its September
7, 2004 meeting. The commission,following an extensive discussion, recommended
approval of a code amendment which would limit office buildings on Portola
between Fred Waring and De Anza to a basic height limit of 15 feet with the ability
to go to 18 feet if architectural merited. Commission wanted to be assured that a
"residential scale" would be achieved. Commission on a 5-0 vote recommended
approval of the amendment.
Analysis:
City Council in its discussion of the appropriate land use along Portola south of Fred
Waring Drive determined that O.P. could be acceptable provided that the buildings
were residential in scale.
Accordingly, staff was directed to process a code amendment requiring office
buildings to reflect a residential scale. Restrictions to be considered included
building heights, one story, two stories, setbacks and overall building mass.
The enclosed amendment, if approved, will limit buildings in the O.P. zone located
on lots fronting on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
to one story with a basic height of 15 feet with the ability to go up to 18 feet when
• ORdinance No. 1078
Staff Report
Case No. ZOA 04-01
Page 3
September 23, 2004
architecturally merited, the intent being to have office buildings which are residential
in character. Given the low building height of the existing homes in the area, a two-
story office building would be out of character.
Projects will be subject to O.P. setback standards which are already consistent with
residential standards.
The proposed amendment reads:
"Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots fronting on Portola
Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be
limited to one story with a maximum basic height of 15 feet and
in no event shall the height exceed 18 feet in height. Approval
of a building height over 15 feet shall be discretionary based
on architectural merit. Project to be subject to O.P. setback
standards. Overall architectural design shall be consistent with
the residential character of the surrounding area."
CEQA Review:
The proposed code amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes
of CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary.
Submitted by: Department Head: '7
Steve Smith Phil Drell .
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Approval: Approval:
lAl
A��
Homer Croy Carlos L. Ortega
ACM for Development Services City Manager
Am
(WpCORVMk We0441.a) 3
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O.P.)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 25.25 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, RESTRICTING BUILDING HEIGHT
AND REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL SCALE ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS WHICH MAY BE
DEVELOPED IN AN O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON
PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 23rd
day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to
the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2291 has
recommended approval of the proposed amendment; 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. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of CEQA Guidelines; 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 approval 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 then the current regulations.
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
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.
2. That ZOA 04-01 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
EXHIBIT A
That Section 25.25.019 be added to read:
25.25.019 Building limitations for O.P. zoned lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story with a
maximum basic height of 15 feet and in no event shall the height exceed 18 feet in
height. Approval of a building height over 15 feet shall be discretionary based on
architectural merit. Project to be subject to O.P. setback standards. Overall
architectural design shall be consistent with the residential character of the
surrounding area.
3
City of Palm Desert/Adopled3.15.64
Comprehensive General Plan/Community Design Element
Program 10.A
! The City shall review all commercial, institutional and industrial development to assure
accommodation of pedestrian-oriented circulation, safe and convenient ingress and egress,
screening of outdoor storage/loading and other unsightly areas, lighting, signage, and the
planting of landscaping to provide an effect of permanency in the near-term.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Schedule: Continuous
Program 10.13
The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance implementing the C-OP designation to assure that
appropriate, more restrictive architectural standards affecting building heights and setbacks, and
other development standards are applied to office development along non-arterial street corridors
i to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential areas.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department,Planning Commission, City Council
Schedule: 2004-05
Policy 11
Community and neighborhood activity centers shall be established at appropriate locations to
create recreational opportunities, encourage social interaction and provide a sense of public
space and center for neighborhood activity.
Program 11.A
The City shall continue to actively pursue joint use agreement with the Desert Sands and Palm
Springs Unified School Districts to promote the appropriate public use of school open space, and
athletic and other facilities as integral parts of adjoining and nearby neighborhoods.
Responsible Agency: Parks and Recreation Department, Planning Department, School Districts,
Planning Commission, City Council
Schedule: Continuous
Program 11.B
The City shall review development proposals for opportunities to integrate parks, plazas, squares
and other open space areas that allow and facilitate public use and social interaction.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council
I Schedule: Continuous
Policy 12
The City shall maintain and enforce a Sign Ordinance that minimizes the size, scale and number
of signs needed to provide functional identification and exposure to convey messages, while
minimizing impacts on traffic safety, streetscape appearance and scenic viewsheds.
I
Program 12.A
The City shall review and, as necessary, revise the signage regulations set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance addressing all aspects of sign review,.and shall establish finite periods by which
existing non-conforming signage shall be retired.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council
Schedule: Continuous
Community Design Element
III-154
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 7, 2004
CASE NO: ZOA 04-01
REQUEST: Approval of a zoning ordinance amendment, Chapter 25.25, to limit
buildings in the O.P. zone on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive
and De Anza Way to single story, maximum 18 feet in height and maximum
100 feet in length.
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
During the review of the General Plan there was considerable discussion as to the
appropriate land use along the west side of Portola Avenue south of Fred Waring Drive.
Ultimately, the City Council dual designated the area residential medium density/office
professional and directed staff to return with appropriate amendments to the O.P.
standards to provide buildings that are: a) one story; and 2) "architecturally residential"
in character. (See minutes of City Council dated January 29, 2004, pages 14-17 and 56;
and February 5, 2004, pages 14-16 and 54, attached.)
We are also in receipt of an application for a two-story office building in this same area.
That application will be processed concurrent with this item.
II. ANALYSIS:
City Council in its discussion of the appropriate land use along Portola south of Fred
Waring Drive determined that O.P. could be acceptable provided that the buildings were
residential in scale.
Accordingly, staff was directed to process a code amendment requiring office buildings
to reflect a residential scale. Restrictions to be considered included building heights, one
story, two stories, setbacks and overall building mass.
The enclosed amendment, if approved, will limit buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots
adjacent to or fronting on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
to one story with a maximum height of 18 feet and a maximum length of 100 feet, the
intent being to have office buildings which are residential in character. Given the low
building height of the existing homes in the area, a two-story office building would be out
of character.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Project will be subject to O.P. setback standards which are already consistent with
residential standards.
The proposed amendment reads:
"Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots adjacent to or fronting on
Portola Avenue between Fred Waring and De Anza shall be limited
to one story with a maximum height of 18 feet and limited to a
maximum length of 100 feet. Project to be subject to O.P. setback
standards."
III. CEQA REVIEW:
The proposed code amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of
CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
That Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 04-01
by adoption of the draft Planning Commission Resolution attached hereto.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
C. City Council Minutes of January 29 and February 5, 2004
Prepared by: Revi w nd Approved by:
Steve Smith P it Drell
iE
na er Director of Community Development
Concur:
ACM for Develo a Services
/tm
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 25.25 TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF BUILDINGS IN THE
O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON OR ADJACENT TO
PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; 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. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of CEQA Guidelines; 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.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare then 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of September, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
That Section 25.25.019 be added to read:
25.25.019 Building Limitations for O.P. Zoned Lots Fronting on or Adjacent to
Non Arterial Streets
Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots adjacent to or fronting on Portola
Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story
with a maximum height of 18 feet and limited to a maximum length of 100 feet.
Project to be subject to O.P. setback standards.
3
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
RAS Councilman Ferguson.
JF Well, along the same lines, I was just amazed that we're so good that
everything.south of Frank Sinatra is perfect, and we haven't looked at the
Commercial Core Plan, we haven't looked at the Palma Village Plan. I
personally have seen the evolution of the Service Industrial zone along Cook
Street evolve into a mixed use with some retail and that we've got a
supermarket there and a bank and a restaurant when it was supposed to be
Industrial. As a result of that, we now have people coming back and saying
there are parking problems and circulation problems. And it amazes me that
we haven't at least looked at that or addressed it or double checked our
thinking or somehow acknowledged that maybe the use has evolved from
when it was originally envisioned. And couldn't we at least take a look at the
Service Industrial area all the way from our affordable housing development
all the way over to KESQ and...why didn't we...
PD And we did. To say that we didn't change it doesn't mean to say that we
didn't look at it. We have changed our whole definition of"Industrial" based
on the reality of what the market has responded to in those areas. We no
longer have a Service Industrial designation. We're calling it Industrial
Business Park because the reality of what has happened in all those areas is
a mixture of, you know...really, we started with that zone to put the junk that
we wanted to get off of Highway 111. That was really the...and what it
evolved into was what you just said, it's a mixture of offices, industrial areas,
and that's why we changed the category to be much broader. But, you know,
those areas are 98% built out, as is most of the area south of Frank Sinatra,
and what we tried to do is, where we did make changes in categories or we
did make some changes, that they were reflective of the physical
development out there. So the fact that things...that we're not recommending
any changes doesn't mean we didn't look at it. It's just that we looked at it
and said what's there is...in terms of a General Plan discussion, is pretty
much what's going to be there, with the exception of areas where we said
because of the evolution of the City, these designations aren't appropriate,
and those are things we've talked about...on Portola, on north Highway 111,
we'll talk about it now on Fred Waring. As I say, the fact that they didn't
change it doesn't mean that we didn't look at it. And, again...
BAC In that same light, the discussion that we will have on Deep Canyon and
building of another building on San Pablo, an O.P. building on San Pablo, at
least brings an issue to me as one person that I'd like us to discuss at some
point, and that is...it certainly appears that (inaudible) O.P. can be
appropriate along our six-lane major arterials...Fred Waring, Monterey...but,
one person's opinion, that they appear to be much less appropriate on
streets that are not those wide, six-lane, kind of streets. I know we're
14
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
now...collector streets...we're now looking at Portola and O.P. on Portola
north and south of Fred Waring, we're being asked to look at O.P. on Deep
Canyon, San Pablo, and I suspect other places as well.
RSK And a bunch in the North Sphere.
BAC A bunch out there, so I would like to at least look at the issue of having O.P.
where we so choose along those types of streets to both be a) one-story; b)
"architecturally residential" in character. That doesn't mean they're
residences, but that means that to a passerby, it has a less commercial feel
to it. Now, I don't know if anybody else thinks that or not, but I just...I look
again at a very beautiful building, I'm sure, architecturally on San Pablo, right
next to the street, da-da da-da da-da, and...we've never learned this lesson
very well...here we are yet another time with something that when we look at
it, it all seems fine and wonderful, and when we build it...I've had that with
Charlie Martin's building 20 years ago and Dr. Shah and so on. Perhaps, as
I say, on the major ones, fair enough, but on these other ones...I'd at least
like to look at that issue.
PD And it can be...the next step in the process would be to re-examine the
Zoning Ordinance to adjust whatever goals and objectives that the current
code might be pursuing, how they might be changed.
BAC Maybe this is a General Plan goal...
PD Correct.
BAC ...if the Council so...anyhow, I'd like to visit that in one of our sessions.
PD Sure. In the listing of programs and policies within the land use element as it
relates to the Zoning Ordinance, we can identify that that program, that issue
and that program, to be focused on when we re-examine the Zoning
Ordinance.
RAS Councilman Kelly.
RSK Along with...I agree wholeheartedly with Mayor Pro Tern Crites. Also, there's
a setback problem because we have this building across the street that...it's
right almost on the street, and even with six lanes wide it's still a problem, so
there's a long way...and I agree 100%, there should be areas where
one-story is allowed and it should blend in, and there are areas where
probably two-story might be okay, but...along with the two-story should be
some setback.
RAS Councilman Ferguson.
15
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
JF Well, I agree with both the Mayor Pro Tern and Councilman Kelly, and it goes
back to what I asked Mr. Criste at our last meeting, which is the finer details
of this General Plan, which I hope will engraft some of the genius of the
philosophy of my colleagues on this Council on items such as...as a general
rule of thumb, we don't like to crowd corners...as a general rule of thumb, we
like to provide view corridors where possible...as a general rule of thumb,
we'd like to preserve open space...as a general rule of thumb, we want
setbacks. All of those philosophies really don't codify well into a specific item
in the General Plan, but somehow that philosophy needs to be worked in
here. And when you say we didn't change anything south of Frank Sinatra,
did we at least include some of those concepts?
PD There are those sort of concepts in the urban design element. When I made
that statement I was talkingabout land use designations, which is what
9 ,
we're talking about right now.
JF Well, I just don't want to give our residents the opinion that all we care about
is north of Frank Sinatra, and to hell with the rest of the City, we're just going
to leave it as it is. Because I think we are trying to engraft what we did to the
south part of the City in a document so that people have a good indicator of
what they should do north of Frank Sinatra when we get down to the
specifics of planning.
RAS Councilwoman Benson.
JMB (Inaudible)
PD I think we'd like to finish the General Plan. Remember...at any time,
remember, we have a pending ordinance that any time the Council give us
specific direction as to what to come back with, we bring something back.
The...so...I mean, again,we're...you know,we've been amending ordinances,
you know, right and left over the last 20 years, trying to better address the
general goals of our existing General Plan. Any time you want to direct staff
to come back with an ordinance on any subject, we can do that.
JF Was it your thought that, since we did take an action on the hillsides, that we
get an ordinance in the works sooner as opposed to later?
JMB (Inaudible)
RDK Councilmember Benson, is your microphone on, or close enough to you?
wouldn't want to miss your comments.
PD Do you want to put what we had...
16
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
JMB It was just my thought that we should bring that one back as soon as possible
to get it cemented, I guess.
JF Well, I guess pursuant to my druthers, Riverside County is promulgating an
ordinance, and if you could check with them, I think they're trying to work off
of our ordinance. And I would at least express to you personally some desire
to see you work off of their version as well because they're the same, and it
doesn't matter where a property owner lives on that section line, they're
going to live under the same rules no matter what.
PD Yes, it's just the...I've distributed, and I probably should distribute to all of
you...unfortunately, the ordinance that was distributed to me bears no
relationship to, I think, our particular goals. The structure might have some
interesting aspects to it, but in terms of the specifics of it, it's actually
probably more permissive than our current ordinance.
JF Well, then, maybe you can share that with the Planning Director of Riverside
County because I think his goal is the same as ours.
PD Okay. If that's the ordinance he wants to (inaudible) then that's not going
to...that doesn't help us all that much. I distributed, and I'd love to get
comments, and I don't know if Jean's gotten it...
RSK I don't remember it.
PD Okay. Well, we'll get that to all of you, and you can look at it. Unfortunately,
it is thicker than our entire Zoning Ordinance, but...I'd love to get comments,
and based on those comments,just like we did the previous process with the
hillside, we drafted something and sent it to you guys, we got comments, and
then we came back to you with something. If you want to take a look at this
thing, give me comments, and...
RSK Double comment here. I agree with Councilmember Ferguson. It seems like
if they're doing an ordinance and we're doing an ordinance, we ought to do it
so that they're the...people have the same ordinance if they're going to live
next door to each other. But that's that part. But the other part is...this is off
the subject, but it's not off the subject because I see Jean down there needed
a balloon like I used to...but another organization where I chair it, they have a
wish to speak button, and as Chairman of that, it's really valuable because I
can just sit there and watch the audience and also see the button when
somebody wants to speak. And having sat on the end for quite a while, I
wish we had a button so the Mayor would know when we wanted to say
something.
RAS Well, we actually have one.
17
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
3. Land Use North of Frank Sinatra Drive and Related Land Use Items
Cook Street at Whitewater Channel/Merle
- Directed staff to provide the City Council with a detailed area map
of the,area along Cook Street north of the Whitewater Channel to
discuss in a future Closed Session potential acquisition of the
vacant lots adjacent to the Coachella Valley Recreation & Park
District (CVRPD) Golf Center, further requesting that input from
CVRPD also be obtained as to whether any future recreational
opportunities would be available at this site.
Area Along Fred Warina
- Directed staff to bring to the next General Plan Meeting a
discussion regarding current designations and uses in the
Palma Village Plan as they relate to Office Professional along
Fred Waring and Santa Rosa.
Commercial Core Plan/Palma Village Plan/Cook Street Service Industrial
- Asked staff to bring back a review of the named areas and
designations.
Office Professional Designation
- Requested review of O.P. in areas along collector streets where
one-story and an architecturally residential character would be
more appropriate, along with review of O.P. setbacks.
Hillside Ordinance
- Asked for near future consideration of the revised City Hillside
Ordinance along with staff to review and critique the proposed
County Hillside regulation for compatibility with the City's
intentions for this region.
Next meeting to begin with taking up Land Use, including staff to provide a
worksheet showing what the City has done historically to date, also asked for
an analysis of the financial aspect of the commercial/retail mix being able to
support the cost for the North Sphere. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of the General
Plan will be taken up after concluding the Land Use discussion.
Vill. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
None
56
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
JF I have no further (inaudible)
PD One other little item..you have a memo from me that was also handed
out...last meeting there was some discussion about developing different
standards on...different OP standards on different types of roadways...this is
not the time to actually produce a new ordinance, but if you...in the urban
design element we have an existing policy 10 which states commercial
institutional industrial development projects shall contribute positively to the
design objectives of the community and the specific district or corridor design
standards and guidelines in which they are located. Proposing that to that we
add a program that...a specific program that the office professional OP shall
be amended to include more restrictive architectural height and setback
standards along non-arterial street corridors to ensure compatibility with
surrounding residential areas. And so then we'll proceed with developing an
ordinance amendment. Another thing to take note of.--I always hate to bring
these things up, but I'm always compelled...the discussion on Deep Canyon
which we were hoping to defer to a specific hearing. That applicant has
withdrawn his application, so there will not be a specific hearing. We're
then...we therefore propose that based on the Planning Commission's action
that the OP zone be pulled back to the south side of Ramona. If you want to
see it on the (inaudible)...I guess this is again serendipity...in reality, the
original map was drawn with it going a little bit further north, but when the
graphic Deep Canyon was put on it wiped out that portion. So...as shown is
then as the Planning Commission now recommends it. And that...so that
completes...if there are any other questions about land use issues.
RAS Are you saying it's not necessary for us to do anything (inaudible)
PD Basically you're just confirming that as it's shown there is now is the
appropriate extent of the OP designation. It's a couple of lots more. Right
now there's two lots between the last office and the corridor of Ramona, and
this would extend it to the corner of Ramona.
RAS Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Quite a few
people here today. If we start to get involved in any area that you're
interested in, please let me know so that you can have your place.
TN I am Tom Noble, 74-075 El Paseo, Suite A through E, Palm Desert.
Sorry...I'm not really clear. Are we talking of the area on this side of the
freeway now, the Portola/Gerald Ford/Dinah Shore area? Is that what you
want to hear about or...
PD Yes, the whole (inaudible)
14
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
TN Okay. Thank you. Specifically, I would like to just refer to two letters that I
sent to Mr. Drell during the Planning Commission hearings. There's one
dated September 15"' and one dated October 7th. I think those have been
provided to you and would just like to incorporate those in your proceedings
as well. In particular, I'm talking today about the what will be the intersection
of Portola Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive. The northwest corner of that
intersection you can see on the map...excuse my pointing, but where Portola
goes up above Gerald Ford and then sort of a curved line...actually, right in
there, exactly. That's contiguous to the existing parcel map 24255 which is
our commercial industrial project that runs from the Dinah Shore extension
over to Monterey Avenue. The staff recommended alternative and the
Planning Commission have recommended that that property stay in what is
now service industrial and will become business industrial park as far as your
zoning designation. I'm the owner of that property and would just like to
express my support of that designation. There was some discussion at the
advisory committee of making a portion of that high density residential,which
I think would not be an appropriate use for a number of reasons as set forth
in those letters but largely because of the proximity to the railroad tracks and
the freeway and the fact that children living in that area would have to cross a
very busy street to get to schools and parks and those things.
RAS So you're suggesting that Planning Commission's recommendation...you're
in agreement with.
TN Yes, sir.
RAS Okay. Thank you.
TN Thank you very much.
RAS Councilman Kelly, you had something you wanted to...
RSK (Inaudible)
JF What is the this you've got?
J
RSK (Inaudible) we've accomplished something this afternoon (inaudible)
BAC I would so second accomplishing something.
RAS All in favor, please vote.
RDK Well,just to make sure the Clerk's clear, what is it that you're looking at and
you're approving.
15
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
BAC No,.no, this will come back to haunt you later.
JF Addition of Program 10B to the urban design element dealing with special
office professional standards along non-arterial residential corridors.
RDK Okay.
RSK So that we can (inaudible)
RDK Councilmember Benson...thank you. The motion carries by unanimous vote.
RAS Thank you, Councilman Kelly.
BAC Mr. Mayor. While we're in this area, Mr. Drell asked about land use...at our
last meeting we noted that we would come back to the Palma Village Plan at
this meeting.
PD I...what my comment was...we did come back to the Palma Village Plan and
we discussed what we thought was the area of controversy which was the
interface with Palma Village at the Highway 111 alley. I didn't recall any...I
don't recall any other issue of the Palma Village Plan which was...
BAC Yes...
PD For example.
BAC (Inaudible) issue of commercial and whether commercial should back all the
way along Fred Waring to...
PD Oh, you're right.
BAC ...Santa Rosa and whether we should buffer it and...
PD You're right.
BAC ..the pros and cons of that.
PD You're right, right.
BAC So I assume that we have decided to have that at our next meeting?
PD Mr. Criste will be able to present it at the next meeting.
16
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
with changes, not things that have been approved, so that anyone who reads
the newspaper account should not say that x and y has happened, but x and
y will be considered.
PD Sure. Nothing gets approved until you finally approve the encompassing
resolution on the whole General Plan.
JF Yeah, and that also gives folks that own property out there that are affected
by these decisions a chance to get back to us with their input as well.
BAC Yup. And it may be if all these things happen (inaudible) has some bearing
on how people feel on this other piece and where we go on some of those
issues.
RSK That's true.
BAC Are there other issues the members of the Council (inaudible)this afternoon?
Are there issues from staff? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to
offer final public...final opportunity for public comments on anything that has
been said today or that is not on where we've been today? Hearing none, we
will adjourn to, then, 1 o'clock on the 26"'. So ordered.
RDK 4:34 p.m.
The following actions were taken and/or direction was given at this public
hearing:
1. Urban Design Element-Office Professional Standards Along Non-arterial
Residential Corridors
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the addition of
Program 10.13 to the Urban Design Element dealing with special Office Professional
Standards along non-arterial residential corridors. Motion was seconded by
Mayor Pro Tem Crites and carried by 5-0 vote.
2. Land Use
The following direction relates to the 'City of Palm Desert - City Limits -
Genera/ Plan 2000 Planning Commission Recommended Alternative"Map
dated February 4, 2004, requesting that said direction be implemented on a
DRAFT 'City Council Preferred Alternative"map to be presented at the next
General Plan Meeting.
♦ Commercial Designations
54
CIIY 01 P 0 1 M 0ESERi
tti 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 93360—,I378
TEL: 760 346—o6i 1
FAX: 76o 341-7098
mfeYp.lm.duur.erR
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.25 to limit
building size in the Office Professional (O.P.) zone on non-arterial streets to single story,
maximum 18 feet in height and maximum of 100 feet in length, among other matters.
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing, Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
August 26, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2291
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O.P.) DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, CHAPTER 25.25 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, RESTRICTING BUILDING HEIGHT AND
REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL SCALE ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS WHICH MAY BE
DEVELOPED IN AN O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON
PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; 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. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of CEQA Guidelines; 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.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare then 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2291
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.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of September, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, JONATHAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
SABBY J NATHAN, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2291
EXHIBIT A
That Section 25.25.019 be added to read:
25.25.019 Building limitations for O.P. zoned lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story with a
maximum basic height of 15 feet and in no event shall the height exceed 18 feet in
height. Approval of a building height over 15 feet shall be discretionary based on
architectural merit. Project to be subject to O.P. setback standards. Overall
architectural design shall be consistent with the residential character of the
surrounding area.
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 AFT= K BBs ETC:
Action:
Commissioner Tschopp moved for approval and Commissioner Finerty
seconded the motion. Under discussion Chairperson Jonathan stated that
he would be opposed to the motion only because he would want to
explore the possibility and feasibility of eliminating that dish or in some
way shielding it from obvious view. He thought they had worked hard
and successfully to create true stealth in regard to these cell antennas
and to basically hang a dish on a tree was to him going backwards in that
effort. So he would want to pause and explore the possibility of either
other technology or some kind of shielding mechanism so that it didn't
look like there was a dish hanging up on the top of this tree. For the
record that was why he was opposed to the motion. He called for the
vote. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Jonathan voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2290, approving
CUP 04-06, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson
Jonathan voted no).
E. Case No. ZOA 04-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval of a zoning ordinance amendment,
Chapter 25.25, to limit buildings in the O.P. zone on Portola
Avenue from Fred Waring Drive to De Anza Way to single
story, maximum 18 feet in height and maximum 100 feet
in length.
Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that this wasn't a specific application,
which would be coming up in Item F following this matter. Right now
they were only going to discuss the change of zone being recommended
by staff. He asked for the staff report. Mr. Smith clarified that this was
a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text, not a zone change,
which was contained within Item F.
Mr. Smith informed commission that during the General Plan review, the
Council discussed at length the appropriate land uses along the west side
10
MINUTEST
r SUBJECT K
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIONA' F
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
of Portola south of Fred Waring Drive. Ultimately the Council dual
designated the area residential, median density/office professional and
directed staff to return with appropriate amendments to the O.P.
standards to provide buildings that would be residential in scale. Staff
was back with that now and they looked into various restrictions which
could be considered. They looked at building height, one story, two
stories, setbacks, and overall building mass considerations.
Ultimately, staff came up with the proposal which was before the
commission to limit any O.P. development that might occur to one story
with a maximum height of 18 feet and a maximum length of 100 feet.
The intent was to have office buildings which are residential in character.
Given the low building height of homes in this specific area on the west
side of Portola, staff felt that two-story buildings would be out of
character with that community.
For purposes of CEQA, they were looking at a Class 5 Categorical
Exemption and no further review was necessary. The staff's
recommendation was that Planning Commission recommend approval of
the proposed amendment to the City Council. He pointed out that if that
was the Commission's direction, that would preclude an affirmative
response with respect to Item F on their agenda. He asked for any
questions.
On that very point, Chairperson Jonathan said it might be a legal
question, but from a timing standpoint, if they have a pending application
prior to an adopted zoning ordinance amendment, he asked if that
precluded them, if they followed the new revised amended zoning
ordinance if that should occur, or if there was a grandfathering
procedure. Mr. Smith said no, the next application includes the proposed
change of zone to office professional. If the Commission took this action
now, then the policy of the Commission would be such that they could
not recommend the zone change because the project doesn't conform to
these standards. Mr. Drell stated there is no grandfathering. They could
actually change, and they have actually denied projects that were
consistent with the existing zoning and after the fact changed the zone
before they showed up in court. The City always has the ability to
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJEr
IT ICSEPTEMBER 7, 2004 1 F_ REVISION change their regulation to correct any of that disconnection in that both
the change of zone is a discretionary act in the next case. That was why
they did this in this order. The only question in terms of the process
tonight was if they wanted to be looking at the project simultaneously
with their discussion so they could be seeing an example of a proposal
in this area at the same time they are looking at the regulation to
determine if the regulation is appropriate. So they could actually look at
it both ways and simultaneously if they wanted. The question was
whether in terms of expediency in terms of the testimony they might
want to since most of the people who were going to get up and talk
about one would get up and talk about the other as well. But it was up
to the Commission if they wanted to talk about them at the same time.
Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was comfortable with the way the
agenda was so that they generically address the zoning ordinance
amendment without looking at a specific application. He asked the other
commissioners for their opinions. Commission agreed. Commissioner
Finerty stated that she believed that they should chart the course before
looking at an application. Chairperson Jonathan said that was the
consensus, so they would stay with that approach.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were other questions for staff.
Regarding the one story which Mr. Smith said they wanted to keep
residential, Commissioner Campbell noted that there are homes that are
two-stories there and asked for the height of those homes on Portola, on
the corner of Santa Rosa and Portola. Mr. Drell said those were town
houses and are 24 feet with pitched roofs. They weren't fronting on the
street and they are set back with walls and landscaping. Those were
some of the things they looked at. The character of even a two-story
home tends to differ from a two-story office building and they kind of
went back and forth. Then there were issues of architectural style and at
what point two-story townhouses, which might be compatible, differ
from a two-story office which typically have a different architectural
character. He said it was a good question.
Commissioner Campbell noted that the home on the corner of Catalina
and Portola is a two-story home. Mr. Drell said it is set back considerably
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 �� SUBJECT TF
U4A
F
REVISION
further and had probably been there 50 years. Commissioner Campbell
reiterated that those homes are 25 feet. Mr. Drell said 24 feet, although
he wasn't sure how big the older house was.
Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification. The language of the
amendment addressed the 100-foot maximum length. He asked why that
particular number. Mr. Drell said that in terms of building mass, most
homes are less than that, but a duplex might be 100 feet if they had
attached units. In terms of overall building mass, some of the criticisms
of some of our buildings on Fred Waring have been that they are too
long, so that was the kind of the source of that. Why not 80 or 120?
Staff just came up with a number. In essence, this is where maybe
looking at real examples is helpful to decide what is just right or too long.
Commissioner Lopez asked if a typical building was 100 feet what would
be the width. Mr. Drell thought 40 or 50 feet. Commissioner Lopez
indicated that they would be looking at a 4,000 or 5,000 square foot
building. Mr. Drell concurred.
Given the projections on the increased traffic on Portola, Commissioner
Tschopp asked if there had been any thought for if they had quite a few
4,000 or 5,000 square foot buildings built here in this section, about the
ingress and egress of these vehicles into the various parking lots. He
asked if it would be fairly similar to what happens on Monterey or no
worse. Mr. Drell thought it would be better than Monterey since
Monterey takes a lot more traffic now and would take more traffic. It
would be no worse than Monterey since Portola would have less traffic,
so it would be similar to what they were seeing with those little projects.
It was the same thing when they tried to consolidate as many of the
accesses as possible and limit those driveways, but this was kind of a
"darned if you do and darned if you don't." Public Works wants to limit
access onto Portola. The residents want to limit access onto the side
streets. From a pure safety point of view, probably the side streets are
the better access point, but again, the people who live on those streets
don't want to be competing with that commercial traffic in their
neighborhood.
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
T1
TSEPTEMBER 7, 2004 REVISION
R A F In this discussion they weren't talking about access, but when they look
at projects that is something they have to weigh. The more they can
distribute that traffic to multiples, which goes to the concentration issue
which has some advantages, but the more you concentrate traffic, the
more you impact a single point. So the more they can distribute traffic to
a lot of driveways, then there is a lesser impact at each point. It's a
balancing act.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if a two-story building could be built with
an 18-foot height limit. Mr. Drell said 18 feet allowed one story with a
mezzanine. The Commission actually saw a building like that recently.
Depending on how deep they want to sink it in the ground, a basement
didn't count as a story. Theoretically it could. Once half the wall is sunk,
it's a basement and isn't considered a story. Commissioner Tschopp said
that if he heard right, it sounded like staff was having a little bit of
discussion as to whether it should be one story or just limited to 18 feet
given that perhaps a well-drawn designed building by an architect might
accommodate two stories rather than just limiting it to one story. Mr.
Drell said that was accurate.
Chairperson Jonathan asked when the sunken first floor was not
considered a story. Mr. Drell said that when at least 51 % of the wall is
below existing grade. Chairperson Jonathan said that for example it was
typical to see two-story office buildings at 24 or 25 feet, so if a building
was sunk six feet, then they are over 50% and it didn't count and was
conceivable.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that staff was trying to limit mass and the
appearance to be as consistent as possible with residential. He asked if
staff considered just dealing with the numbers as opposed to trying to
define whether it should be one story and two stories, and 100 feet. For
example, generally what might be offensive in terms of height is the line
of sight. So if a building was set back from Portola and so far from the
residences, that 24 feet might not be offensive to anyone. He asked if
staff looked at standards rather than limiting to one story. Mr. Drell said
that the geometry that is there didn't really allow that. The project before
the commission in the next item is unusually large. For most of the land
14
MINUTES �y
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FT SUBJECT TC.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 ' �~ � REVISION
that this ordinance would apply to, the lots are relatively narrow and to
a certain degree might be moot in that they won't meet the current O.P.
standards for a two-story building in terms of setbacks. Only a limited
number of lots are deep enough to even meet our current standards, so
staff's dilemma was they don't have the room to push it back because
then they are impacting the residents more and if they push it forward,
they are crowding the street with a bigger building.
Chairperson Jonathan clarified that what he was asking was if someone
came up with a creative design that was desirable by the residents and
staff and so forth, what the procedure would be for an exception to the
zoning ordinance amendment. Mr. Drell said that currently in this
particular zone there isn't one. He recalled that about a year or two ago
the Planning Commission recommended an exceptions section that talked
about architectural quality and things like that and the Council denied
that specific ordinance, but approved a project which theoretically
required it for its approval. So the Council has decided that if they like
something they can approve it, but in theory, while they have many
zones that have this process, the O.P. zone isn't one of them.
There were no other questions and Chairperson Jonathan opened the
public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION on this matter. He informed the audience that their
comments should be limited to the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment, not to any specific application which was coming up on the
agenda.
MR. PAUL BOWIE, 71-774 Chuckawalla Way in Palm Desert,
92260, addressed the commission. He stated that he came tonight
to speak on another issue; however, this matter was appropriate
and it brought a question to his mind on the general profile of the
residential neighborhood as it stands today as a single story and
whether or not they are starting to have an encroachment of
something else into the area, say 18 feet, and they can't make a
setback apparently from the street to harbor the appearance of a
taller building. So as he gathered his thoughts about this issue on
the agenda, he could only say that he thought it was inappropriate
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 �' ��AFT
SUBJECT TC.
U REVISION
for the commission to take any action on this matter tonight and
to possibly table it or defer it to another time and ask for a more
complete study about the character profile of the general
neighborhood in regard to these issues.
MS. RAMONA FLETCHER, 73-969 Olive Court, which backs up to
Portola, addressed the commission. Speaking to the code, she felt
it didn't really go far enough if they were going to get this specific.
One of the things that happened to them in another city, not here,
was being subjected to a public access parking lot and the
problems that this addresses, the people who have property
abutting that, and the access they have to all sorts of things that
aren't in the rules, but nonetheless require police action, etc.
Because when they have office professional and residential, which
this property is now stated as residential as listed here, what
happens is they have a real problem with the office professional
people, not while they are there, but when they leave every night
and on weekends and the public access that has been created that
is free to the public to do as they will when they will and this
created a lot of problems. If they were going to be this specific,
she would like to see that part addressed also.
MS. JEAN MARTIN, 44-276 San Jose Avenue, addressed the
commission. She said that was located just west of the proposed
project coming up next. She needed a clarification. It said to limit
building in the O.P. zone on Portola Avenue from Fred Waring
Drive to De Anza Way to single story, etc. All of that property is
presently zoned R-1 and she didn't understand why it was saying
the O.P. zone on Portola when it does not exist between Fred
Waring and De Anza.
Mr. Drell explained that the General Plan designates this area as
potentially O.P. and this had to do with somewhat of an anomaly in the
Council policy created in that normally we would be rezoning properties
consistent with the General Plan. They didn't want to do that before they
created and responded also to the General Plan direction of amending the
zoning ordinance. Since the Council kind of directed them that they
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION r�
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 \ AF SUBJECT K
REVISION
shouldn't rezone properties consistent with the General Plan until they
have specific projects, it does create somewhat of a timing anomaly. But
for better or worse, that was the direction by Council on how to proceed
with these things. So obviously the next project there is a proposed
rezoning. So they are saying that if office buildings are built in this area,
these are the standards. It kind of relied on the General Plan as the
authority to do that.
Chairperson Jonathan paraphrased it that the General Plan was recently
amended. That amendment provides for areas where the zoning will
change; however, those changes would not occur until a specific
application comes before the city.
And approval of the residents of the area. Ms. Martin asked if that
was correct.
Chairperson Jonathan said there was always opportunity for lots of public
testimony.
Ms. Martin stated that a group of them and most of them here had
been involved with the zoning change since 1999 and they keep
going back to it. They had been very fortunate, all the way
through City Council have not approved any zoning change in this
area.
Chairperson Jonathan explained that there wasn't a zoning change yet.
The General Plan allowed and provided for a change of zone along Portola
and what they were doing tonight was discussing the possibility of
amending the office professional zoning just for that area of Portola
should that occur.
Ms. Martin asked if this should be reworded in some way so that
it was understood by the residents who are fighting this. It's
stating "building in the O.P. zone on Portola Avenue from Fred
Waring to De Anza" and if she were reading this and not living in
the area, she would think this was already an O.P. zone.
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT Tf.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 �4� FT. REVISION
Mr. Drell said she was correct and if this proceeds, staff would reword
the request description.
Ms. Martin thanked him.
Chairperson Jonathan said that was the purpose of the public hearing so
when they get to the Planning Commission discussion, if it is the
Planning Commission's desire to modify the wording, they, would
certainly do so.
MS. MING LOWE, stated that she lives in Pinyon, but her address
is 73-985 Catalina Way, which is the southwest corner on Portola
and Catalina. She didn't know they were going to bring this up this
way and word it this way, but there were a couple of things she
noticed when they were talking about whatever they were talking
about and that was they said 100 feet per lot per building. She
asked if that was per lot or combined lots, that 100 feet.
Mr. Drell said it didn't matter. A building couldn't be built over a property
line.
Ms. Lowe said that could turn into a massive thing.
Chairperson Jonathan said it was 100 feet per building.
Ms. Lowe said 100 feet per lot, per building. The other thing about
two stories is that she felt it would double the traffic. No one
mentioned traffic, but two stories is a taller building, but it also
doubles the ins and outs. The third thing is that Mr. Drell
mentioned that in order to lighten the traffic, the ins and outs
would be spread out possibly onto a residential street. The project
coming up, the parking lot would be on Catalina and the ins and
outs would be on Catalina, which is a residential street. So that
was just a concern she had when they were talking about the
building, but they weren't talking about the parking lot. And two
stories would double the amount of cars parked, double the
amount of cars coming in and out on a residential street were they
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT Tr
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 !IFT- REVIS ON
to field traffic off of Portola. She also thought that 18 feet was
not copacetic with the neighborhood as it currently exists.
MS. JUSTINA JEFFERS, 44-251 Portola, stated that her driveway
is on Portola and there is a lot of traffic. She would like them to
consider the amount of additional traffic office professional would
bring to the area. They have at least six schools in the area, so in
the morning she thought they had more traffic than Monterey. In
the evenings if they looked at traffic at five o'clock, they have a
lot of traffic. She asked them to consider the options.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked her and clarified for the audience that
what was before the commission was not a proposal for a change of
zone in terms of the matter they were currently discussing. It just
addressed a modification to the office professional zone in that area
should there be a change of zone.
Ms. Jeffers stated that it didn't appear that way in the wording.
It says O.P. zone. She asked if they were going to fix that.
Chairperson Jonathan said they were going to discuss the matter and
might clarify that. He again stated that whether it showed that way on
the paper or not, they were not here to discuss a change of zone. They
were there to discuss a modification to the zone should a change of zone
occur.
Ms. Jeffers said that the amount of traffic since the road had been
approved is doubled. It's just doubled. The road was really
wonderful, it was beautiful and she really liked it, but there's no
way she would put her arm straight out while on the sidewalk
without it being taken off. It's the speed that is going through
there. The increased traffic just regularly, right now, without a
change of zoning has been increased dramatically.
Chairperson Jonathan said he wasn't arguing and wasn't disagreeing, he
just wanted to make it clear that the end -result of this matter would not
be a change of zone.
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' ` Si1B1ECT C.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 `i j �� RE41$ ON
Ms. Jeffers asked what would be the result. She asked what they
were talking about then.
Chairperson Jonathan said he would state it one last time and then they
would move on. They are discussing the possibility of a modification to
the office professional zone in that area should a change of zone occur
at some later time. A change of zone was not a matter before them.
Ms. Jeffers said that by agreeing to this part, it precludes the next
part, so that was her question.
Chairperson Jonathan said they would address that when they got to
that matter.
Commissioner Tschopp commented that in reality the General Plan did
state that given the proposal for the expansion of Portola and so forth
for various reasons including buffering the residential areas on the sides
of the street, that perhaps this could be an area of O.P. zoning in the
future. So they are dealing with this tonight. The reality of the situation
is that at some point in time they will see perhaps more commercial
building requests coming in for this area. He thought that was kind of
what the citizens were asking. Some of it might be semantics, but it isn't
zoned O.P. now, but yes, people will be coming in to put in commercial
buildings here and that is the reality of it. Perhaps the City needed to give
a little more explanation of why in the General Plan they felt this might
be a good way to pursue that. Mr. Drell asked if he should give that a
shot right now. Chairperson Jonathan said no, he would like to move on
instead of belaboring it.
MS. ANN WALKER, 74-539 Monte Verde in Palm Desert, said
they also owned the house at 44-326 Catalina which was right
behind the project coming up. She said she was in favor of what
is on the table right now because she realized it wasn't a zoning
change and was glad it wasn't a zoning change, but if the in future
it could be changed to O.P., she would like it to be single story.
She was in favor of what was going on right now. She knew it
wasn't a zoning change, but was realistic enough to know that
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION K
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 A F — su"J'REVIS$�gJECT
Portola is pretty darn busy and she wouldn't build her house there,
so she would like to speak in favor of what is on the table.
MR. CHRISTOPHER McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Suite
204, stated that he was the applicant and owner on the next
project and he felt compelled to come up and respond to what is
going on here now. He could get into all the detail later on this,
but he disagreed with this unilateral assumption that 100-foot by
18-foot defined residential character or that anything that would
fit into that box would automatically be residential in character. He
felt that was a generic process of all the cities that he does work
in all over the Coachella Valley. He does 60% residential work and
40% commercial. As an architect, rules like this are hard edged
and lack creativity and vision. That is what this project needed,
vision. That was what he hoped to present later on for another
project here tonight; however, he saw this as kind of a nail in the
coffin type thing trying to shut his project down without even
getting a hearing.
He said he met with the five City Council members individually and
hoped this was a minority view point that was being perpetrated
on this project. He thanked the commission.
MS. MEREDITH FORD addressed the commission and stated that
she and her husband purchased 44-447 Portola Avenue which is
currently a blighted residential property which they plan to build
office professional on per the General Plan. The commission would
be seeing them down the road and so would the neighbors. She
stated that they have a single story plan and they have everything
they have been suggested to bring about the building, the size, the
architecture, the ingress and egress to make it comfortable for not
only the neighbors, but to blend in with the homes that are there.
She agreed, and they had no problem with the single family. She
thanked the commission.
MS. VON DISHMAN, 73-990 Olive Court in Palm Desert, asked
how much property they were talking about that would be
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 i"�"" _ RIBJE'CT T(
iT REWtSION
amended and how far that amendment would go. She asked if it
would go all the way down to Santa Rosa or if it was just that one
little parcel there at Catalina and Portola.
Chairperson Jonathan stated that the proposal from staff that was before
the commission would affect Portola between Fred Waring Drive and De
Anza Way.
Ms. Dishman said that it didn't have anything to do with the
Catalina area at this particular moment.
Chairperson Jonathan explained that Catalina is within that stretch. Mr.
Drell said it would affect only those areas potentially designated in the
General Plan.
Ms. Dishman thanked them.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else present who
wished to address the commission regarding this particular item. There
wasn't. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for
commission comments.
Commissioner Finerty said that it seems like they have been over this
before. They spent several sessions discussing whether there should be
office professional on Portola in this particular area. She was opposed to
it then and she remained opposed to it now because she believed that the
residential integrity of the neighborhood should be preserved. She didn't
feel that every spot of dirt needed to be covered with a building. She
would be opposed to any O.P. designation and felt that this area would
be better served as single story units. She understood that medium
density might be appropriate there and she thought that with the parks,
the schools and the existing housing that is what they needed to keep it.
Chairperson Jonathan said that as he understood it, that wasn't the
matter they were there to address or discuss. Commissioner Finerty said
it was in a sense because if they are going to set standards of single
story and 18 feet if and when it goes to O.P., she was just saying that
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION r �n
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 ] _ SUBJECT R
o r" AV REVIS '!
she is opposed to O.P. in the first place and, therefore, did not believe
discussing what kind of standards was appropriate. She believed the area
should remain residential. Chairperson Jonathan said he wasn't
persuaded, but understood what she was saying.
Commissioner Lopez stated that the item before them tonight, the zoning
ordinance amendment as it was before them, had merit. He thought it
had merit from the standpoint that should some day a project come
before them that is office professional that makes sense for that
particular area, in lieu of a single family home that would have a difficult
time getting out of their driveway on Portola at that particular junction,
not farther down Portola and even farther down Portola it was difficult.
But in this particular situation it had merit. He would rather see in the
future a well-designed residential in character, whether 100 feet or 65
feet or whatever the case might be, and he thought that putting a length
on it limited it somewhat, but he did think a height restriction was
required. The residents that back up to this property did not have before
them a 25-foot building that impacts their property. It has been shown
in the past that office buildings blockading major thoroughfares, and
Portola was going to be that in the future whether they liked it or not, it
was going to be a busy street, and these buildings do block the traffic
noise from the residential areas on the other side of the building. It has
shown to be successful and are items that have been approved and built
in areas along Fred Waring Drive that prove that. But in this particular
case as it pertains to the area between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza
Way, it shows merit that there needs to be a height restriction. Whether
it would ever be used, they didn't know, although there was a feeling
that it might be used very soon. But in the case of this particular
amendment, he thought it showed merit and they needed to work with
the language of it so that is understandable by the residents and maybe
a little more clearly for the commission as well.
Commissioner Campbell stated that the office professional buildings that
exist on Portola between De Anza and Alessandro are one-story and she
thought they really looked very nice along Portola. They do quite a bit of
business. She knew that the dentist had taken in another dentist, so she
knew he was quite busy there. As far as the parking was concerned, the
23
MINUTES cc
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION f,'�' SUBJECT TC.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 k n a '- FTC REVISION
egress is on Portola, but the ingress is on Alessandro. She was sure that
just having the maximum height of 18 feet or beyond, maybe up to 20
along Portola, would make a nice project. But again, as she brought up
earlier, there are two-story homes along there and she questioned making
this 18 feet and yet these other homes were up to 24 or 25 feet. They
have also approved buildings in other areas, office professional buildings,
that buffer on residential homes and they do not allow them to have
windows on that side. So it was really difficult to say they could have
one story when there was something there a lot higher. It would be good
to have office professional like Commissioner Lopez stated. It was a good
buffer for the residential and she didn't think that Portola was going to
be widened anymore. Mr. Drell said that in the long range it may be
widened another six or eight feet, so it might be widened. Commissioner
Campbell said that maybe they wouldn't have enough room to have
office professional right there. Mr. Drell said they would. Commissioner
Campbell said that they would be narrowing it more. Mr. Drell said that
the office professional development on Monterey on the east side south
of Fred Waring, those lots are only 65 or 70 feet wide because their
depth used to face those residential streets. They have successfully
developed far more narrower sites as office professional. It does more
severely impact residential development, especially the existing homes
there since if it ever happens, they would lose a big chunk of their front
yards.
Commissioner Campbell asked about the building that was just completed
on Monterey. She asked if that was the one he was speaking of, the
medical building by John Vuksic across from the community gardens.
Mr. Drell clarified that it was on San Pablo. That building was about 140
feet deep. Commissioner Campbell asked about the length. Mr. Drell said
that building would not have met this standard if it was going to be built
on Portola. It meets the current O.P. standards in terms of height,
setbacks and mass. Part of the Council's motivation in giving this
direction was not simply our normal concern for the impacts of the
residents behind because these residents would be impacted no more or
less than any of the residents who have been impacted by all the
development on Fred Waring and Monterey. But it was as much on the
physical appearance when driving on Portola from Fred Waring to
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 79� WBJE'GT X
Ii REVIRO f
Highway 111 . They are still driving through what is essentially a
residential area, so it was both motivated by concern from behind and
concern for the motorist, the image as one drives through the area, which
is a little different then how they've thought of things in the past.
Commissioner Campbell reiterated that they were looking toward
widening Portola. Mr. Drell said Public Works has discussed it in terms
of the ultimate right-of-way as specified in the General Plan. There is a
desire to put bike paths on the street which don't exist now. Right now,
as discussed, it is quite intimidating walking up and down since people
are driving 40 mph 18 inches away from the sidewalk. So there is a
desire to move the sidewalk away from the curb and to create a buffer
in the form of a bike path to allow bicyclists to go up and down the
street and to separate the automobile traffic from the sidewalk. And
there was a desire to put in a landscaped median to further enhance the
visual quality of the street. Any future office that would apply to develop
on Portola would be required to dedicate whatever perspective real estate
we might need. Commissioner Campbell said it would be a smaller
building and they would require less parking because it would be less
land.
Commissioner Tschopp said that issue before them is the proposed .
amendment that wants to limit commercial building height and length if
it is constructed on Portola. He agreed strongly that whatever type of
commercial building if they go ahead on Portola would be limited in
height and size because there was an ambience in this area that needs
to be preserved. He wasn't convinced that the wording in the
amendment is the right way in that he hated to see them limit or hinder
architectural design creativity with arbitrary 18-foot limits in height and
100-foot buildings because sometimes architects could do a better job
given a little creativity. He also wasn't all that convinced that they need
more office space along Portola. He heard the arguments of the proximity
of the various schools, the various amenities in the neighborhood, the
park going in, the bike paths coming into the street and he wasn't sure
what bicyclists would think if they knew they were a buffer between
traffic and the sidewalk. But to him it was almost too bad they didn't
have the time to really look at this area a little more in depth and see
25
MINUTES •�•. SUBJECT K
\,n
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION W, I At_I Roston,
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
what truly they would want to do on a long-range plan to see how it
develops out. But given that the issue is limiting commercial building
height and size, he would be in favor of limiting it for that purpose.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that what they were being asked to do
tonight is recommend to the Council approval of this amendment. Right
now the new General Plan allows office professional along Portola if there
is a change of zone, because right now Portola is zoned residential. What
they could do in theory if there was office professional allowed on Portola
right now and someone came in for a change of zone, they could go 25
feet, two stories and so forth. So what this amendment was seeking to
do is soften that and say no, they are going to set less intrusive
standards and lower the building height, mass and size. If there was
going to be office, it was going to be softer office is what this
amendment was doing.
What he was hearing the commission say is that there is still some doubt
or lack of understanding as to whether, even though the General Plan has
been amended to allow office professional in this part of Portola, whether
in fact the Council has intent of following through with an actual change
of zone in that area. So if they have that doubt, since what they were
being asked to do was make a recommendation to Council, their response
to Council could be, Council, would you clarify for us if in fact there is a
long-term intent to allow the development of office professional along
Portola. Mr. Drell thought they had to take them by their word that they
acted with the General Plan to do that. Chairperson Jonathan thought
that was a matter of his opinion. They were in the discussion stage and
he was just suggesting that as a possibility. They didn't have to
recommend either yes or no to this amendment. They could seek
clarification if in fact in their mind they aren't sure that is the direction
they want to proceed. And if it was a simple response from them yes,
we modified the General Plan, we voted on it, we the City Council are
intending to allow office professional, but we aren't sure we want the
same standards in this area as in the rest of the city. If they tell the
commission that, it clarifies it. He said they should keep in mind that this
is commission discussion. That is an option they might want to pursue.
He asked for commission comments.
26
I
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
REUISi0iJ
A A
Commissioner Tschopp noted that the comment was raised by
Commissioner Finerty of having residential here. He asked if they have
looked at an alternative multi-family going in along this street and what
the impact on traffic and the amenities and so forth would be. The
General Plan stated O.P., but it also said residential, medium density. Is
that the direction they want to be taking? But given the information the
commission had here, he didn't know how they could come up with a
decision on that tonight.
To some extent, Chairperson Jonathan didn't really want to revisit all
those issues because he thought they did address them. When they made
their recommendation to Council about this area, they addressed it and
looked at it in depth and said there was a possibility for appropriate office
professional development along this part of Portola. That was his
personal opinion. Commissioner Finerty noted that some of the
commission thought that, others didn't. Chairperson Jonathan said he
was talking about the majority vote and they knew in any good
organization, once they took a majority vote, they all stand behind it and
move forward. He didn't want to go backwards and revisit issues they
already have, he was just suggesting the possibility that if in fact they
aren't certain of Council's direction, then they can ask for clarification.
But as they sit here today, his understanding was that Council has
approved the General Plan amendment which includes the possibility, not
an actual change of zone yet, but the possibility of office professional on
Portola. What they are being asked to do is go a step further and say if
there is going to be office professional in that area of Portola, then they
want to provide further limits on essentially the mass, the height of the
buildings and the look of the buildings. He didn't know what direction
they want to go in. If the commission was comfortable about what
Council wants from them, then they can address this proposed
amendment. If they weren't, and that was why he brought it up because
he was sensing a certain level of uncertainty, and if the commission
wanted to ask the Council for clarification, that could be the
commission's response to this.
Mr. Drell stated that the direction to amend the code was also in the
General Plan. That was a specific program that the Council inserted into
27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION _ SUBJECT TC
SEPTEMBER 7 2004 �� REVISiOr►
the Urban Design Element. So he thought their direction on amending the
code was also fairly clear. That is a program approved unanimously, he
believed, on a vote of the Council to amend the code in this situation. So
they have spoken rather specifically on that issue. The discussion here
wasn't whether it should be amended, but how it should be amended.
Chairperson Jonathan said that if that is the commission's wish, then
they can respond by some modification of the wording that clarifies that
in the event that a change of zone occurs along this part of Portola, then
it is the commission's recommendation that certain restrictions be added
into this zoning in that area having to do with height limitations or mass.
He asked if they wanted to go in that direction and put in a qualifier.
Commissioner Campbell asked why they should limit it to one story and
a maximum height of 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said he was going
to get to that part of the discussion, but asked if they wanted to at least
go in that direction in saying that in the event that a change of zone
should occur on Portola, then they recommend the following.
Commissioner Tschopp said yes. Chairperson Jonathan said they should
then go in that direction.
Having said that, Chairperson Jonathan noted that Commissioner
Campbell wasn't entirely comfortable with the wording proposed by
staff. Commissioner Campbell didn't think it should state that it would be
limited to one story with a maximum height of 18 feet unless a project
came before them and as she said earlier, it could go up to 20 feet to
make it aesthetically feasible. Commissioner Finerty asked if there are 20-
foot single story houses in that area. Mr. Drell said no, there are some
24-foot two-story houses; 20-foot single family homes typically might be
in very unusual circumstances (very rare) at the peak. Typically they are
a pitched roof.
Commissioner Finerty asked for the height of the homes in that area. Mr.
Drell thought the single family homes averaged 13 or 14 feet.
Commissioner Finerty said they were smaller than 18 feet because of
their age. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Finerty noted that 18 is
even stretching it to stay within the current character of the
neighborhood. Mr. Drell said that 18 feet is the City's current height limit
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 SUBJECT ff.
A FTM MOON
on single story. Commissioner Finerty said she understood that, but this
was a special circumstance where they were trying to match the
residential character of the neighborhood and if in fact they were trying
to do that, then it seemed to her that they needed to stay in the 13-14
foot range because that is in fact what the height of the houses are. She
asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that the newer houses that have
been built are typically higher than that in the area. And they have had
24-foot high. Commissioner Finerty noted that in that area, the houses
that would actually be behind any proposed development are 13-14 feet
in height. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that one of them
right behind further down in the area they are talking about has a two-
story house right behind it. He thought that was the point Commissioner
Campbell was making. Commissioner Finerty said that if they were to
look at the residential neighborhood as a whole, of all the homes that
back up to any proposed project, she asked what the average height
would be in Mr. Drell's opinion. Mr. Drell assumed it would be 14 or 15
feet.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that the existing residential structures in that
area vary from 13-14 to 24. Commissioner Campbell noted they had flat
roofs that they used to have years ago.
Continuing with the discussion on whether they were going to
recommend an amendment to the zoning ordinance in that area,
Chairperson Jonathan asked if they wanted to be as specific with height,
length and so forth. Commissioner Finerty said yes. She said that if
Council's direction is to keep it as residential as possible, then they
needed to try to match the average height of what is there now and Mr.
Drell said that was 14-15 feet. She was sure there were exceptions of
24 feet, but if they were going to look at 90%, she knew it was much
lower than the suggested 18 feet. Therefore, she believed it should be
limited and was only fair to the residents that are there to preserve their
neighborhood and she thought the 18 feet was too high and that it
should be limited to 15 feet.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if someone wanted to build a duplex or
something of that nature, he asked if they would just be limited to the
29
MINUTES �',
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT Tr.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 Rinsiod
height. Mr. Drell said their residential multi-family zones were
automatically limited to 18 feet if they are adjacent to a single story
zone. So those properties have single story behind them and would be
limited to the 18 feet as a residence as well.
Commissioner Tschopp said that if someone came in that lives in the
neighborhood and wanted to remodel their home, tear it down, they
would be able to build an 18-foot high unit. Mr. Drell said they have a
special review process for homes between 15 and 18 feet at the
architectural commission. And one of the things they do is look at the
adjacent homes. They look at the overall architectural quality and what
they often do is require hipped roofs down at the property lines so in
essence at the property lines the houses might only be 12 or 13 feet.
They might have peaks that are 18, but they try to architecturally soften
the houses at the edges where they interact with a lower home.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if it would be appropriate to incorporate
something of that nature into this. Mr. Drell said they could do that. In
essence, as a matter of right they could only have 15 feet, but based on
architectural quality they could go to 18 feet or any other number the
commission preferred.
Rather than their recommendation to Council getting so specific,
Chairperson Jonathan said it seemed to him they were trying to replicate
within the office professional zoning for this area something that looks
as close to residential as possible. He suggested that they just say that.
Instead of getting into an actual height limit, mass and length, why not
say that the desired objective for this area is to create office professional
buildings that look as residential as possible and meet the residential
zoning ordinance. Commissioner Finerty asked if he was suggesting that
it be allowed to go up to 24 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said it would be
for single family residences. Commissioner Finerty asked if he was
suggesting a limit to 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said it could.
Commissioner Finerty noted that he was saying not to do specific
numbers, but if he said they were limiting it to residential and they were
talking about single story, then they really are talking 18 feet. If they
30
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT N.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 A FT REUISIONI
were talking two-stories, then it is 24 feet. She asked where he was
thinking this ought to go.
Chairperson Jonathan clarified that he was suggesting that in the
amendment to the ordinance that they reference single family residential
standards, whatever those might be. He understood that those standards
had specifics. He wasn't trying to dodge those specifics, but he was
saying in this amended ordinance, rather than go do the list of those
specifics that they just indicate they should be the standards that apply
here. Just have a reference to those standards. That was his suggestion.
Commissioner Finerty asked him to repeat that. She was asking if he was
suggesting that it be residential, one story, or residential in nature.
Chairperson Jonathan said both. He was suggesting that in amending the
ordinance for office professional in this area that the style, the
appearance, etc., should attain as residential a feel as possible and that
the standards that exist for single family residential apply equally to the
office professional amended zone here. So if an architect is going to
design office professional, then when he needs to look at height
limitations he will go to the single family residential. If he wants to see
setbacks, he'll go to single family residential. His intent is to end up with
an office building that is as least intrusive and looks as residential as
possible, but functions as an office building.
Commissioner Finerty asked if it was his intent to limit to one story.
Chairperson Jonathan thought single family residential by its very nature
would be limited to one story. Commissioner Finerty said that what he
was saying was the current standard of 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan
said that if that is what applies in single family residential, that would be
the height limit. Mr. Drell said that as a matter of right they are entitled
to 15 feet; they can get to 18 feet based on the architectural review
commission's review of their design. Chairperson Jonathan said that was
fine. Mr. Drell said the rules that would apply to a single family home in
this area would apply to an office. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. Build
an office but make it subject to the residential standards.
Commissioner Finerty reiterated that those residential standards are any
where from 15 to 18 feet. Mr. Drell said anything between 15 and 18
31
e:
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBIEV T(
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 LA i FTM KYI$ ON
feet is discretionary based on design. In an office, somewhat in response
to Mr. McFadden's comment that if you do this you get approved, no.
Every project gets design review beyond whether or not they meet the
strict physical standards. There is still a subjective review that everything
is subject to that would still go into the conclusion whether it is
residential scale or not. Someone could build a 10-foot high building that
wasn't residentially appropriate, so this was just a physical starting point
for the discussion in terms of what is appropriate. He didn't have any
problem with that approach saying they have a standard that is
residential scale and it is contained in the R-1 chapter and they would
just apply it.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that 15 feet would be permitted, but over
15 would have to show that it is justified, but in no event could it exceed
18 feet. Commissioner Finerty concurred.
Commissioner Lopez thought that if they were going to attempt to
provide some flexibility within this amended ordinance, this was probably
the best way to do it. It gave architects the ability to be creative, it gave
some guidelines they believe to be less intrusive, and it made sense. The
language they recommended to Council would be important.
Mr. Drell said the R-1 zone requires a 20-foot setback. In the O.P. they
allow the O.P. buildings to get closer to the commercial street to increase
the potential for setbacks in the rear. And if more widening occurs, they
are dealing potentially with tighter situations. He thought the R-2
standards, and the General Plan designates the alternative land use as
medium density residential which really was the R-2 zone, it would still
be limited to a single story since it is adjacent to single story behind. But
it allowed a 15-foot front setback and allowed those buildings to be
pushed a little further to the front.
Commissioner Finerty suggested the approach they took on Fred Waring
where the setback needed to be equal to the height. Mr. Drell said 1 :1 as
measured from the curb. Commissioner Finerty asked why that couldn't
apply to this location. Mr. Drell said it would. Commissioner Finerty
thought that would take care of the 20-foot setback because they
32
MINUTES 'a
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION _ SUBJECT TC
ri
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 AFT REVISION
wouldn't allow anything to be 20 feet high. Mr. Drell said that in the R-1
they would be setback 20 feet even if they were 12 feet high, so their
intent was to allow them to be pushed forward a little bit. For example,
in R-1 the rear setback is only 15 feet and in the O.P. the rear setback is
20 feet. So in essence what they did with the O.P. is increase the rear
setback by five feet and decreased the setback from 20 to 15 in the front
to push those buildings away from the R-1 . He believed the R-2
standards are 15 feet in the front and 20 feet in the rear. Commissioner
Finerty noted that what they are really saying to the residents that back
up to this is they could be backed up to a parking lot. Mr. Drell said 20
feet didn't really provide dimension to a parking lot, but those people
were going to make that choice anyway. They have a lot of O.P.
properties with parking lots in the back and there really hadn't been any
problems. It's an issue of balancing. They do tend to push the building
farther away and they haven't had the enforcement or police problem all
along Fred Waring or Monterey. They did have a problem in some of the
cul-de-sacs and they dealt with problems just like they do with any
problem in the city, they send in the police and the problem disappears.
He suggested that they use the standards for the R-2 which would still
limit it in this situation to one story, 18 feet, but adjust for the setbacks.
Commissioner Finerty asked if the R-2 height started out at 15 feet. Mr.
Drell said he didn't think it was 15. Commissioner Lopez asked if medium
density covered both R-1 and R-2. Mr. Drell said R-1 was all low density.
Chairperson Jonathan suggested that the proposed amendment stand as
staff had it, but provided that with regard to height, the presumed
allowed limit was 15 feet similar to the R-1 procedure that 18 might be
allowed if it made a proper showing. Commissioner Finerty said they
could leave the setback issue out of it because it got pretty complicated.
Chairperson Jonathan agreed. Mr. Drell said they could stick with the
current O.P. standards. Chairperson Jonathan said they would only
modify it based on height. He liked the flexibility of moving a building
around depending on what was best for the neighborhood, such as
putting it closer to Portola and where to put the parking lot. He asked if
that worked. Commissioner Finerty said it worked for her.
33
MINUTES ,
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION �t AFT
� SUBJECT TC
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 `,J REVISION
Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were ready for a motion.
Commissioner Finerty said they would amend staff's language to limit it
to one story in the residential character of the neighborhood to start at
15 feet, but not to exceed 18 feet. That would be totally discretionary.
Mr. Drell said that everything above 15 feet would go to the architectural
commission. Commissioner Finerty stated that nothing would be above
18 feet. Mr. Drell said that offices go through the whole architectural
review process. Chairperson Jonathan confirmed that the presumed limit
was 15 feet and anything in excess of 15 required a special showing and
in no event would it exceed 18 feet. Commissioner Finerty concurred.
Commissioner Campbell asked about the length. She asked if they were
going to leave the language 100 feet. Chairperson Jonathan didn't think
they should specify the length because someone could create a 100-foot
long structure that looked horrible, but someone else could create a 120-
foot structure that looks like two structures and looks good.
Commissioner Finerty said they again had to go back to the residential
character. They didn't see houses that were 140 feet in length. She
asked what the average length of a house was. Commissioner Campbell
asked if it was 30 feet or 40. Mr. Drell thought they were probably 50
or 60 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said if the commission wanted to leave
it in there that was fine. Commissioner Finerty thought 100 might be too
much if their goal is to preserve the residential character of that particular
neighborhood. If they are 50 or 60, she would be more comfortable with
75 feet in length. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they wanted to leave the
specific reference out and just say that in terms of length, depth and
mass the structure shall be as consistent with the residential flavor of the
neighborhood as possible. He asked if that was too open. Commissioner
Finerty thought that was too open. Even if they said 75 feet, they knew
how things went. Commissioner Campbell made note to the one house
earlier on the agenda that was going to be built at 32,000 square feet.
That would be over 100 feet. Commissioner Finerty said she would be
more comfortable with 75 feet because that was still in excess for the
neighborhood, but would allow for a little larger size office building if they
have to go that route.
34
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AF
� SUBJECT K
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 = REVI519h
Commissioner Tschopp noted that at the same time they could chop
these building up so small that they would actually create more problems
with traffic in the number of employees going to very small businesses
and so forth. He thought they needed to be careful that way. If they give
the architects a little bit of latitude and creativity and word it such that
they are looking at creativity to justify the length and so forth, that would
get the word out. He would rather do that then restrict it so much that
one, it becomes economically infeasible for them to do anything that
even made sense. Chairperson Jonathan summed up that Commissioner
Tschopp would be in favor of no specific reference to the length, and
have general language that in terms of the mass of the structure, it
should be as consistent with the residential flavor of the neighborhood as
possible. Commissioner Tschopp concurred.
Commissioner Lopez concurred that they should leave some flexibility and
let the process handle each of the specific applications they receive and
if they make sense, as they do every meeting, if there is too much mass,
if it is inappropriate for the location they are looking at, they were all
going to be sensitive to what happens in this location and they would
address that through the process. But as far as putting specifics, because
if they are going to put in height, length and width, this place would
never change. They needed to have some flexibility and so did the
developer to proceed with these locations and let the system take care
of what goes there and what they approve and disagree with.
Commissioner Campbell agreed with that because the commission had
to approve it anyway. It would come before them.
In terms of process, Chairperson Jonathan said they got into the
discussion in the middle of the motion, so Commissioner Finerty was
hearing a consensus and didn't know if she wanted to incorporate that
into her motion or not, but he would let her finish making it.
Commissioner Finerty asked if they could do two separate motions.
Chairperson Jonathan said she was free to propose any motions she
wished. Commissioner Finerty didn't think they were being totally
consistent here because they were saying that with the height they feel
strongly apparently about the 15 feet up to 18 feet. Commissioner Lopez
said he wasn't saying that. He was staying that he wanted to stay with
35
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ..
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 ,i Y"y SUBJECT TC.FT
the residential character of the neighborhood. If those areas are defined
as 15-18 feet, that is what they are looking at. But he wasn't saying
they should restrict the height. He wanted to go with the current
guidelines in the residential flavor, and whether it was R-1 or R-2 was
irrelevant, what is medium density designation. And in this particular case
they were looking at the office professional amendment that would
follow those guidelines. Then they would designate what those guidelines
would be. Put the medium density at R-1 or R-2, then go that direction.
He wasn't saying he wanted to put a limit on the height and a limit on
the width and the length, let's follow the guidelines of residential
character and then let the process take care of that.
Commissioner Finerty said she would try her motion without any changes
before they go much further. Chairperson Jonathan said anyone was free
to make a motion and asked her to repeat it.
Action:
Commissioner Finerty stated that her motion was that it was going to be
residential in character with the minimum starting height of 15 feet,
which could go up to 18 feet with discretionary approval based on the
architecture. Chairperson Jonathan noted there was no reference to
length or mass, etc. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Chairperson
Jonathan asked if there was a second. Commissioner Campbell seconded
the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked for discussion.
Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification. They discussed setbacks and
asked if that would be covered adequately in this particular motion. Mr.
Drell said that this is an amendment to the zone, so the O.P. setback
standards would continue to apply. Chairperson Jonathan thought that
the only change to the existing O.P. standards is language that indicates
that the design shall be residential in nature and that the height is to be
15 feet, or with proper showing up to 18 feet. Commissioner Finerty
concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said that was the motion and the
second.
Commissioner Tschopp noted that this is only in the event that buildings
are approved that are commercial in nature for this area. Chairperson
36
MINUTES ' A SUBJECT Tf.
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION i/
( y FT
�
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 p, / >) REVISION!
Jonathan concurred. Also, the amendment is to apply only to Portola
Avenue between Fred Waring and De Anza as indicated if and when the
property is rezoned. Commission and staff concurred. Chairperson
Jonathan said that was the precursor to the amendment, that in the
event of a rezoning of this area of Portola. Everyone concurred.
There was no further discussion and Chairperson Jonathan called for the
vote. Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Drell confirmed that they needed to adopt a resolution recommending
to City Council what they just did. Commissioner Finerty said she didn't
know if the resolution they had in their packet was specific enough. Mr.
Drell said they would adjust the wording accordingly. Commissioner
Finerty said she would like the residential character part in there because
that is what ,they were directed to do. Mr. Drell indicated it said
restricting the size and character of buildings in the O.P. zone. He said-it
would be included. Commissioner Finerty said he had the gist. He
concurred.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2291 , approving
the findings and recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA
04-01 as amended. Motion carried 5-0.
For the audience, Chairperson Jonathan summarized the action of the
commission. Currently Portola is zoned residential in that area. The
General Plan allows with a change of zone in that area office
professional. Office professional has a variety of standards such as a
height up to 25 feet and so forth. What they did tonight was recommend
to the City Council a modification to the office professional standards for
this area so that instead of a 25-foot height, only 15 feet is allowed, or
up to 18 feet with proper showing. They also recommended to Council
that in amending the office professional zone for this area that the design
of any buildings would be residential in character. Commissioner Finerty
complimented Chairperson Jonathan on his summary. Chairperson
Jonathan noted that it was a recommendation to Council, so everyone
was welcome to attend that meeting as well.
37
MEETING DATE -0y
❑ TINUED TO
CITY OF PALM DE
PASSED TO 2ND READING
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
text, Chapter 25.25, to restrict the height and design of buildings in
the O.P. zone on lots fronting on Portola Avenue between Fred
Waring Drive and De Anza Way.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NO: ZOA 04-01
DATE: September 23, 2004
CONTENTS:
Recommendation
Discussion
Draft Ordinance No. 1078
Legal Notice
Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 7, 2004
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2291
Recommendation:
That the City Council pass Ordinance No. 1078 to second reading.
Discussion:
Background:
During the review of the General Plan there was considerable discussion as to the
appropriate land use along the west side of Portola Avenue south of Fred Waring
Drive. Ultimately, the City Council dual designated the area residential medium
density/office professional and directed staff to return with appropriate amendments
to the O.P. standards to provide buildings which are architecturally residential in
character.
1 ,
Ordinance No. 1078
Staff Report
Case No. ZOA 04-01
Page 2
September 23, 2004
Program 10.13 of the Community Design Element states:
"The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance implementing the C-OP
designation to assure that appropriate, more restrictive architectural
standards affecting building heights and setbacks, and other
development standards are applied to office development along non-
arterial street corridors to ensure compatibility with surrounding
residential areas.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning
Commission, City Council
Schedule: 2004-05"
Concurrent with this code amendment we are processing an application for a two-
story office building in this same area. (McFadden/Portola Properties on this same
agenda through the appeal process.)
Planning Commission:
This code amendment was considered by Planning Commission at its September
7, 2004 meeting. The commission,following an extensive discussion, recommended
approval of a code amendment which would limit office buildings on Portola
between Fred Waring and De Anza to a basic height limit of 15 feet with the ability
to go to 18 feet if architectural merited. Commission wanted to be assured that a
"residential scale" would be achieved. Commission on a 5-0 vote recommended
approval of the amendment.
Analysis:
City Council in its discussion of the appropriate land use along Portola south of Fred
Waring Drive determined that O.P. could be acceptable provided that the buildings
were residential in scale.
Accordingly, staff was directed to process a code amendment requiring office
buildings to reflect a residential scale. Restrictions to be considered included
building heights, one story, two stories, setbacks and overall building mass.
The enclosed amendment, if approved, will limit buildings in the O.P. zone located
on lots fronting on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
to one story with a basic height of 15 feet with the ability to go up to 18 feet when
r ORdinance No. 1078
Staff Report
Case No. ZOA 04-01
Page 3
September 23, 2004
architecturally merited, the intent being to have office buildings which are residential
in character. Given the low building height of the existing homes in the area, a two-
story office building would be out of character.
Projects will be subject to O.P. setback standards which are already consistent with
residential standards.
The proposed amendment reads:
"Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots fronting on Portola
Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be
limited to one story with a maximum basic height of 15 feet and
in no event shall the height exceed 18 feet in height. Approval
of a building height over 15 feet shall be discretionary based
on architectural merit. Project to be subject to O.P. setback
standards. Overall architectural design shall be consistent with
the residential character of the surrounding area."
CEQA Review:
The proposed code amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes
of CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary.
Submitted by: Department Head:
Steve Smith P it Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Approval: Approval::
Homer Croy Carlos L. Ortega
ACM for Development Services City Manager
AM
(Wpdo.ftk .04-0i.=) 3
r ,
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O.P.)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 25.25 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, RESTRICTING BUILDING HEIGHT
AND REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL SCALE ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS WHICH MAY BE
DEVELOPED IN AN O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON
PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 23rd
day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to
the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2291 has
recommended approval of the proposed amendment; 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. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of CEQA Guidelines; 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 approval 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 then the current regulations.
r
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
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.
2. That ZOA 04-01 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
EXHIBIT A
That Section 25.25.019 be added to read:
25.25.019 Building limitations for O.P. zoned lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story with a
maximum basic height of 15 feet and in no event shall the height exceed 18 feet in
height. Approval of a building height over 15 feet shall be discretionary based on
architectural merit. Project to be subject to O.P. setback standards. Overall
architectural design shall be consistent with the residential character of the
surrounding area.
3
j City of Palm Desert/Adopted3.15.64
Comprehensive General Plan/Community Design Element
Program 10.A
! The City shall review all commercial, institutional and industrial development to assure
accommodation of pedestrian-oriented circulation, safe and convenient ingress and egress,
screening of outdoor storage/loading and other unsightly areas, lighting, signage, and the
planting of landscaping to provide an effect of permanency in the near-term.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Schedule: Continuous
' Program 10.B
The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance implementing the C-OP designation to assure that
appropriate, more restrictive architectural standards affecting building heights and setbacks, and
other development standards are applied to office development along non-arterial street corridors
to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential areas.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department,Planning Commission, City Council
Schedule: 2004-05
Policy 11
Community and neighborhood activity centers shall be established at appropriate locations to
create recreational opportunities, encourage social interaction and provide a sense of public
space and center for neighborhood activity.
Program 11.A
The City shall continue to actively pursue joint use agreement with the Desert Sands and Palm
Springs Unified School Districts to promote the appropriate public use of school open space, and
athletic and other facilities as integral parts of adjoining and nearby neighborhoods.
Responsible Agency: Parks and Recreation Department, Planning Department, School Districts,
Planning Commission, City Council
Schedule: Continuous
I
Program 11.B
The City shall review development proposals for opportunities to integrate parks, plazas, squares
and other open space areas that allow and facilitate public use and social interaction.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council
Schedule: Continuous
Policy 12
The City shall maintain and enforce a Sign Ordinance that minimizes the size, scale and number
of signs needed to provide functional identification and exposure to convey messages, while
minimizing impacts on traffic safety, streetscape appearance and scenic viewsheds.
Program 12.A
The City shall review and, as necessary, revise the signage regulations set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance addressing all aspects of sign review„and shall establish finite periods by which
existing non-conforming signage shall be retired.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council
Schedule: Continuous
Community Design Element
111-154
Y ,
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 7, 2004
CASE NO: ZOA 04-01
REQUEST: Approval of a zoning ordinance amendment, Chapter 25.25, to limit
buildings in the O.P. zone on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive
and De Anza Way to single story, maximum 18 feet in height and maximum
100 feet in length.
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
During the review of the General Plan there was considerable discussion as to the
appropriate_ land use along the west side of Portola Avenue south of Fred Waring Drive.
Ultimately, the City Council dual designated the area residential medium density/office
professional and directed staff to return with appropriate amendments to the O.P.
standards to provide buildings that are: a) one story; and 2) "architecturally residential'
in character. (See minutes of City Council dated January 29, 2004,.pages 14-17 and 56;
and February 5, 2004, pages 14-16 and 54, attached.)
We are also in receipt of an application for a two-story office building in this same area.
That application will be processed concurrent with this item.
II. ANALYSIS:
City Council in its discussion of the appropriate land use along Portola south of Fred
Waring Drive determined that O.P. could be acceptable provided that the buildings were
residential in scale.
Accordingly, staff was directed to process a code amendment requiring office buildings
to reflect a residential scale. Restrictions to be considered included building heights, one
story, two stories, setbacks and overall building mass.
The enclosed amendment, if approved, will limit buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots
adjacent to or fronting on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
to one story with a maximum height of 18 feet and a maximum length of 100 feet, the
intent being to have office buildings which are residential in character. Given the low
building height of the existing homes in the area, a two-story office building would be out
of character.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Project will be subject to O.P. setback standards which are already consistent with
residential standards.
The proposed amendment reads:
"Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots adjacent to or fronting on
Portola Avenue between Fred Waring and De Anza shall be limited
to one story with a maximum height of 18 feet and limited to a
maximum length of 100 feet. Project to be subject to O.P. setback
standards."
III. CEQA REVIEW:
The proposed code amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of
CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
That Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 04-01
by adoption of the draft Planning Commission Resolution attached hereto.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
C. City Council Minutes of January 29 and February 5, 2004
Prepared by: Revi w nd Approved by:
Steve Smith P it Drell
i
FCry
er Director of Community Development
cur:
ACM for Develo a Services
/tm
2
Y ,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 25.25 TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF BUILDINGS IN THE
O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON OR ADJACENT TO
PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; 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. 02-60,"in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of CEQA Guidelines; 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.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare then 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.
f
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of September, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
That Section 25.25.019 be added to read:
25.25.019 Building Limitations for O.P. Zoned Lots Fronting on or Adjacent to
Non Arterial Streets
Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots adjacent to or fronting on Portola
Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story
with a maximum height of 18 feet and limited to a maximum length of 100 feet.
Project to be subject to O.P. setback standards.
3
r
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
RAS Councilman Ferguson.
JF Well, along the same lines, I was just amazed that we're so good that
everything south of Frank Sinatra is perfect, and we haven't looked at the
Commercial Core Plan, we haven't looked at the Palma Village Plan. I
personally have seen the evolution of the Service Industrial zone along Cook
Street evolve into a mixed use with some retail and that we've got a
supermarket there and a bank and a restaurant when it was supposed to be
Industrial. As a result of that, we now have people coming back and saying
there are parking problems and circulation problems. And it amazes me that
we haven't at least looked at that or addressed it or double checked our
thinking or somehow acknowledged that maybe the use has evolved from
when it was originally envisioned. And couldn't we at least take a look at the
Service Industrial area all the way from our affordable housing development
all the way over to KESQ and...why didn't we...
PD And we did. To say that we didn't change it doesn't mean to say that we
-. - ---didn't look at-it -We-have changed-our-whole definition of"Industrial"-based
on the reality of what the market has responded to in those areas. We no
longer have a Service Industrial designation. We're calling it Industrial
Business Park because the reality of what has happened in all those areas is
a mixture of, you know...really, we started with that zone to put the junk that
we wanted to get off of Highway 111. That was really the...and what it
evolved into was what you just said, it's a mixture of offices, industrial areas,
and that's why we changed the category to be much broader. But,you know,
those areas are 98% built out, as is most of the area south of Frank Sinatra,
and what we tried to do is, where we did make changes in categories or we
did make some changes, that they were reflective of the physical
development out there. So the fact that things...that we're not recommending
any changes doesn't mean we didn't look at it. It's just that we looked at it
and said what's there is...in terms of a General Plan discussion, is pretty
much what's going to be there, with the exception of areas where we said
because of the evolution of the City, these designations aren't appropriate,
and those are things we've talked about...on Portola, on north Highway 111,
we'll talk about it now on Fred Waring. As I say, the fact that they didn't
change it doesn't mean that we didn't look at it. And, again...
BAC In that same light, the discussion that we will have on Deep Canyon and
building of another building on San Pablo, an O.P. building on San Pablo, at
least brings an issue to me as one person that I'd like us to discuss at some
point, and that is...it certainly appears that (inaudible) O.P. can be
appropriate along our six-lane major arterials...Fred Waring, Monterey...but,
one person's opinion, that they appear to be much less appropriate on
streets that are not those wide, six-lane, kind of streets. I know we're
14
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
now...collector streets...we're now looking at Portola and O.P. on Portola
north and south of Fred Waring, we're being asked to look at O.P. on Deep
Canyon, San Pablo, and I suspect other places as well.
RSK And a bunch in the North Sphere.
BAC A bunch out there, so I would like to at least look at the issue of having O.P.
where we so choose along those types of streets to both be a) one-story; b)
"architecturally residential" in character. That doesn't mean they're
residences, but that means that to a passerby, it has a less commercial feel
to it. Now, I don't know if anybody else thinks that or not, but I just...I look
again at a very beautiful building, I'm sure, architecturally on San Pablo, right
next to the street, da-da da-da da-da, and...we've never learned this lesson
very well...here we are yet another time with something that when we look at
it, it all seems fine and wonderful, and when we build it...I've had that with
Charlie Martin's building 20 years ago and Dr. Shah and so on. Perhaps, as
I say, on the major ones, fair enough, but on these other ones...l'd at least
like to look at that issue.
PD And it can be...the next step in the process would be to re-examine the
Zoning Ordinance to adjust whatever goals and objectives that the current
code might be pursuing, how they might be changed.
BAC Maybe this is a General Plan goal...
PD Correct.
BAC ...if the Council so...anyhow, I'd like to visit that in one of our sessions.
PD Sure. In the listing of programs and policies within the land use element as it
relates to the Zoning Ordinance, we can identify that that program,that issue
and that program, to be focused on when we re-examine the Zoning
Ordinance.
RAS Councilman Kelly.
RSK Along with...I agree wholeheartedly with Mayor Pro Tern Crites. Also, there's
a setback problem because we have this building across the street that...it's
right almost on the street, and even with six lanes wide it's still a problem, so
there's a long way...and I agree 100%, there should be areas where
one-story is allowed and it should blend in, and there are areas where
probably two-story might be okay, but...along with the two-story should be
some setback.
RAS Councilman Ferguson.
15
, r
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
JF Well, I agree with both the Mayor Pro Tem and Councilman Kelly, and it goes
back to what I asked Mr. Criste at our last meeting, which is the finer details
of this General Plan, which I hope will engraft some of the genius of the
philosophy of my colleagues on this Council on items such as---as a general
rule of thumb,we don't like to crowd comers...as a general rule of thumb, we
like to provide view corridors where possible...as a general rule of thumb,
we'd like to preserve open space...as a general rule of thumb, we want
setbacks. All of those philosophies really don't codify well into a specific item
in the General Plan, but somehow that philosophy needs to be worked in
here. And when you say we didn't change anything south of Frank Sinatra,
did we at least include some of those concepts?
PD There are those sort of concepts in the urban design element. When I made
that statement, I was talking about land use designations, which is what
we're talking about right now.
JF Well, I just don't want to give our residents the opinion that all we care about
is-north-of Frank Sinatra;-and to hell with-the rest of the City,-we're-just-going-
to leave it as it is. Because I think we are trying to engraft what we did to the
south part of the City in a document so that people have a good indicator of
what they should do north of Frank Sinatra when we get down to the
specifics of planning.
RAS Councilwoman Benson.
JMB (Inaudible)
PD I think we'd like to finish the General Plan. Remember...at any time,
remember, we have a pending ordinance that any time the Council give us
specific direction as to what to come back with, we bring something back.
The...so...I mean, again,we're...you know,we've been amending ordinances,
you know, right and left over the last 20 years, trying to better address the
general goals of our existing General Plan. Any time you want to direct staff
to come back with an ordinance on any subject, we can do that.
JF Was it your thought that, since we did take an action on the hillsides, that we
get an ordinance in the works sooner as opposed to later?
JMB (Inaudible)
RDK Councilmember Benson, is your microphone on, or close enough to you? I
wouldn't want to miss your comments.
PD Do you want to put what we had...
16
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
JMB It was just my thought that we should bring that one back as soon as possible
to get it cemented, I guess.
JF Well, I guess pursuant to my druthers, Riverside County is promulgating an
ordinance, and if you could check with them, I think they're trying to work off
of our ordinance. And I would at least express to you personally some desire
to see you work off of their version as well because they're the same, and it
doesn't matter where a property owner lives on that section line, they're
going to live under the same rules no matter what.
PD Yes, it's just the...I've distributed, and 1 probably should distribute to all of
you...unfortunately, the ordinance that was distributed to me bears no
relationship to, I think, our particular goals. The structure might have some
9 9
interesting aspects to it, but in terms of the specifics of it, it's actually
probably more permissive than our current ordinance.
JF Well, then, maybe you can share that with the Planning Director of Riverside
County because I think his goal is the same as ours.
PD Okay. If that's the ordinance he wants to (inaudible) then that's not going
to...that doesn't help us all that much. I distributed, and I'd love to get
comments, and I don't know if Jean's gotten it...
RSK I don't remember it.
PD Okay. Well, we'll get that to all of you, and you can look at it. Unfortunately,
it is thicker than our entire Zoning Ordinance, but...I'd love to get comments,
and based on those comments,just like we did the previous process with the
hillside,we drafted something and sent it to you guys,we got comments, and
then we came back to you with something. If you want to take a look at this
thing, give me comments, and...
RSK Double comment here. I agree with Councilmember Ferguson. It seems like
if they're doing an ordinance and we're doing an ordinance, we ought to do it
so that they're the...people have the same ordinance if they're going to live
next door to each other. But that's that part. But the other part is...this is off
the subject, but it's not off the subject because I see Jean down there needed
a balloon like I used to...but another organization where I chair it, they have a
wish to speak button, and as Chairman of that, it's really valuable because I
can just sit there and watch the audience and also see the button when
somebody wants to speak. And having sat on the end for quite a while, I
wish we had a button so the Mayor would know when we wanted to say
something.
RAS Well, we actually have one.
17
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
3. Land Use North of Frank Sinatra Drive and Related Land Use Items
Cook Street at Whitewater Channel/Merle
- Directed staff to provide the City Council with a detailed area map
of the area along Cook Street north of the Whitewater Channel to
discuss in a future Closed Session potential acquisition of the
vacant lots adjacent to the Coachella Valley Recreation & Park
District (CVRPD) Golf Center, further requesting that input from
CVRPD also be obtained as to whether any future recreational
opportunities would be available at this site.
Area Along Fred Waring
- Directed staff to bring to the next General Plan Meeting a
discussion regarding current designations and uses in the
Palma Village Plan as they relate to Office Professional along
Fred Waring and Santa Rosa.
Commercial Core Plan/Palma Village Plan/Cook Street Service Industrial
- - Asked-staff to—bring-back a- review--of the named areas and -
designations.
Office Professional Designation
- Requested review of O.P. in areas along collector streets where
one-story and an architecturally residential character would be
more appropriate, along with review of O.P. setbacks.
Hillside Ordinance
- Asked for near future consideration of the revised City Hillside
Ordinance along with staff to review and critique the proposed
County Hillside regulation for compatibility with the City's
intentions for this region.
Next meeting to begin with taking up Land Use, including staff to provide a
worksheet showing what the City has done historically to date,also asked for
an analysis of the financial aspect of the commercial/retail mix being able to
support the cost for the North Sphere. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of the General
Plan will be taken up after concluding the Land Use discussion.
Vill. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
None
56
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
JF 1 have no further (inaudible)
PD One other little item..you have a memo from me that was also handed
out...last meeting there was some discussion about developing different
standards on...different OP standards on different types of roadways...this is
not the time to actually produce a new ordinance, but if you...in the urban
design element we have an existing policy 10 .which states commercial
institutional industrial development projects shall contribute positively to the
design objectives of the community and the specific district or corridor design
standards and guidelines in which they are located. Proposing that to that we
add a program that...a specific program that the office professional OP shall
be amended to include more restrictive architectural height and setback
standards along non-arterial street corridors to ensure compatibility with
surrounding residential areas. And so then we'll proceed with developing an
ordinance amendment. Another thing to take note of...I always hate to bring
these things up, but I'm always compelled...the discussion on Deep Canyon
which we were hoping to defer to a specific hearing. That applicant has
withdrawn his application, so there will not be a specific hearing. We're
then...we therefore-propose that based on the Planning Commission's action
that the OP zone be pulled back to the south side of Ramona. If you want to
see it on the (inaudible)...I guess this is again serendipity...in reality, the
original map was drawn with it going a little bit further north, but when the
graphic Deep Canyon was put on it wiped out that portion. So...as shown is
then as the Planning Commission now recommends it. And that...so that
completes...if there are any other questions about land use issues.
RAS Are you saying it's not necessary for us to do anything (inaudible)
PD Basically you're just confirming that as it's shown there is now is the
appropriate extent of the OP designation. It's a couple of lots more. Right
now there's two lots between the last office and the corridor of Ramona, and
this would extend it to the corner of Ramona.
RAS Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Quite a few
people here today. If we start to get involved in any area that you're
interested in, please let me know so that you can have your place.
TN I am Tom Noble, 74-075 El Paseo, Suite A through E, Palm Desert.
Sorry...I'm not really clear. Are we talking of the area on this side of the
freeway now, the Portola/Gerald Ford/Dinah Shore area? Is that what you
want to hear about or...
PD Yes, the whole (inaudible)
14
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
TN Okay. Thank you. Specifically, I would like to just refer to two letters that I
sent to Mr. Drell during the Planning Commission hearings. There's one
dated September 15'^ and one dated October 7`". I think those have been
provided to you and would just like to incorporate those in your proceedings
as well. In particular, I'm talking today about the what will be the intersection
of Portola Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive. The northwest corner of that
intersection you can see on the map...excuse my pointing, but where Portola
goes up above Gerald Ford and then sort of a curved line...actually, right in
there, exactly. That's contiguous to the existing parcel map 24255 which is
our commercial industrial project that runs from the Dinah Shore extension
over to Monterey Avenue. The staff recommended alternative and the
Planning Commission have recommended that that property stay in what is
now service industrial and will become business industrial park as far as your
zoning designation. I'm the owner of that property and would just like to
express my support of that designation. There was some discussion at the
advisory committee of making a portion of that high density residential,which
I think would not be an appropriate use for a number of reasons as set forth
in those letters but largely because of the proximity to the railroad tracks and
the freeway and the fact that children living in that area would have.to cross.a.__
very busy street to get to schools and parks and those things.
RAS So you're suggesting that Planning Commission's recommendation...you're
in agreement with.
TN Yes, sir.
RAS Okay. Thank you.
TN Thank you very much.
RAS Councilman Kelly, you had something you wanted to...
RSK (Inaudible)
JF What is the this you've got?
RSK (Inaudible) we've accomplished something this afternoon (inaudible)
BAC I would so second accomplishing something.
RAS All in favor, please vote.
RDK Well, just to make sure the Clerk's clear, what is it that you're looking at and
you're approving.
15
T r
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
BAC No, no, this will come back to haunt you later.
JF Addition of Program 10B to the urban design element dealing with special
office professional standards along non-arterial residential corridors.
RDK Okay.
RSK So that we can (inaudible)
RDK Councilmember Benson...thank you. The motion carries by unanimous vote.
RAS Thank you, Councilman Kelly.
BAC Mr. Mayor. While we're in this area, Mr. Drell asked about land use...at our
last meeting we noted that we would come back to the Palma Village Plan at
this meeting.
PD I...what my comment was...we did come back to the Palma Village Plan and
_ we.discussed what we thought was the area of controversy which was the
interface with Palma Village at the Highway 111 alley. I didn't recall any...I
don't recall any other issue of the Palma Village Plan which was...
BAC Yes...
PD For example.
BAC (Inaudible) issue of commercial and whether commercial should back all the
way along Fred Waring to...
PD Oh, you're right.
BAC ...Santa Rosa and whether we should buffer it and...
PD You're right.
BAC ...the pros and cons of that.
PD You're right, right.
BAC So I assume that we have decided to have that at our next meeting?
PD Mr. Criste will be able to present it at the next meeting.
16
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
with changes, not things that have been approved, so that anyone who reads
the newspaper account should not say that x and y has happened, but x and
y will be considered.
PD Sure. Nothing gets approved until you finally approve the encompassing
resolution on the whole General Plan.
JF Yeah, and that also gives folks that own property out there that are affected
by these decisions a chance to get back to us with their input as well.
BAC Yup. And it may be if all these things happen (inaudible) has some bearing
on how people feel on this other piece and where we go on some of those
issues.
RSK That's true.
BAC Are there other issues the members of the Council(inaudible)this afternoon?
Are there issues from staff? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to
.offer.final.public.._final opportunity for_public.comments.on_anything that-has-
been said today or that is not on where we've been today? Hearing none, we
will adjourn to, then, 1 o'clock on the 26th. So ordered.
RDK 4:34 p.m.
The following actions were taken andlor direction was given at this public
hearing:
1. Urban Design Element-Office Professional Standards Along Non-arterial
Residential Corridors
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the addition of
Program 10.6 to the Urban Design Element dealing with special Office Professional
Standards along non-arterial residential corridors. Motion was seconded by
Mayor Pro Tern Crites and carried by 5-0 vote.
2. Land Use
The following direction relates to the `City of Palm Desert - City Limits -
General Plan 2000 Planning Commission Recommended Altemative'Map
dated February 4, 2004, requesting that said direction be implemented on a
DRAFT "City Council Preferred Alternative map to be presented at the next
General Plan Meeting.
♦ Commercial Designations
54
l
CIIy RE P 0 t M UESERI
3-51D FRED WADING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-1378
TEL: 760 346—o6i 1
FAX: 76o 341-7098
-nfoapaim-duen.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 04.01
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.25 to limit
building size in the Office Professional IO.P.) zone on non-arterial streets to single story,
maximum 18 feet in height and maximum of 100 feet in length, among other matters.
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
August 26, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2291
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O.P.) DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, CHAPTER 25.25 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, RESTRICTING BUILDING HEIGHT AND
REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL SCALE ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS WHICH MAY BE
DEVELOPED IN AN O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON
PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
-- - - -Desert-Procedure-Ter-Implementation-of-ttie-Gafifomia-Environmental--Quali"-ct,------
Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of CEQA Guidelines; 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.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare then 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2291
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.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of September, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, JONATHAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
S; BBY NATHAN, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2291
EXHIBIT A
That Section 25.25.019 be added to read:
25.25.019 Building limitations for O.P. zoned lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story with a
maximum basic height of 15 feet and in no event shall the height exceed 18 feet in
height. Approval of a building height over 15 feet shall be discretionary based on
architectural merit. Project to be subject to O.P. setback standards. Overall
architectural design shall be consistent with the residential character of the
surrounding area.
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 D AFT�
€V�r�TC:
Action:
Commissioner Tschopp moved for approval and Commissioner Finerty
seconded the motion. Under discussion Chairperson Jonathan stated that
he would be opposed to the motion only because he would want to
explore the possibility and feasibility of eliminating that dish or in some
way shielding it from obvious view. He thought they had worked hard
and successfully to create true stealth in regard to these cell antennas
and to basically hang a dish on a tree was to him going backwards in that
effort. So he would want to pause and explore the possibility of either
other technology or some kind of shielding mechanism so that it didn't
look like there was a dish hanging up on the top of this tree. For the
record that was why he was opposed to the motion. He called for the
vote. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Jonathan voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2290, approving
CUP 04-06, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson
Jonathan voted no).
MUN01111P E. Case No. ZOA 04-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval of a zoning ordinance amendment,
Chapter 25.25, to limit buildings in the O.P. zone on Portola
Avenue from Fred Waring Drive to De Anza Way to single
story, maximum 18 feet in height and maximum 100 feet
in length.
Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that this wasn't a specific application,
which would be coming up in Item F following this matter. Right now
they were only going to discuss the change of zone being recommended
by staff. He asked for the staff report. Mr. Smith clarified that this was
a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text, not a zone change,
which was contained within Item F.
Mr. Smith informed commission that during the General Plan review, the
Council discussed at length the appropriate land uses along the west side
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION e. SUBJECI K
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 i 1 T REVISION
of Portola south of Fred Waring Drive. Ultimately the Council dual
designated the area residential, median density/office professional and
directed staff to return with appropriate amendments to the O.P.
standards to provide buildings that would be residential in scale. Staff
was back with that now and they looked into various restrictions which
could be considered. They looked at building height, one story, two
stories, setbacks, and overall building mass considerations.
Ultimately, staff came up with the proposal which was before the
commission to limit any O.P. development that might occur to one story
with a maximum height of 18 feet and a maximum length of 100 feet.
The intent was to have office buildings which are residential in character.
Given the low building height of homes in this specific area on the west
side of Portola, staff felt that two-story buildings would be out of
character with that community.
For purposes of CEQA, they were looking at a Class 5 Categorical
Exemption and no further review was necessary. The staff's
recommendation was that Planning Commission recommend approval of
the proposed amendment to the City Council. He pointed out that if that
was the Commission's direction, that would preclude an affirmative
response with respect to Item F on their agenda. He asked for any
questions.
On that very point, Chairperson Jonathan said it might be a legal
question, but from a timing standpoint, if they have a pending application
prior to an adopted zoning ordinance amendment, he asked if that
precluded them, if they followed the new revised amended zoning
ordinance if .that should occur, or if there was a grandfathering
procedure. Mr. Smith said no, the next application includes the proposed
change of zone to office professional. If the Commission took this action
now, then the policy of the Commission would be such that they could
not recommend the zone change because the project doesn't conform to
these standards. Mr. Drell stated there is no grandfathering. They could
actually change, and they have actually denied projects that were
consistent with the existing zoning and after the fact changed the zone
before they showed up in court. The City always has the ability to
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 ��� SUBJECT W.
REVISION
change their regulation to correct any of that disconnection in that both
the change of zone is a discretionary act in the next case. That was why
they did this in this order. The only question in terms of the process
tonight was if they wanted to be looking at the project simultaneously
with their discussion so they could be seeing an example of a proposal
in this area at the same time they are looking at the regulation to
determine if the regulation is appropriate. So they could actually look at
it both ways and simultaneously if they wanted. The question was
whether in terms of expediency in terms of the testimony they might
want to since most of the people who were going to get up and talk
about one would get up and talk about the other as well. But it was up
to the Commission if they wanted to talk about them at the same time.
Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was comfortable with the way the
agenda was so that they generically address the zoning ordinance
amendment without looking at a specific application. He asked the other
commissioners for their opinions. Commission agreed. Commissioner
Finerty stated that she believed that they should chart the course before
looking at an application. Chairperson Jonathan said that was the
consensus, so they would stay with that approach.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were other questions for staff.
Regarding the one story which Mr. Smith said they wanted to keep
residential, Commissioner Campbell noted that there are homes that are
two-stories there and asked for the height of those homes on Portola, on
the corner of Santa Rosa and Portola. Mr. Drell said those were town
houses and are 24 feet with pitched roofs. They weren't fronting on the
street and they are set back with walls and landscaping. Those were
some of the things they looked at. The character of even a two-story
home tends to differ from a two-story office building and they kind of
went back and forth. Then there were issues of architectural style and at
what point two-story townhouses, which might be compatible, differ
from a two-story office which typically have a different architectural
character. He said it was a good question.
Commissioner Campbell noted that the home on the corner of Catalina
and Portola is a two-story home. Mr. Drell said it is set back considerably
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 L
{ SUBJECT Tf
AFT. �� �$f�
further and had probably been there 50 years. Commissioner Campbell
reiterated that those homes are 25 feet. Mr. Drell said 24 feet, although
he wasn't sure how big the older house was.
Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification. The language of the
amendment addressed the 100-foot maximum length. He asked why that
particular number. Mr. Drell said that in terms of building mass, most
homes are less than that, but a duplex might be 100 feet if they had
attached units. In terms of overall building mass, some of the criticisms
of some of our buildings on Fred Waring have been that they are too
long, so that was the kind of the source of that. Why not 80 or 120?
Staff just came up with a number. In essence, this is where maybe
looking at real examples is helpful to decide what is just right or too long.
Commissioner Lopez asked if a typical building was 100 feet what would
be the width. Mr. Drell thought 40 or 50 feet. Commissioner Lopez
indicated that they would be looking at a 4,000 or 5,OOO square foot
building. Mr. Drell concurred.
Given the projections on the increased traffic on Portola, Commissioner
Tschopp asked if there had been any thought for if they had quite a few
4,000 or 5,000 square foot buildings built here in this section, about the
ingress and egress of these vehicles into the various parking lots. He
asked if it would be fairly similar to what happens on Monterey or no
worse. Mr. Drell thought it would be better than Monterey since
Monterey takes a lot more traffic now and would take more traffic. It
would be no worse than Monterey since Portola would have less traffic,
so it would be similar to what they were seeing with those little projects.
It was the same thing when they tried to consolidate as many of the
accesses as possible and limit those driveways, but this was kind of a
"darned if you do and darned if you don't." Public Works wants to limit
access onto Portola. The residents want to limit access onto the side
streets. From a pure safety point of view, probably the side streets are
the better access point, but again, the people who live on those streets
don't want to be competing with that commercial traffic in their
neighborhood.
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT FC
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 SUBJECT
AF1
In this discussion they weren't talking about access, but when they look
at projects that is something they have to weigh. The more they can
distribute that traffic to multiples, which goes to the concentration issue
which has some advantages, but the more you concentrate traffic, the
more you impact a single point. So the more they can distribute traffic to
a lot of driveways, then there is a lesser impact at each point. It's a
balancing act.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if a two-story building could be built with
an 18-foot height limit. Mr. Drell said 18 feet allowed one story with a
mezzanine. The Commission actually saw a building like that recently.
Depending on how deep they want to sink it in the ground, a basement
didn't count as a story. Theoretically it could. Once half the wall is sunk,
it's a basement and isn't considered a story. Commissioner Tschopp said
that if he heard right, it sounded like staff was having a little bit of
discussion as to whether it should be one story or just limited to 18 feet
given that perhaps a well-drawn designed building by an architect might
accommodate two stories rather than just limiting it to one story. Mr.
Drell said that was accurate.
Chairperson Jonathan asked when the sunken first floor was not
considered a story. Mr. Drell said that when at least 51 % of the wall is
below existing grade. Chairperson Jonathan said that for example it was
typical to see two-story office buildings at 24 or 25 feet, so if a building
was sunk six feet, then they are over 50% and it didn't count and was
conceivable.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that staff was trying to limit mass and the
appearance to be as consistent as possible with residential. He asked if
staff considered just dealing with the numbers as opposed to trying to
define whether it should be one story and two stories, and 100 feet. For
example, generally what might be offensive in terms of height is the line
of sight. So if a building was set back from Portola and so far from the
residences, that 24 feet might not be offensive to anyone. He asked if
staff looked at standards rather than limiting to one story. Mr. Drell said
that the geometry that is there didn't really allow that. The project before
the commission in the next item is unusually large. For most of the land
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIONA ii i A SUBJECT TC
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 LJ AFT- REVISION
that this ordinance would apply to, the lots are relatively narrow and to
a certain degree might be moot in that they won't meet the current O.P.
standards for a two-story building in terms of setbacks. Only a limited
number of lots are deep enough to even meet our current standards, so
staff's dilemma was they don't have the room to push it back because
then they are impacting the residents more and if they push it forward,
they are crowding the street with a bigger building.
Chairperson Jonathan clarified that what he was asking was if someone
came up with a creative design that was desirable by the residents and
staff and so forth, what the procedure would be for an exception to the
zoning ordinance amendment. Mr. Drell said that currently in this
particular zone there isn't one. He recalled that about a year or two ago
the Planning Commission recommended an exceptions section that talked
about architectural quality and things like that and the Council denied
that specific ordinance, but approved a project which theoretically
required it for its approval. So the Council has decided that if they like
something they can approve it, but in theory, while they have many
zones that have this process, the O.P. zone isn't one of them.
There were no other questions and Chairperson Jonathan opened the
public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION on this matter. He informed the audience that their
comments should be limited to the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment, not to any specific application which was coming up on the
agenda.
MR. PAUL BOWIE, 71 -774 Chuckawalla Way in Palm Desert,
92260, addressed the commission. He stated that he came tonight
to speak on another issue; however, this matter was appropriate
and it brought a question to his mind on the general profile of the
residential neighborhood as it stands today as a single story and
whether or not they are starting to have an encroachment of
something else into the area, say 18 feet, and they can't make a
setback apparently from the street to harbor the appearance of a
taller building. So as he gathered his thoughts about this issue on
the agenda, he could only say that he thought it was inappropriate
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 SUBJECT TC.
FT- REVISION
for the commission to take any action on this matter tonight and
to possibly table it or defer it to another time and ask for a more
complete study about the character profile of the general
neighborhood in regard to these issues.
MS. RAMONA FLETCHER, 73-969 Olive Court, which backs up to
Portola, addressed the commission. Speaking to the code, she felt
it didn't really go far enough if they were going to get this specific.
One of the things that happened to them in another city, not here,
was being subjected to a public access parking lot and the
problems that this addresses, the people who have property
abutting that, and the access they have to all sorts of things that
aren't in the rules, but nonetheless require police action, etc.
Because when they have office professional and residential, which
this property is now stated as residential as listed here, what
happens is they have a real problem with the office professional
people, not while they are there, but when they leave every night
and on weekends and the public access that has been created that
is free to the public to do as they will when they will and this
created a lot of problems. If they were going to be this specific,
she would like to see that part addressed also.
MS. JEAN MARTIN, 44-276 San Jose Avenue, addressed the
commission. She said that was located just west of the proposed
project coming up next. She needed a clarification. It said to limit
building in the O.P. zone on Portola Avenue from Fred Waring
Drive to De Anza Way to single story, etc. All of that property is
presently zoned R-1 and she didn't understand why it was saying
the O.P. zone on Portola when it does not exist between Fred
Waring and De Anza.
Mr. Drell explained that the General Plan designates this area as
potentially O.P. and this had to do with somewhat of an anomaly in the
Council policy created in that normally we would be rezoning properties
consistent with the General Plan. They didn't want to do that before they
created and responded also to the General Plan direction of amending the
zoning ordinance. Since the Council kind of directed them that they
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIONy
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 SUBJECT TC.
AFT=
REVISION
shouldn't rezone properties consistent with the General Plan until they
have specific projects, it does create somewhat of a timing anomaly. But
for better or worse, that was the direction by Council on how to proceed
with these things. So obviously the next project there is a proposed
rezoning. So they are saying that if office buildings are built in this area,
these are the standards. It kind of relied on the General Plan as the
authority to do that.
Chairperson Jonathan paraphrased it that the General Plan was recently
amended. That amendment provides for areas where the zoning will
change; however, those changes would not occur until a specific
application comes before the city.
And approval of the residents of the area. Ms. Martin asked if that
was correct.
Chairperson Jonathan said there was always opportunity for lots of public
testimony.
Ms. Martin stated that a group of them and most of them here had
been involved with the zoning change since 1999 and they keep
going back to it. They had been very fortunate, all the way
through City Council have not approved any zoning change in this
area.
Chairperson Jonathan explained that there wasn't a zoning change yet.
The General Plan allowed and provided for a change of zone along Portola
and what they were doing tonight was discussing the possibility of
amending the office professional zoning just for that area of Portola
should that occur.
Ms. Martin asked if this should be reworded in some way so that
it was understood by the residents who are fighting this. It's
stating "building in the O.P. zone on Portola Avenue from Fred
Waring to De Anza" and if she were reading this and not living in
the area, she would think this was already an O.P. zone.
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT ff
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 1 ' FT=///�AREVISION
Mr. Drell said she was correct and if this proceeds, staff would reword
the request description.
Ms. Martin thanked him.
Chairperson Jonathan said that was the purpose of the public hearing so
when they get to the Planning Commission discussion, if it is the
Planning Commission's desire to modify the wording, they would
certainly do so.
MS. MING LOWE, stated that she lives in Pinyon, but her address
is 73-985 Catalina Way, which is the southwest corner on Portola
and Catalina. She didn't know they were going to bring this up this
way and word it this way, but there were a couple of things she
noticed when they were talking about whatever they were talking
about and that was they said 100 feet per lot per building. She
asked if that was per lot or combined lots, that 100 feet.
Mr. Drell said it didn't matter. A building couldn't be built over a property
line.
Ms. Lowe said that could turn into a massive thing.
Chairperson Jonathan said it was 100 feet per building.
Ms. Lowe said 100 feet per lot, per building. The other thing about
two stories is that she felt it would double the traffic. No one
mentioned traffic, but two stories is a taller building, but it also
doubles the ins and outs. The third thing is that Mr. Drell
mentioned that in order to lighten the traffic, the ins and outs
would be spread out possibly onto a residential street. The project
coming up, the parking lot would be on Catalina and the ins and
outs would be on Catalina, which is a residential street. So that
was just a concern she had when they were talking about the
building, but they weren't talking about the parking lot. And two
stories would double the amount of cars parked, double the
amount of cars coming in and out on a residential street were they
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION l n, , AFT
SUBJECT T(
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 o REVQ O
to field traffic off of Portola. She also thought that 18 feet was
not copacetic with the neighborhood as it currently exists.
MS. JUSTINA JEFFERS, 44-251 Portola, stated that her driveway
is on Portola and there is a lot of traffic. She would like them to
consider the amount of additional traffic office professional would
bring to the area. They have at least six schools in the area, so in
the morning she thought they had more traffic than Monterey. In
the evenings if they looked at traffic at five o'clock, they have a
lot of traffic. She asked them to consider the options.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked her and clarified for the audience that
what was before the commission was not a proposal for a change of
zone in terms of the matter they were currently discussing. It just
addressed a modification to the office professional zone in that area
should there be a change of zone.
Ms. Jeffers stated that it didn't appear that way in the wording.
It says O.P. zone. She asked if they were going to fix that.
Chairperson Jonathan said they were going to discuss the matter and
might clarify that. He again stated that whether it showed that way on
the paper or not, they were not here to discuss a change of zone. They
were there to discuss a modification to the zone should a change of zone
occur.
Ms. Jeffers said that the amount of traffic since the road had been
approved is doubled. It's just doubled. The road was really
wonderful, it was beautiful and she really liked it, but there's no
way she would put her arm straight out while on the sidewalk
without it being taken off. It's the speed that is going through
there. The increased traffic just regularly, right now, without a
change of zoning has been increased dramatically.
Chairperson Jonathan said he wasn't arguing and wasn't disagreeing, he
just wanted to make it clear that the end result of this matter would not
be a change of zone.
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUB�C-CT Tt
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 �
i i r REY{SIo1
Ms. Jeffers asked what would be the result. She asked what they
were talking about then.
Chairperson Jonathan said he would state it one last time and then they
would move on. They are discussing the possibility of a modification to
the office professional zone in that area should a change of zone occur
at some later time. A change of zone was not a matter before them.
Ms. Jeffers said that by agreeing to this part, it precludes the next
part, so that was her question.
Chairperson Jonathan said they would address that when they got to
that matter.
Commissioner Tschopp commented that in reality the General Plan did
state that given the proposal for the expansion of Portola and so forth
for various reasons including buffering the residential areas on the sides
of the street, that perhaps this could be an area of O.P. zoning in the
future. So they are dealing with this tonight. The reality of the situation
is that at some point in time they will see perhaps more commercial
building requests coming in for this area. He thought that was kind of
what the citizens were asking. Some of it might be semantics, but it isn't
zoned O.P. now, but yes, people will be coming in to put in commercial
buildings here and that is the reality of it. Perhaps the City needed to give
a little more explanation of why in the General Plan they felt this might
be a good way to pursue that. Mr. Drell asked if he should give that a
shot right now. Chairperson Jonathan said no, he would like to move on
instead of belaboring it.
MS. ANN WALKER, 74-539 Monte Verde in Palm Desert, said
they also owned the house at 44-326 Catalina which was right
behind the project coming up. She said she was in favor of what
is on the table right now because she realized it wasn't a zoning
change and was glad it wasn't a zoning change, but if the in future
it could be changed to O.P., she would like it to be single story.
She was in favor of what was going on right now. She knew it
wasn't a zoning change, but was realistic enough to know that
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBIEtT Tf.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 � ,i ' AFT
..
ROAM
Portola is pretty darn busy and she wouldn't build her house there,
so she would like to speak in favor of what is on the table.
MR. CHRISTOPHER McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Suite
204, stated that he was the applicant and owner on the next
project and he felt compelled to come up and respond to what is
going on here now. He could get into all the detail later on this,
but he disagreed with this unilateral assumption that 100-foot by
18-foot defined residential character or that anything that would
fit into that box would automatically be residential in character. He
felt that was a generic process of all the cities that he does work
in all over the Coachella Valley. He does 60% residential work and
40% commercial. As an architect, rules like this are hard edged
and lack creativity and vision. That is what this project needed,
vision. That was what he hoped to present later on for another
project here tonight; however, he saw this as kind of a nail in the
coffin type thing trying to shut his project down without even
getting a hearing.
He said he met with the five City Council members individually and
hoped this was a minority view point that was being perpetrated
on this project. He thanked the commission.
MS. MEREDITH FORD addressed the commission and stated that
she and her husband purchased 44-447 Portola Avenue which is
currently a blighted residential property which they plan to build
office professional on per the General Plan. The commission would
be seeing them down the road and so would the neighbors. She
stated that they have a single story plan and they have everything
they have been suggested to bring about the building, the size, the
architecture, the ingress and egress to make it comfortable for not
only the neighbors, but to blend in with the homes that are there.
She agreed, and they had no problem with the single family. She
thanked the commission.
MS. VON DISHMAN, 73-990 Olive Court in Palm Desert, asked
how much property they were talking about that would be
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 `" 'A FT SUBJECT' K
E' � REVISION!
amended and how far that amendment would go. She asked if it
would go all the way down to Santa Rosa or if it was just that one
little parcel there at Catalina and Portola.
Chairperson Jonathan stated that the proposal from staff that was before
the commission would affect Portola between Fred Waring Drive and De
Anza Way.
Ms. Dishman said that it didn't have anything to do with the
Catalina area at this particular moment.
Chairperson Jonathan explained that Catalina is within that stretch. Mr.
Drell said it would affect only those areas potentially designated in the
General Plan.
Ms. Dishman thanked them.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else present who
wished to address the commission regarding this particular item. There
wasn't. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for
commission comments.
Commissioner Finerty said that it seems like they have been over this
before. They spent several sessions discussing whether there should be
office professional on Portola in this particular area. She was opposed to
it then and she remained opposed to it now because she believed that the
residential integrity of the neighborhood should be preserved. She didn't
feel that every spot of dirt needed to be covered with a building. She
would be opposed to any O.P. designation and felt that this area would
be better served as single story units. She understood that medium
density might be appropriate there and she thought that with the parks,
the schools and the existing housing that is what they needed to keep it.
Chairperson Jonathan said that as he understood it, that wasn't the
matter they were there to address or discuss. Commissioner Finerty said
it was in a sense because if they are going to set standards of single
story and 18 feet if and when it goes to O.P., she was just saying that
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 _ SUBSET TF
bkAFT REVIRON
she is opposed to O.P. in the first place and, therefore, did not believe
discussing what kind of standards was appropriate. She believed the area
should remain residential. Chairperson Jonathan said he wasn't
persuaded, but understood what she was saying.
Commissioner Lopez stated that the item before them tonight, the zoning
ordinance amendment as it was before them, had merit. He thought it
had merit from the standpoint that should some day a project come
before them that is office professional that makes sense for that
particular area, in lieu of a single family home that would have a difficult
time getting out of their driveway on Portola at that particular junction,
not farther down Portola and even farther down Portola it was difficult.
But in this particular situation it had merit. He would rather see in the
future a well-designed residential in character, whether 100 feet or 65
feet or whatever the case might be, and he thought that putting a length
on it limited it somewhat, but he did think a height restriction was
required. The residents that back up to this property did not have before
them a 25-foot building that impacts their property. It has been shown
in the past that office buildings blockading major thoroughfares, and
Portola was going to be that in the future whether they liked it or not, it
was going to be a busy street, and these buildings do block the traffic
noise from the residential areas on the other side of the building. It has
shown to be successful and are items that have been approved and built
in areas along Fred Waring Drive that prove that. But in this particular
case as it pertains to the area between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza
Way, it shows merit that there needs to be a height restriction. Whether
it would ever be used, they didn't know, although there was a feeling
that it might be used very soon. But in the case of this particular
amendment, he thought it showed merit and they needed to work with
the language of it so that is understandable by the residents and maybe
a little more clearly for the commission as well.
Commissioner Campbell stated that the office professional buildings that
exist on Portola between De Anza and Alessandro are one-story and she
thought.they really looked very nice along Portola. They do quite a bit of
business. She knew that the dentist had taken in another dentist, so she
knew he was quite busy there. As far as the parking was concerned, the
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 " A FTW SUBJECT TC,UREVISION
egress is on Portola, but the ingress is on Alessandro. She was sure that
just having the maximum height of 18 feet or beyond, maybe up to 20
along Portola, would make a nice project. But again, as she brought up
earlier, there are two-story homes along there and she questioned making
this 18 feet and yet these other homes were up to 24 or 25 feet. They
have also approved buildings in other areas, office professional buildings,
that buffer on residential homes and they do not allow them to have
windows on that side. So it was really difficult to say they could have
one story when there was something there a lot higher. It would be good
to have office professional like Commissioner Lopez stated. It was a good
buffer for the residential and she didn't think that Portola was going to
be widened anymore. Mr. Drell said that in the long range it may be
widened another six or eight feet, so it might be widened. Commissioner
Campbell said that maybe they wouldn't have enough room to have
office professional right there. Mr. Drell said they would. Commissioner
Campbell said that they would be narrowing it more. Mr. Drell said that
the office professional development on Monterey on the east side south
of Fred Waring, those lots are only 65 or 70 feet wide because their
depth used to face those residential streets. They have successfully
developed far more narrower sites as office professional. It does more
severely impact residential development, especially the existing homes
there since if it ever happens, they would lose a big chunk of their front
yards.
Commissioner Campbell asked about the building that was just completed
on Monterey. She asked if that was the one he was speaking of, the
medical building by John Vuksic across from the community gardens.
Mr. Drell clarified that it was on San Pablo. That building was about 140
feet deep. Commissioner Campbell asked about the length. Mr. Drell said
that building would not have met this standard if it was going to be built
on Portola. It meets the current O.P. standards in terms of height,
setbacks and mass. Part of the Council's motivation in giving this
direction was not simply our normal concern for the impacts of the
residents behind because these residents would be impacted no more or
less than any of the residents who have been impacted by all the
development on Fred Waring and Monterey. But it was as much on the
physical appearance when driving on Portola from Fred Waring to
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION s ?
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 � . AH
_ SUBJECT TC.
RVfS1Q�!
Highway 111 . They are still driving through what is essentially a
residential area, so it was both motivated by concern from behind and
concern for the motorist, the image as one drives through the area, which
is a little different then how they've thought of things in the past.
Commissioner Campbell reiterated that they were looking toward
widening Portola. Mr. Drell said Public Works has discussed it in terms
of the ultimate right-of-way as specified in the General Plan. There is a
desire to put bike paths on the street which don't exist now. Right now,
as discussed, it is quite intimidating walking up and down since people
are driving 40 mph 18 inches away from the sidewalk. So there is a
desire to move the sidewalk away from the curb and to create a buffer
in the form of a bike path to allow bicyclists to go up and down the
street and to separate the automobile traffic from the sidewalk. And
there was a desire to put in a landscaped median to further enhance the
visual quality of the street. Any future office that would apply to develop
on Portola would be required to dedicate whatever perspective real estate
we might need. Commissioner Campbell said it would be a smaller
building and they would require less parking because it would be less
land.
Commissioner Tschopp said that issue before them is the proposed
amendment that wants to limit commercial building height and length if
it is constructed on Portola. He agreed strongly that whatever type of
commercial building if they go ahead on Portola would be limited in
height and size because there was an ambience in this area that needs
to be preserved. He wasn't convinced that the wording in the
amendment is the right way in that he hated to see them limit or hinder
architectural design creativity with arbitrary 18-foot limits in height and
100-fcot buildings because sometimes architects could do a better job
given a little creativity. He also wasn't all that convinced that they need
more office space along Portola. He heard the arguments of the proximity
of the various schools, the various amenities in the neighborhood, the
park going in, the bike paths coming into the street and he wasn't sure
what bicyclists would think if they knew they were a buffer between
traffic and the sidewalk. But to him it was almost too bad they didn't
have the time to really look at this area a little more in depth and see
25
MINUTES rw map=
8UBACT T(. �
y .
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION RfiYiS10#!
A �_.]
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 d.r
what truly they would want to do on a long-range plan to see how it
develops out. But given that the issue is limiting commercial building
height and size, he would be in favor of limiting it for that purpose.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that what they were being asked to do
tonight is recommend to the Council approval of this amendment. Right
now the new General Plan allows office professional along Portola if there
is a change of zone, because right now Portola is zoned residential. What
they could do in theory if there was office professional allowed on Portola
right now and someone came in for a change of zone, they could go 25
feet, two stories and so forth. So what this amendment was seeking to
do is soften that and say no, they are going to set less intrusive
standards and lower the building height, mass and size. If there was
going to be office, it was going to be softer office is what this
amendment was doing.
What he was hearing the commission say is that there is still some doubt
or lack of understanding as to whether, even though the General Plan has
been amended to allow office professional in this part of Portola, whether
in fact the Council has intent of following through with an actual change
of zone in that area. So if they have that doubt, since what they were
being asked to do was make a recommendation to Council, their response
to Council could be, Council, would you clarify for us if in fact there is a
long-term intent to allow the development of office professional along
Portola. Mr. Drell thought they had to take them by their word that they
acted with the General Plan to do that. Chairperson Jonathan thought
that was a matter of his opinion. They were in the discussion stage and
he was just suggesting that as a possibility. They didn't have to
recommend either yes or no to this amendment. They could seek
clarification if in fact in their mind they aren't sure that is the direction
they want to proceed. And if it was a simple response from them yes,
we modified the General Plan, we voted on it, we the City Council are
intending to allow office professional, but we aren't sure we want the
same standards in this area as in the rest of the city. If they tell the
commission that, it clarifies it. He said they should keep in mind that this
is commission discussion. That is an option they might want to pursue.
He asked for commission comments.
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 SUBJECT T(;
Lj REMtON
Commissioner Tschopp noted that the comment was raised by
Commissioner Finerty of having residential here. He asked if they have
looked at an alternative multi-family going in along this street and what
the impact on traffic and the amenities and so forth would be. The
General Plan stated O.P., but it also said residential, medium density. Is
that the direction they want to be taking? But given the information the
commission had here, he didn't know how they could come up with a
decision on that tonight.
To some extent, Chairperson Jonathan didn't really want to revisit all
those issues because he thought they did address them. When they made
their recommendation to Council about this area, they addressed it and
looked at it in depth and said there was a possibility for appropriate office
professional development along this part of Portola. That was his
personal opinion. Commissioner Finerty noted that some of the
commission thought that, others didn't. Chairperson Jonathan said he
was talking about the majority vote and they knew in any good
organization, once they took a majority vote, they all stand behind it and
move forward. He didn't want to go backwards and revisit issues they
already have, he was just suggesting the possibility that if in fact they
aren't certain of Council's direction, then they can ask for clarification.
But as they sit here today, his understanding was that Council has
approved the General Plan amendment which includes the possibility, not
an actual change of zone yet, but the possibility of office professional on
Portola. What they are being asked to do is go a step further and say if
there is going to be office professional in that area of Portola, then they
want to provide further limits on essentially the mass, the height of the
buildings and the look of the buildings. He didn't know what direction
they want to go in. If the commission was comfortable about what
Council wants from them, then they can address this proposed
amendment. If they weren't, and that was why he brought it up because
he was sensing a certain level of uncertainty, and if the commission
wanted to ask the Council for clarification, that could be the
commission's response to this.
Mr. Drell stated that the direction to amend the code was also in the
General Plan. That was a specific program that the Council inserted into
27
PALM MINUTES SUBJECT Tl
DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' `
SEPTEMBER 7 2004 AFT REVISION
the Urban Design Element. So he thought their direction on amending the
code was also fairly clear. That is a program approved unanimously, he
believed, on a vote of the Council to amend the code in this situation. So
they have spoken rather specifically on that issue. The discussion here
wasn't whether it should be amended, but how it should be amended.
Chairperson Jonathan said that if that is the commission's wish, then
they can respond by some modification of the wording that clarifies that
in the event that a change of zone occurs along this part of Portola, then
it is the commission's recommendation that certain restrictions be added
into this zoning in that area having to do with height limitations or mass.
He asked if they wanted to go in that direction and put in a qualifier.
Commissioner Campbell asked why they should limit it to one story and
a maximum height of 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said he was going
to get to that part of the discussion, but asked if they wanted to at least
go in that direction in saying that in the event that a change of zone
should occur on Portola, then they recommend the following.
Commissioner Tschopp said yes. Chairperson Jonathan said they should
then go in that direction.
Having said that, Chairperson Jonathan noted that Commissioner
Campbell wasn't entirely comfortable with the wording proposed by
staff. Commissioner Campbell didn't think it should state that it would be
limited to one story with a maximum height of 18 feet unless a project
came before them and as she said earlier, it could go up to 20 feet to
make it aesthetically feasible. Commissioner Finerty asked if there are 20-
foot single story houses in that area. Mr. Drell said no, there are some
24-foot two-story houses; 20-foot single family homes typically might be
in very unusual circumstances (very rare) at the peak. Typically they are
a pitched roof.
Commissioner Finerty asked for the height of the homes in that area. Mr.
Drell thought the single family homes averaged 13 or 14 feet.
Commissioner Finerty said they were smaller than 18 feet because of
their age. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Finerty noted that 18 is
even stretching it to stay within the current character of the
neighborhood. Mr. Drell said that 18 feet is the City's current height limit
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 >i� FT-
SUBJECT tf'.
ROWN
on single story. Commissioner Finerty said she understood that, but this
was a special circumstance where they were trying to match the
residential character of the neighborhood and if in fact they were trying
to do that, then it seemed to her that they needed to stay in the 13-14
foot range because that is in fact what the height of the houses are. She
asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that the newer houses that have
been built are typically higher than that in the area. And they have had
24-foot high. Commissioner Finerty noted that in that area, the houses
that would actually be behind any proposed development are 13-14 feet
in height. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that one of them
right behind further down in the area they are talking about has a two-
story house right behind it. He thought that was the point Commissioner
Campbell was making. Commissioner Finerty said that if they were to
look at the residential neighborhood as a whole, of all the homes that
back up to any proposed project, she asked what the average height
would be in Mr. Drell's opinion. Mr. Drell assumed it would be 14 or 15
feet.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that the existing residential structures in that
area vary from 13-14 to 24. Commissioner Campbell noted they had flat
roofs that they used to have years ago.
Continuing with the discussion on whether they were going to
recommend an amendment to the zoning ordinance in that area,
Chairperson Jonathan asked if they wanted to be as specific with height,
length and so forth. Commissioner Finerty said yes. She said that if
Council's direction is to keep it as residential as possible, then they
needed to try to match the average height of what is there now and Mr.
Drell said that was 14-15 feet. She was sure there were exceptions of
24 feet, but if they were going to look at 90%, she knew it was much
lower than the suggested 18 feet. Therefore, she believed it should be
limited and was only fair to the residents that are there to preserve their
neighborhood and she thought the 18 feet was too high and that it
should be limited to 15 feet.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if someone wanted to build a duplex or
something of that nature, he asked if they would just be limited to the
29
MINUTES , !?
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 SUBJECT Tr.
�
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 L/ A A RimoN
height. Mr. Drell said their residential multi-family zones were
automatically limited to 18 feet if they are adjacent to a single story
zone. So those properties have single story behind them and would be
limited to the 18 feet as a residence as well.
Commissioner Tschopp said that if someone came in that lives in the
neighborhood and wanted to remodel their home, tear it down, they
would be able to build an 18-foot high unit. Mr. Drell said they have a
special review process for homes between 15 and 18 feet at the
architectural commission. And one of the things they do is look at the
adjacent homes. They look at the overall architectural quality and what
they often do is require hipped roofs down at the property lines so in
essence at the property lines the houses might only be 12 or 13 feet.
They might have peaks that are 18, but they try to architecturally soften
the houses at the edges where they interact with a lower home.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if it would be appropriate to incorporate
something of that nature into this. Mr. Drell said they could do that. In
essence, as a matter of right they could only have 15 feet, but based on
architectural quality they could go to 18 feet or any other number the
commission preferred.
Rather than their recommendation to Council getting so specific,
Chairperson Jonathan said it seemed to him they were trying to replicate
within the office professional zoning for this area something that looks
as close to residential as possible. He suggested that they just say that.
Instead of getting into an actual height limit, mass and length, why not
say that the desired objective for this area is to create office professional
buildings that look as residential as possible and meet the residential
zoning ordinance. Commissioner Finerty asked if he was suggesting that
it be allowed to go up to 24 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said it would be
for single family residences. Commissioner Finerty asked if he was
suggesting a limit to 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said it could.
Commissioner Finerty noted that he was saying not to do specific
numbers, but if he said they were limiting it to residential and they were
talking about single story, then they really are talking 18 feet. If they
30
MINUTES $U13JEV Ti.
SEPTEMBERPALM R7, 2004
NING COMMISSION a im vi` �W RYI1ON
were talking two-stories, then it is 24 feet. She asked where he was
thinking this ought to go.
Chairperson Jonathan clarified that he was suggesting that in the
amendment to the ordinance that they reference single family residential
standards, whatever those might be. He understood that those standards
had specifics. He wasn't trying to dodge those specifics, but he was
saying in this amended ordinance, rather than go do the list of those
specifics that they just indicate they should be the standards that apply
here. Just have a reference to those standards. That was his suggestion.
Commissioner Finerty asked him to repeat that. She was asking if he was
suggesting that it be residential, one story, or residential in nature.
Chairperson Jonathan said both. He was suggesting that in amending the
ordinance for office professional in this area that the style, the
appearance, etc., should attain as residential a feel as possible and that
the standards that exist for single family residential apply equally to the
office professional amended zone here. So if an architect is going to
design office professional, then when he needs to look at height
limitations he will go to the single family residential. If he wants to see
setbacks, he'll go to single family residential. His intent is to end up with
an office building that is as least intrusive and looks as residential as
possible, but functions as an office building.
Commissioner Finerty asked if it was his intent to limit to one story.
Chairperson Jonathan thought single family residential by its very nature
would be limited to one story. Commissioner Finerty said that what he
was saying was the current standard of 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan
said that if that is what applies in single family residential, that would be
the height limit. Mr. Drell said that as a matter of right they are entitled .
to 15 feet; they can get to 18 feet based on the architectural review
commission's review of their design. Chairperson Jonathan said that was
fine. Mr. Drell said the rules that would apply to a single family home in
this area would apply to an office. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. Build
an office but make it subject to the residential standards.
Commissioner Finerty reiterated that those residential standards are any
where from 15 to 18 feet. Mr. Drell said anything between 15 and 18
31
'I
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBIEV TC AFTM .
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 U UNION
feet is discretionary based on design. In an office, somewhat in response
to Mr. McFadden's comment that if you do this you get approved, no.
Every project gets design review beyond whether or not they meet the
strict physical standards. There is still a subjective review that everything
is subject to that would still go into the conclusion whether it is
residential scale or not. Someone could build a 10-foot high building that
wasn't residentially appropriate, so this was just a physical starting point
for the discussion in terms of what is appropriate. He didn't have any
problem with that approach saying they have a standard that is
residential scale and it is contained in the R-1 chapter and they would
just apply it.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that 15 feet would be permitted, but over
15 would have to show that it is justified, but in no event could it exceed
18 feet. Commissioner Finerty concurred.
Commissioner Lopez thought that if they were going to attempt to
provide some flexibility within this amended ordinance, this was probably
the best way to do it. It gave architects the ability to be creative, it gave
some guidelines they believe to be less intrusive, and it made sense. The
language they recommended to Council would be important.
Mr. Drell said the R-1 zone requires a 20-foot setback. In the O.P. they
allow the O.P. buildings to get closer to the commercial street to increase
the potential for setbacks in the rear. And if more widening occurs, they
are dealing potentially with tighter situations. He thought the R-2
standards, and the General Plan designates the alternative land use as
medium density residential which really was the R-2 zone, it would still
be limited to a single story since it is adjacent to single story behind. But
it allowed a 15-foot front setback and allowed those buildings to be
pushed a little further to the front.
Commissioner Finerty suggested the approach they took on Fred Waring
where the setback needed to be equal to the height. Mr. Drell said 1 :1 as
measured from the curb. Commissioner Finerty asked why that couldn't
apply to this location. Mr. Drell said it would. Commissioner Finerty
thought that would take care of the 20-foot setback because they
32
MINUTES t ; SUBJECT If'
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION i I A FTC REVISION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
wouldn't allow anything to be 20 feet high. Mr. Drell said that in the R-1
they would be setback 20 feet even if they were 12 feet high, so their
intent was to allow them to be pushed forward a little bit. For example,
in R-1 the rear setback is only 15 feet and in the O.P. the rear setback is
20 feet. So in essence what they did with the O.P. is increase the rear
setback by five feet and decreased the setback from 20 to 15 in the front
to push those buildings away from the R-1 . He believed the R-2
standards are 15 feet in the front and 20 feet in the rear. Commissioner
Finerty noted that what they are really saying to the residents that back
up to this is they could be backed up to a parking lot. Mr. Drell said 20
feet didn't really provide dimension to a parking lot, but those people
were going to make that choice anyway. They have a lot of O.P.
properties with parking lots in the back and there really hadn't been any
problems. It's an issue of balancing. They do tend to push the building
farther away and they haven't had the enforcement or police problem all
along Fred Waring or Monterey. They did have a problem in some of the
cul-de-sacs and they dealt with problems just like they do with any
problem in the city, they send in the police and the problem disappears.
He suggested that they use the standards for the R-2 which would still
limit it in this situation to one story, 18 feet, but adjust for the setbacks.
Commissioner Finerty asked if the R-2 height started out at 15 feet. Mr.
Drell said he didn't think it was 15. Commissioner Lopez asked if medium
density covered both R-1 and R-2. Mr. Drell said R-1 was all low density.
Chairperson Jonathan suggested that the proposed amendment stand as
staff had it, but provided that with regard to height, the presumed
allowed limit was 15 feet similar to the R-1 procedure that 18 might be
allowed if it made a proper showing. Commissioner Finerty said they
could leave the setback issue out of it because it got pretty complicated.
Chairperson Jonathan agreed. Mr. Drell said they could stick with the
current O.P. standards. Chairperson Jonathan said they would only
modify it based on height. He liked the flexibility of moving a building
around depending on what was best for the neighborhood, such as
putting it closer to Portola and where to put the parking lot. He asked if
that worked. Commissioner Finerty said it worked for her.
33
MINUTES PP'�
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � � SUBJECT Tr
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 REVISION
Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were ready for a motion.
Commissioner Finerty said they would amend staff's language to limit it
to one story in the residential character of the neighborhood to start at
15 feet, but not to exceed 18 feet. That would be totally discretionary.
Mr. Drell said that everything above 15 feet would go to the architectural
commission. Commissioner Finerty stated that nothing would be above
18 feet. Mr. Drell said that offices go through the whole architectural
review process. Chairperson Jonathan confirmed that the presumed limit
was 15 feet and anything in excess of 15 required a special showing and
in no event would it exceed 18 feet. Commissioner Finerty concurred.
Commissioner Campbell asked about the length. She asked if they were
going to leave the language 100 feet. Chairperson Jonathan didn't think
they should specify the length because someone could create a 100-foot
long structure that looked horrible, but someone else could create a 120-
foot structure that looks like two structures and looks good.
Commissioner Finerty said they again had to go back to the residential
character. They didn't see houses that were 140 feet in length. She
asked what the average length of a house was. Commissioner Campbell
asked if it was 30 feet or 40. Mr. Drell thought they were probably 50
or 60 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said if the commission wanted to leave
it in there that was fine. Commissioner Finerty thought 100 might be too
much if their goal is to preserve the residential character of that particular
neighborhood. If they are 50 or 60, she would be more comfortable with
75 feet in length. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they wanted to leave the
specific reference out and just say that in terms of length, depth and
mass the structure shall be as consistent with the residential flavor of the
neighborhood as possible. He asked if that was too open. Commissioner
Finerty thought that was too open. Even if they said 75 feet, they knew
how things went. Commissioner Campbell made note to the one house
earlier on the agenda that was going to be built at 32,000 square feet.
That would be over 100 feet. Commissioner Finerty said she would be
more comfortable with 75 feet because that was still in excess for the
neighborhood, but would allow for a little larger size office building if they
have to go that route.
34
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION :.n,n. SUBJECT Tf-
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 AFT` RiVIStON
Commissioner Tschopp noted that at the same time they could chop
these building up so small that they would actually create more problems
with traffic in the number of employees going to very small businesses
and so forth. He thought they needed to be careful that way. If they give
the architects a little bit of latitude and creativity and word it such that
they are looking at creativity to justify the length and so forth, that would
get the word out. He would rather do that then restrict it so much that
one, it becomes economically infeasible for them to do anything that
even made sense. Chairperson Jonathan summed up that Commissioner
Tschopp would be in favor of no specific reference to the length, and
have general language that in terms of the mass of the structure, it
should be as consistent with the residential flavor of the neighborhood as
possible. Commissioner Tschopp concurred.
Commissioner Lopez concurred that they should leave some flexibility and
let the process handle each of the specific applications they receive and
if they make sense, as they do every meeting, if there is too much mass,
if it is inappropriate for the location they are looking at, they were all
going to be sensitive to what happens in this location and they would
address that through the process. But as far as putting specifics, because
if they are going to put in height, length and width, this place would
never change. They needed to have some flexibility and so did the
developer to proceed with these locations and let the system take care
of what goes there and what they approve and disagree with.
Commissioner Campbell agreed with that because the commission had
to approve it anyway. It would come before them.
In terms of process, Chairperson Jonathan said they got into the
discussion in the middle of the motion, so Commissioner Finerty was
hearing a consensus and didn't know if she wanted to incorporate that
into her motion or not, but he would let her finish making it.
Commissioner Finerty asked if they could do two separate motions.
Chairperson Jonathan said she was free to propose any motions she
wished. Commissioner Finerty didn't think they were being totally
consistent here because they were saying that with the height they feel
strongly apparently about the 15 feet up to 18 feet. Commissioner Lopez
said he wasn't saying that. He was staying that he wanted to stay with
35
MINUTES ,
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION k y .9
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 j�' AFT
SUBJECT f(.
V � fi�YRStOi�
the residential character of the neighborhood. If those areas are defined
as 15-18 feet, that is what they are looking at. But he wasn't saying
they should restrict the height. He wanted to go with the current
guidelines in the residential flavor, and whether it was R-1 or R-2 was
irrelevant, what is medium density designation. And in this particular case
they were looking at the office professional amendment that would
follow those guidelines. Then they would designate what those guidelines
would be. Put the medium density at R-1 or R-2, then go that direction.
He wasn't saying he wanted to put a limit on the height and a limit on
the width and the length, let's follow the guidelines of residential
character and then let the process take care of that.
Commissioner Finerty said she would try her motion without any changes
before they go much further. Chairperson Jonathan said anyone was free
to make a motion and asked her to repeat it.
Action:
Commissioner Finerty stated that her motion was that it was going to be
residential in character with the minimum starting height of 15 feet,
which could go up to 18 feet with discretionary approval based on the
architecture. Chairperson Jonathan noted there was no reference to
length or mass, etc. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Chairperson
Jonathan asked if there was a second. Commissioner Campbell seconded
the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked for discussion.
Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification. They discussed setbacks and
asked if that would be covered adequately in this particular motion. Mr.
Drell said that this is an amendment to the zone, so the O.P. setback
standards would continue to apply. Chairperson Jonathan thought that
the only change to the existing O.P. standards is language that indicates
that the design shall be residential in nature and that the height is to be
15 feet, or with proper showing up to 18 feet. Commissioner Finerty
concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said that was the motion and the
second.
Commissioner Tschopp noted that this is only in the event that buildings
are approved that are commercial in nature for this area. Chairperson
36
MINUTES SUBJECT Tf,
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 AFT
RVaSiQ
Jonathan concurred. Also, the amendment is to apply only to Portola
Avenue between Fred Waring and De Anza as indicated if and when the
property is rezoned. Commission and staff concurred. Chairperson
Jonathan said that was the precursor to the amendment, that in the
event of a rezoning of this area of Portola. Everyone concurred.
There was no further discussion and Chairperson Jonathan called for the
vote. Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Drell confirmed that they needed to adopt a resolution recommending
to City Council what they just did. Commissioner Finerty said she didn't
know if the resolution they had in their packet was specific enough. Mr.
Drell said they would adjust the wording accordingly. Commissioner
Finerty said she would like the residential character part in there because
that is what they were directed to do. Mr. Drell indicated it said
restricting the size and character of buildings in the O.P. zone. He said it
would be included. Commissioner Finerty said he had the gist. He
concurred.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2291 , approving
the findings and recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA
04-01 as amended. Motion carried 5-0.
For the audience, Chairperson Jonathan summarized the action of the
commission. Currently Portola is zoned residential in that area. The
General Plan allows with a change of zone in that area office
professional. Office professional has a variety of standards such as a
height up to 25 feet and so forth. What they did tonight was recommend
to the City Council a modification to the office professional standards for
this area so that instead of a 25-foot height, only 15 feet is allowed, or
up to 18 feet with proper showing. They also recommended to Council
that in amending the office professional zone for this area that the design
of any buildings would be residential in character. Commissioner Finerty
complimented Chairperson Jonathan on his summary. Chairperson
Jonathan noted that it was a recommendation to Council, so everyone
was welcome to attend that meeting as well.
37
I _
CITY OF PALM DESERT
' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 7, 2004
CASE NO: ZOA 04-01
REQUEST: Approval of a zoning ordinancit ndment, Chapter 25.25, to limit
buildings in the O.P. zone on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive
and De Anza Way to single story, maximum 18 feet in height and maximum
100 feet in length.
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
During the review of the General Plan there was considerable discussion as to the
appropriate land use along the west side of Portola Avenue south of Fred Waring Drive.
Ultimately, the City Council dual designated the area residential medium density/office
professional and directed staff to return with appropriate amendments to the O.P.
standards to provide buildings that are: a) one story; and 2) "architecturally residential'
in character. (See minutes of City Council dated January 29, 2004, pages 14-17 and 56;
and February 5, 2004, pages 14-16 and 54, attached.)
We are also in receipt of an application for a two-story office building in this same area.
That application will be processed concurrent with this item.
It. ANALYSIS:
City Council in its discussion of the appropriate land use along Portola south of Fred
Waring Drive determined that O.P. could be acceptable provided that the buildings wer
residential in scale.
Accordingly, staff was directed to process a code amendment requiring office buildings
to reflect a residential scale:.Restrictions to be considered included building heights, one
story, two stories, setbacks and overall building mass.
The enclosed amendment, if approved, will limit buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots
adjacent to or fronting on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
to one story with a maximum height of 18 feet and a maximum length of 100 feet, the
intent being to have office buildings which are residential in character. Given the low
building height of the existing homes in the area, a two-story office building would be out
of character.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Project will be subject to O.P. setback standards which are already consistent with
residential standards.
The proposed amendment reads:
"Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots adjacent to or fronting on
Portola Avenue between Fred Waring and De Anza shall be limited
to one story with a maximum height of 18 feet and limited to a
maximum length of 100 feet. Project to be subject to O.P. setback
standards."
III. CEQA REVIEW:
The proposed code amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of
CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
That Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 04-01
by adoption of the draft Planning Commission Resolution attached hereto.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
C. City Council Minutes of January 29 and February 5, 2004
Prepared bbbyy//—(— Revi N nd Approved by:
Steve Smith Pit Drell
Planning Mana er Director of Community Development
Revie d Concur:
er Croy
ACM for Develo a Services
Am
2
Y
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO CITY COUNCIL APPWVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 25.25 TO L4MI`ff HE SIZE OF BUILDINGS IN THE
O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON OR ADJACENT TO
RTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; 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. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of CEQA Guidelines; 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.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare then 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of September, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
That Section 25.25.019 be added to read:
25.25,019 Building Limitations for O.P. Zoned Lots Fronting on or Adjacent to
Nep-A4e4aIStraets
Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots adjacent to or fronting on Portola
Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story
with a m _ t•
Pro' t to be subject to O.P. setback standards. yY
7z.o rrwt /d ' )Lea- U'i v�
0 AY
S_ p
— Y�
3
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
RAS Councilman Ferguson.
JF Well, along the same lines, I was just amazed that we're so good that
everything south of Frank Sinatra is perfect, and we haven't looked at the
Commercial Core Plan, we haven't looked at the Palma Village Plan. I
personally have seen the evolution of the Service Industrial zone along Cook
Street evolve into a mixed use with some retail and that we've got a
supermarket there and a bank and a restaurant when it was supposed to be
Industrial. As a result of that, we now have people coming back and saying
there are parking problems and circulation problems. And it amazes me that
we haven't at least looked at that or addressed it or double checked our
thinking or somehow acknowledged that maybe the use has evolved from
when it was originally envisioned. And couldn't we at least take a look at the
Service Industrial area all the way from our affordable housing development
all the way over to KESQ and...why didn't we...
PD And we did. To say that we didn't change it doesn't mean to say that we
didn't look at it. We have changed our whole definition of"Industrial" based
on the reality of what the market has responded to in those areas. We no
longer have a Service Industrial designation. We're calling it Industrial
Business Park because the reality of what has happened in all those areas is
a mixture of, you know...really, we started with that zone to put the junk that
we wanted to get off of Highway 111. That was really the...and what it
evolved into was what you just said, it's a mixture of offices, industrial areas,
and that's why we changed the category to be much broader. But, you know,
those areas are 98% built out, as is most of the area south of Frank Sinatra,
and what we tried to do is, where we did make changes in categories or we
did make some changes, that they were reflective of the physical
development out there. So the fact that things...that we're not recommending
any changes doesn't mean we didn't look at it. It's just that we looked at it
and said what's there is...in terms of a General Plan discussion, is pretty
much what's going to be there, with the exception of areas where we said
because of the evolution of the City, these designations aren't appropriate,
and those are things we've talked about...on Portola, on north Highway 111,
we'll talk about it now on Fred Waring. As I say, the fact that they didn't
change it doesn't mean that we didn't look at it. And, again...
BAC In that same light, the discussion that we will have on Deep Canyon and
building of another building on San Pablo, an O.P. building on San Pablo, at
least brings an issue to me as one person that I'd like us to discuss at some
point, and that is...it certainly appears that (inaudible) O.P. can be
appropriate along our six-lane major arterials...Fred Waring, Monterey...but,
one person's opinion, that they appear to be much less appropriate on
streets that are not those wide, six-lane, kind of streets. I know we're
14
__ i
r
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
now...collector streets...we're now looking at Portola and O.P. on Portola
north and south of Fred Waring, we're being asked to look at O.P. on Deep
Canyon, San Pablo, and 1 suspect other places as well.
RSK And a bunch in the North Sphere.
BAC A bunch out there, so I would like to at least look at the issue of having O.P.
where we so choose along those types of streets to both be a) one-story; b)
"architecturally residential" in character. That doesn't mean they're
residences, but that means that to a passerby, it has a less commercial feel
to it. Now, I don't know if anybody else thinks that or not, but I just...I look
again at a very beautiful building, I'm sure, architecturally on San Pablo, right
next to the street, da-da da-da da-da, and...we've never learned this lesson
very well...here we are yet another time with something that when we look at
it, it all seems fine and wonderful, and when we build it...I've had that with
Charlie Martin's building 20 years ago and Dr. Shah and so on. Perhaps, as
I say, on the major ones, fair enough, but on these other ones...I'd at least
like to look at that issue.
PD And it can be...the next step in the process would be to re-examine the
Zoning Ordinance to adjust whatever goals and objectives that the current
code might be pursuing, how they might be changed.
BAC Maybe this is a General Plan goal...
PD Correct.
BAC ...if the Council so...anyhow, I'd like to visit that in one of our sessions.
PD Sure. In the listing of programs and policies within the land use element as it
relates to the Zoning Ordinance,we can identify that that program, that issue
and that program, to be focused on when we re-examine the Zoning
Ordinance.
RAS Councilman Kelly.
RSK Along with...I agree wholeheartedly with Mayor Pro Tern Crites. Also, there's
a setback problem because we have this building across the street that...it's
right almost on the street, and even with six lanes wide it's still a problem, so
there's a long way...and I agree 100%, there should be areas where
one-story, is allowed and it should blend in, and there are areas where
probably two-story might be okay, but...along with the two-story should be
some setback.
RAS Councilman Ferguson.
15
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
JF Well, I agree with both the Mayor Pro Tern and Councilman Kelly, and it goes
back to what I asked Mr. Criste at our last meeting, which is the finer details
of this General Plan, which I hope will engraft some of the genius of the
philosophy of my colleagues on this Council on items such as...as a general
rule of thumb,we don't like to crowd comers—as a general rule of thumb,we
like to provide view corridors where possible...as a general rule of thumb,
we'd like to preserve open space...as a general rule of thumb, we want
setbacks. All of those philosophies really don't codify well into a specific item
in the General Plan, but somehow that philosophy needs to be worked in
here. And when you say we didn't change anything south of Frank Sinatra,
did we at least include some of those concepts?
PD There are those sort of concepts in the urban design element. When I made
that statement, I was talking about land use designations, which is what
we're talking about right now.
JF Well, I just don't want to give our residents the opinion that all we care about
is north of Frank Sinatra, and to hell with the rest of the City, we're just going
to leave it as it is. Because I think we are trying to engraft what we did to the
south part of the City in a document so that people have a good indicator of
what they should do north of Frank Sinatra when we get down to the
specifics of planning.
RAS Councilwoman Benson.
JMB (Inaudible)
PD I think we'd like to finish the General Plan. Remember...at any time,
remember, we have a pending ordinance that any time the Council give us
specific direction as to what to come back with, we bring something back.
The...so...I mean, again,we're...you know,we've been amending ordinances,
you know, right and left over the last 20 years, trying to better address the
general goals of our existing General Plan. Any time you want to direct staff
to come back with an ordinance on any subject, we can do that.
JF Was it your thought that, since we did take an action on the hillsides, that we
get an ordinance in the works sooner as opposed to later?
JMB (Inaudible)
RDK Councilmember Benson, is your microphone on, or close enough to you? I
wouldn't want to miss your comments.
PD Do you want to put what we had...
16
i
}
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
JMB It was just my thought that we should bring that one back as soon as possible
to get it cemented, I guess.
JF Well, I guess pursuant to my druthers, Riverside County is promulgating an
ordinance, and if you could check with them, I think they're trying to work off
of our ordinance. And I would at least express to you personally some desire
to see you work off of their version as well because they're the same, and it
doesn't matter where a property owner lives on that section line, they're
going to live under the same rules no matter what.
PD Yes, it's just the...I've distributed, and I probably should distribute to all of
you...unfortunately, the ordinance that was distributed to me bears no
relationship to, I think, our particular goals. The structure might have some
interesting aspects to it, but in terms of the specifics of it, it's actually
probably more permissive than our current ordinance.
JF Well, then, maybe you can share that with the Planning Director of Riverside
County because I think his goal is the same as ours.
PD Okay. If that's the ordinance he wants to (inaudible) then that's not going
to—that doesn't help us all that much. I distributed, and I'd love to get
comments, and I don't know if Jean's gotten it...
RSK I don't remember it.
PD Okay. Well, we'll get that to all of you, and you can look at it. Unfortunately,
it is thicker than our entire Zoning Ordinance, but...I'd love to get comments,
and based on those comments,just like we did the previous process with the
hillside,we drafted something and sent it to you guys, we got comments, and
then we came back to you with something. If you want to take a look at this
thing, give me comments, and...
RSK Double comment here. I agree with Councilmember Ferguson. It seems like
if they're doing an ordinance and we're doing an ordinance, we ought to do it
so that they're the...people have the same ordinance if they're going to live
next door to each other. But that's that part. But the other part is...this is off
the subject, but it's not off the subject because I see Jean down there needed
a balloon like I used to...but another organization where I chair it, they have a
wish to speak button, and as Chairman of that, it's really valuable because I
can just sit there and watch the audience and also see the button when
somebody wants to speak. And having sat on the end for quite a while, I
wish we had a button so the Mayor would know when we wanted to say
something.
RAS Well, we actually have one.
17
MINUTES '
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
3. Land Use North of Frank Sinatra Drive and Related Land Use Items
Cook Street at Whitewater ChanneVMerle
- Directed staff to provide the City Council with a detailed area map
of the area along Cook Street north of the Whitewater Channel to
discuss in a future Closed Session potential acquisition of the
vacant lots adjacent to the Coachella Valley Recreation & Park
District (CVRPD) Golf Center, further requesting that input from
CVRPD also be obtained as to whether any future recreational
opportunities would be available at this site.
Area Along Fred Waring
- Directed staff to bring to the next General Plan Meeting a
discussion regarding current designations and uses in the
Palma Village Plan as they relate to Office Professional along
Fred Waring and Santa Rosa.
Commercial Core Plan/Palma Village Plan/Cook Street Service Industrial
- Asked staff to bring back a review of the named areas and
designations.
Office Professional Designation
- Requested review of O.P. in areas along collector streets where
one-story and an architecturally residential character would be
more appropriate, along with review of O.P. setbacks.
Hillside Ordinance
- Asked for near future consideration of the revised City Hillside
Ordinance along with staff to review and critique the proposed
County Hillside regulation for compatibility with the City's
intentions for this region.
Next meeting to begin with taking up Land Use, including staff to provide a
worksheet showing what the City has done historically to date,also asked for
an analysis of the financial aspect of the commerciallretail mix being able to
support the cost for the North Sphere. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of the General
Plan will be taken up after concluding the Land Use discussion.
Vlll. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
None
56
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
JF I have no further (inaudible)
PD One other little item..you have a memo from me that was also handed
out...last meeting there was some discussion about developing different
standards on...different OP standards on different types of roadways...this is
not the time to actually produce a new ordinance, but if you---in the urban
design element we have an existing policy 10 which states commercial
institutional industrial development projects shall contribute positively to the
design objectives of the community and the specific district or corridor design
standards and guidelines in which they are located. Proposing that to that we
add a program that..;a specific program that the office professional OP shall
be amended to include more restrictive architectural height and setback
standards along non-arterial street corridors to ensure compatibility with
surrounding residential areas. And so then we'll proceed with developing an
ordinance amendment. Another thing to take note of...I always hate to bring
these things up, but I'm always compelled...the discussion on Deep Canyon
which we were hoping to defer to a specific hearing. That applicant has
withdrawn his application, so there will not be a specific hearing. We're
then...we therefore propose that based on the Planning Commission's action
that the OP zone be pulled back to the south side of Ramona. If you want to
see it on the (inaudible)...I guess this is again serendipity...in reality, the
original map was drawn with it going a little bit further north, but when the
graphic Deep Canyon was put on it wiped out that portion. So...as shown is
then as the Planning Commission now recommends it. And that...so that
completes...if there are any other questions about land use issues.
RAS Are you saying it's not necessary for us to do anything (inaudible)
PD Basically you're just confirming that as it's shown there is now is the
appropriate extent of the OP designation. It's a couple of lots more. Right
now there's two lots between the last office and the corridor of Ramona, and
this would extend it to the corner of Ramona.
RAS Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Quite a few
people here today. If we start to get involved in any area that you're
interested in, please let me know so that you can have your place.
TN I am Tom Noble, 74-075 El Paseo, Suite A through E, Palm Desert.
Sorry...I'm not really clear. Are we talking of the area on this side of the
freeway now, the Portola/Gerald Ford/Dinah Shore area? Is that what you
want to hear about or...
PD Yes, the whole (inaudible)
14
J
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
TN Okay. Thank you. Specifically, I would like to just refer to two letters that I
sent to Mr. Drell during the Planning Commission hearings. There's one
dated September 15t" and one dated October 7"h. I think those have been
provided to you and would just like to incorporate those in your proceedings
as well. In particular, I'm talking today about the what will be the intersection
of Portola Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive. The northwest corner of that
intersection you can see on the map...excuse my pointing, but where Portola
goes up above Gerald Ford and then sort of a curved line...actually, right in
there, exactly. That's contiguous to the existing parcel map 24255 which is
our commercial industrial project that runs from the Dinah Shore extension
over to Monterey Avenue. The staff recommended alternative and the
Planning Commission have recommended that that property stay in what is
now service industrial and will become business industrial park as far as your
zoning designation. I'm the owner of that property and would just like to
express my support of that designation. There was some discussion at the
advisory committee of making a portion of that high density residential,which
I think would not be an appropriate use for a number of reasons as set forth
in those letters but largely because of the proximity to the railroad tracks and
the freeway and the fact that children living in that area would have to cross a
very busy street to get to schools and parks and those things.
RAS So you're suggesting that Planning Commission's recommendation...you're
in agreement with.
TN Yes, sir.
RAS Okay. Thank you.
TN Thank you very much.
RAS Councilman Kelly, you had something you wanted to...
RSK (Inaudible)
JF What is the this you've got?
RSK (Inaudible) we've accomplished something this afternoon (inaudible)
BAC I would so second accomplishing something.
RAS All in favor, please vote.
RDK Well, just to make sure the Clerk's clear, what is it that you're looking at and
you're approving.
15
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
BAC No, no, this will come back to haunt you later.
JF 'Addition of Program 10B to the urban design element dealing with special
office professional standards along non-arterial residential corridors.
RDK Okay.
RSK So that we can (inaudible)
RDK Councilmember Benson...thank you. The motion carries by unanimous vote.
RAS Thank you, Councilman Kelly.
BAC Mr. Mayor. While we're in this area, Mr. Drell asked about land use...at our
last meeting we noted that we would come back to the Palma Village Plan at
this meeting.
PD I...what my comment was...we did come back to the Palma Village Plan and
we discussed what we thought was the area of controversy which was the
interface with Palma Village at the Highway 111 alley. I didn't recall any...I
don't recall any other issue of the Palma Village Plan which was...
BAC Yes...
PD For example.
BAC (Inaudible) issue of commercial and whether commercial should back all the
way along Fred Waring to...
PD Oh, you're right.
BAC ...Santa Rosa and whether we should buffer it and...
PD You're right.
BAC ...the pros and cons of that.
PD You're right, right.
BAC So I assume that we have decided to have that at our next meeting?
PD Mr. Criste will be able to present it at the next meeting.
16
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
with changes, not things that have been approved, so that anyone who reads
the newspaper account should not say that x and y has happened, but x and
y will be considered.
PD Sure. Nothing gets approved until you finally approve the encompassing
resolution on the whole General Plan.
JF Yeah, and that also gives folks that own property out there that are affected
by these decisions a chance to get back to us with their input as well.
BAC Yup. And it may be if all these things happen (inaudible) has some bearing
on how people feel on this other piece and where we go on some of those
issues.
RSK That's true.
BAC Are there other issues the members of the Council(inaudible)this afternoon?
Are there issues from staff? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to
offer final public...final opportunity for public comments on anything that has
been said today or that is not on where we've been today? Hearing none,we
will adjourn to, then, 1 o'clock on the 26`h. So ordered.
RDK 4:34 p.m.
The following actions were taken and/or direction was given at this public
hearing:
1. Urban Design Element-Office Professional Standards Along Non-arterial
Residential Corridors
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the addition of
Program 10.6 to the Urban Design Element dealing with special Office Professional
Standards along non-arterial residential corridors. Motion was seconded by
Mayor Pro Tern Crites and carried by 5-0 vote.
2. Land Use
The following direction relates to the "City of Palm Desert - City Limits -
Genera/ Plan 2000 Planning Commission Recommended A/temative'Map
dated February 4, 2004, requesting that said direction be implemented on a
DRAFT 'City Council Preferred Alternative"mao to be presented at the next
General Plan Meeting.
♦ Commercial Designations
54
J
Ask CITY Of PRl (0 DESERT
+ I75-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9136o-3578
TEL: 760 346—o6r I
FAX:76o 341-7098
info®palm-dnert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 04.01
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Qhapter 25.25 to limit
building size in the Office Professional (O.P.) zone on non-arterial streets to single story,
maximum 18 feet in height and maximum of 100 feet in length, among other matters.
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is,available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
August 26, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission
CITY 01 PNLI1 01 1 P I
73-510 FREI) WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578
ip
TEL: 760 346—o6i i
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-dtsert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.25 to limit
building size in the Office Professional (O.P.) zone on non-arterial streets to single story,
maximum 18 feet in height and maximum of 100 feet in length, among other matters.
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
August 26, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission
CITY 01 PH1M DESERT
_ 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
° tV, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8
TEL: 760 346—o611
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-desert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.25 to limit
building size in the Office Professional (O.P.) zone on non-arterial streets to single story,
maximum 18 feet in height and maximum of 100 feet in length, among other matters.
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is. available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
August 26, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission
t
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
text, Chapter 25.25, to restrict the height and design of buildings in
the O.P. zone on lots fronting on Portola Avenue between Fred
Waring Drive and De Anza Way.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NO: ZOA 04-01
DATE: September 23, 2004
CONTENTS: - - — — - - -- - - -
Recommendation
Discussion
Draft Ordinance No.
Legal Notice
Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 7, 2004
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2291
Recommendation:
That the City Council pass Ordinance No. to second reading.
Discussion:
Background:
During the review of the General Plan there was considerable discussion as to the
appropriate land use along the west side of Portola Avenue south of Fred Waring
Drive. Ultimately, the City Council dual designated the area residential medium
density/office professional and directed staff to return with appropriate amendments
to the O.P. standards to provide buildings which are architecturally residential in
character.
Staff Report
Case No. ZOA 04-01
Page 2
September 23, 2004
Program 10.13 of the Community Design Element states:
"The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance implementing the C-OP
designation to assure that appropriate, more restrictive architectural
standards affecting building heights and setbacks, and other
development standards are applied to office development along non-
arterial street corridors to ensure compatibility with surrounding
residential areas.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning
Commission, City Council
Schedule: 2004-05"
Concurrent with this code amendment we are processing an application for a two-
story office building in this same area. (McFadden/Portola Properties on this same
- — — -agenda through the appeal-process.) - — — - - - - - - -
Planning Commission:
This code amendment was considered by Planning Commission at its September
7, 2004 meeting. The commission,following an extensive discussion, recommended
approval of a code amendment which would limit office buildings on Portola
between Fred Waring and De Anza to a basic height limit of 15 feet with the ability
to go to 18 feet if architectural merited. Commission wanted to be assured that a
'.residential scale" would be achieved. Commission on a 5-0 vote recommended
approval of the amendment.
Analysis:
City Council in its discussion of the appropriate land use along Portola south of Fred
Waring Drive determined that O.P. could be acceptable provided that the buildings
were residential in scale.
Accordingly, staff was directed to process a code amendment requiring office
buildings to reflect a residential scale. Restrictions to be considered included
building heights, one story, two stories, setbacks and overall building mass.
The enclosed amendment, if approved, will limit buildings in the O.P. zone located
on lots fronting on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
to one story with a basic height of 15 feet with the ability to go up to 18 feet when
Staff Report
Case No. ZOA 04-01
Page 3
September 23, 2004
architecturally merited, the intent being to have office buildings which are residential
in character. Given the low building height of the existing homes in the area, a two-
story office building would be out of character.
Projects will be subject to O.P. setback standards which are already consistent with
residential standards.
The proposed amendment reads:
"Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots fronting on Portola
Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be
limited to one story with a maximum basic height of 15 feet and
in no event shall the height exceed 18 feet in height. Approval
of a building height over 15 feet shall be discretionary based
-- -- -- - - — -- on architectural merit.-Project-to be subject-to O-.P. setback- — - — —
standards. Overall architectural design shall be consistent with
the residential character of the surrounding area."
CEQA Review:
The proposed code amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes
of CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary.
Submitted by: Department Head:
C
Steve Smith Phil Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Approval: Approval:
Homer Croy Carlos L. Ortega
ACM for Development Services City Manager
Am
(Wpd=Um\sAzw06-01.«( 3
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O.P.)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 25.25 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, RESTRICTING BUILDING HEIGHT
AND REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL SCALE ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS WHICH MAY BE
DEVELOPED IN AN O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON
PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 23rd
day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to
the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2291 has
recommended approval of the proposed amendment; 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. 02-60,"in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of CEQA Guidelines; 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 approval 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 then the current regulations.
ORDINANCE NO.
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.
2. That ZOA 04-01 as delineated in the attached Exhibit"A" is hereby ordained.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this day of 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
T ..
ORDINANCE NO.
EXHIBIT A
That Section 25.25.019 be added to read:
25.25.019 Building limitations for O.P. zoned lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story with a
maximum basic height of 15 feet and in no event shall the height exceed 18 feet in
height. Approval of a building height over 15 feet shall be discretionary based on
architectural merit. Project to be subject to O.P. setback standards. Overall
architectural design shall be consistent with the residential character of the
surrounding area.
3
Confirmation Report — Memory Send
Time Sep-08-2004 11:21
Tel line T603417098
Name PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT
Job number 571
Date Sep-08 11:21
To 7784731
Document pages 001
Start time Sep-08 11:21
End time Sep-08 11:21
Pages sent 001
Status OK
Job number 571 *** SEND SUCCESSFUL ***
E i T Y O F P 0 L m D E S E R T
93-Sxo Pnvn Wnnvvuo Darvv
Pn Lm DvaanT. CnLavonua,a gsnGo-a 37a
e - 7Go 3�G-o6n :
wx: 9Gaa g�z-7o98
n resenam-a�aeev.ers
CITY OF PALM OESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 04-OT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council To conslder an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, ChapTer g6.26 to limit building
size in the Office Profassianal (O.P.j zany on Portal. Avanua botwaon Frad Waring Orlva and
De Anza Way to single story with a maximum height of 1 S feat.
Pest-Ir Fex No[O TeTt �� -
aaJO�p� PM1Ov:I$ .
SAID public hearing will be hall on Thursday, September 23, 20o4, at 4:00 p.m._ In the
Council Chambar at the Palm Oasert Civic Center, 73-51 O Frad Waring Orive, Palm Oesart,
California, at which time and place all intorastad persons are invitad to attend and be heard_
Written comment- concerning all Items covared by This public hearing notice shall be
acceptad up to the data of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration Is available for raviow in the wapartmont of Community Oevelopmant
at the above address between The hour. of 0:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m- Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the propasad ..Tlons in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else r.ised at The public hearing d.scrlbed in this notices, or in
an,r,ttmra nnrroOn�nrlmn nP /I minamrm/'1 fn TI":m r"\T�J r'n::nn{I at nr nrinr fn fl":m n�lhllr YaPar{nn
CIIV 01 PH [ M OESERI
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
ar
TEL: 760 346—o61 I
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-deserr.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.25 to limit building
size in the Office Professional (O.P.) zone on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and
De Anza Way to single story with a maximum height of 18 feet.
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, September 23, 2004, 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 RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
September 11 , 2004 City of Palm Desert, California
DY
ORDINANCE NO. 977 Qs
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF.PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT;TO THE
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, PERTAINING TO PARKING LOT
TREE STANDARDS.
CASE NO. ZOA 00-10
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 11th
day of January, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to February
8, 2001 , to consider the above described amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036,
has recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No.
00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined the project to be
a Class 5 categorical exemption; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find
the following facts 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,
as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
considerations of the council in this case.
2. That it does hereby approve a zoning ordinance Text Amendment, as provided
in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code 25.58.
3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to
publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation,
published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in
full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.
.. A \
- - ,o
ORDINANCE NO. 977 a
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 22nd
day of march 2001 , by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: BENSON, BELLY, FERGUSON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: CRITES, SPIEGEL
ABSTAIN: NONE
4FE N, Mayor
;City
ST:
A R. GI IGA ity Clerk
of Palm Desert, alifornia
2
9�-oar
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O.P.)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 25.25 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, RESTRICTING BUILDING HEIGHT
AND REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL SCALE ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS WHICH MAY BE
DEVELOPED IN AN O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON
PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 23rd
day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to
the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2291 has
recommended approval of the proposed amendment; 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. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of CEQA Guidelines; 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 approval 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 then the current regulations.
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
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.
2. That ZOA 04-01 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this 14th day of October , 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CRITES, FERGUSON, KELLY, SPIEGEL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BENSON
ABSTAIN: NONE
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, May r
ATTEST:
RACHEILLE D. KLASSEN, Ci y Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
i
.r
ORDINANCE NO, 1018
EXHIBIT A
That Section 25.25.019 be added to read:
25.25.019 Building limitations for O.P. zoned lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story with a
maximum basic height of 15 feet and in no event shall the height exceed 18 feet in
height. Approval of a building height over 15 feet shall be discretionary based on
architectural merit. Project to be subject to O.P. setback standards. Overall
architectural design shall be consistent with the residential character of the
surrounding area.
3
RECEIVED
vITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PALM DESE"T. CA
2fl"i NOV l 6 A' 9` 59
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P)
No.9996 CITY OF PALM DESERT
ORDINANCE NO, 1078
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA.APPROV-
ING AN AMENDMENT, THE OFFICE PROFES-
SIONAL .
TR 25�5 Olt T, E ZONINGS ORDINANCE.
RESTRICTING BUILDING HEIGHT AND REQUIR-
ING RESIDVAL\SCALE ARCHITECTURAL DE-
SIGN FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS WHICH MAY BE
'LME,,ppEV�E{LOppED rIN•ANj O.P ZONEt,ON LOTS
MOWI .ON POR!FOLA AVENUEiBEftNEEN
j.LWD'WARING DRIVE-AND DE AN2A WAY
CASE NO'ZOA 04-01 S r
1NFlElEAS;-t tty Council W the City of Palm
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Oese CalHa is did on the 23rd day o Septem-
Coun of Riverside Der 4.1,ma a duty nehced nul, neann9 to
County consider an alpend m to the Palm Desert Mu-
nicipat Code. Chapter 26.25 and ^
WHEREAS:the Pfannl r miss ndlon ap Lis Res-
olution No:2 a nd recommended.approval of
the proposed amendment;an - '..,,7T-
z;
WHEREAS, said applicadon has°oomplied with
the requirements of the•City of Palm Desert Pro-
cedure for Implementatbn of-Me California Envl-
ranmental Quality Ae 1 Res01ution-NO.�o'2-06,' in
that the Director of Community DevetopmenI has
determined that the rolect is taleqoricaIII ex-
am a citizen of the United States and a resident of en,pt from ma''ppr
I Acovisi'ons of Me cetiromia Envl-
ronmeMel Ouallty t(CEQA)per Sact1om15305
the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen Class 5,\Minor Alterations in Land Use Limits-
years,and not a party to or interested in the Mons)of CEOA Guidelines; and -,r':
above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a WHEREAS, at said public ny ng up ur hearmg
P P and considering all testimony end arguments If
any, of all Interested persons/descri gIto be
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING heard. said City CounUl did rinei the foilowtng
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, - facts and reasons to exist to Justify as approval
printed and published in the city of PAM Springs, as Thadest
the Iningbelo -
Countyof Riverside,and which newspaper has been si that the Zoning Oeattiv 10e Amendment is con-
e, slslenYwlth-the ob)ectnives of the Zoning Ordi-
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the ,nange. tg „�, ., :,a1. ,a,
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of sts ent the hthe'atl Ordinance General Pia aiafe con-
Superior under the date of March 24,1988.Case ad specific plans.
Number 191236;that the notice,of which the 3.That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller better serve the purre health, safety pnd_general
better
Men thehe current regulations. and
than non panel,has been published in each regular NOVO,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED trv\Me City
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any Council of me City of Palm Desert.Cat&omla, AS
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: 'follows:.
1.That theabove recitations are true And correct
and coretltute the findings of the City Council in
October 201h this case.
2:Thai ZOA oil-01 as denneetad�m the anacned
Exhibit 'A' is hereby ordatnad.
PASSED,APPROVER and ADOPTED At a regular
meeting of the Palm Desert Council, held on
All in the year 2004 this tact day of October, 20CEN by theollowing
Y vote,to wit: _
AYES:CRITES' FERGUSON, KELLY.SPIEGEL
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the _ t
foregoing is true and correct. NOES: NONE- ,- s
ABSENT;-BENSON ;� ;.
Dated at Palm Springs,California this-11`h—day A13STPAN: NONE _ .. .
- ROBEiT SPIC-G Mayor
of November__
20��04 ATTEST:' - v •
f RgCHR11_F D KLASSEN, ciN Clark
City of palm Desert;C9ifam 0 -
Lr .c-
- `EXHIBIT A
`4 ti3^.
Signature � I That Sectbn 2525:019 be added to read:
2525.019 Buildings in the O.P. zone lodetetl on
lots fronting on Portola Avenue between Fred
Waring Drive and De Anza-WaY
Building in the O.P.zone lecated on toss-fronting
on PoRola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive
and De-Anw Way shall be limited to one story
eevvent shelma l themheght exceeedoo f16 feett an height
discretionary basted onnarch t eturel medl sProj ct
to be subject to O.P. setback standards.Overall
architectural dent n shall be consistent with the
,residential
ar20ct r o the surrounding saes.
PUB b
CITY Of P111M DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DEs ERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o61I
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: September 8, 2004
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Re: ZOA 04-01
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken
the following action at its regular meeting of September 7, 2004:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
ZOA 04-01 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
2291, AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
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, S cretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
AM
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
��mnmanmimnm
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2291
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O.P.) DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, CHAPTER 25.25 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, RESTRICTING BUILDING HEIGHT AND
REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL SCALE ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS WHICH MAY BE
DEVELOPED IN AN O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON
PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; 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. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of CEQA Guidelines; 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.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare then 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.
w
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2291
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.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of September, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, JONATHAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
-- — - SABBY J NATHAN,Chairperson
ATTEST:
.__.. ..- -
PHILIP DRELL Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
t
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2291
EXHIBIT A
That Section 25.25.019 be added to read:
25.25.019 Building limitations for O.P. zoned lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story with a
maximum basic height of 15 feet and in no event shall the height exceed 18 feet in
height. Approval of a building height over 15 feet shall be discretionary based on
architectural merit. Project to be subject to O.P. setback standards. Overall
architectural design shall be consistent with the residential character of the
surrounding area.
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Action:
Commissioner Tschopp moved for approval and Commissioner Finerty
seconded the motion. Under discussion Chairperson Jonathan stated that
he would be opposed to the motion only because he would want to
explore the possibility and feasibility of eliminating that dish or in some
way shielding it from obvious view. He thought they had worked hard
and successfully to create true stealth in regard to these cell antennas
and to basically hang a dish on a tree was to him going backwards in that
effort. So he would want to pause and explore the possibility of either
other technology or some kind of shielding mechanism so that it didn't
look like there was a dish hanging up on the top of this tree. For the
record that was why he was opposed to the motion. He called for the
vote. .Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Jonathan voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2290, approving
CUP 04-06, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson
Jonathan voted no).
'E. Case No. ZOA 04-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval of a zoning ordinance amendment,
Chapter 25.25, to limit buildings in the O.P. zone on Portola
Avenue from Fred Waring Drive to De Anza Way to single
story, maximum 18 feet in height and maximum 100 feet
in length.
Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that this wasn't a specific application,
which would be coming up in Item F following this matter. Right now
they were only going to discuss the change of zone being recommended
by staff. He asked for the staff report. Mr. Smith clarified that this was
a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text, not a zone change,
which was contained within Item F.
Mr. Smith informed commission that during the General Plan review, the
Council discussed at length the appropriate land uses along the west side
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
of Portola south of Fred Waring Drive. Ultimately the Council dual
designated the area residential, median density/office professional and
directed staff to return with appropriate amendments to the O.P.
standards to provide buildings that would be residential in scale. Staff
was back with that now and they looked into various restrictions which
could be considered. They looked at building height, one story, two
stories setbacks and overall building mass considerations.
, g
Ultimately, staff came up with the proposal which was before the
commission to limit any O.P. development that might occur to one story
with a maximum height of 18 feet and a maximum length of 100 feet.
The intent was to have office buildings which are residential in character.
Given the low building height of homes in this specific area on the west
side of Portola, staff felt that two-story buildings would be out of
character with that community.
For purposes of CEQA, they were looking at a Class 5 Categorical
Exemption and no further review was necessary. The staff's
recommendation was that Planning Commission recommend approval of
the proposed amendment to the City Council. He pointed out that if that
was the Commission's direction, that would preclude an affirmative
response with respect to Item F on their agenda. He asked for any
questions.
On that very point, Chairperson Jonathan said it might be a legal
question, but from a timing standpoint, if they have a pending application
prior to an adopted zoning ordinance amendment, he asked if that
precluded them, if they followed the new revised amended zoning
ordinance if that should occur, or if there was a grandfathering
procedure. Mr. Smith said no, the next application includes the proposed
change of zone to office professional. If the Commission took this action
now, then the policy of the Commission would be such that they could
not recommend the zone change because the project doesn't conform to
these standards. Mr. Drell stated there is no grandfathering. They could
actually change, and they have actually denied projects that were
consistent with the existing zoning and after the fact changed the zone
before they showed up in court. The City always has the ability to
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
change their regulation to correct any of that disconnection in that both
the change of zone is a discretionary act in the next case. That was why
they did this in this order. The only question in terms of the process
tonight was if they wanted to be looking at the project simultaneously
with their discussion so they could be seeing an example of a proposal
in this area at the same time they are looking at the regulation to
determine if the regulation is appropriate. So they could actually look at
it both ways and simultaneously if they wanted. The question was
whether in terms of expediency in terms of the testimony they might
want to since most of the people who were going to get up and talk
about one would get up and talk about the other as well. But it was up
to the Commission if they wanted to talk about them at the same time.
Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was comfortable with the way the
agenda was so that they generically address the zoning ordinance
amendment without looking at a specific application. He asked the other
commissioners for their opinions. Commission agreed. Commissioner
Finerty stated that she believed that they should chart the course before
looking at an application. Chairperson Jonathan said that was the
consensus, so they would stay with that approach.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were other questions for staff.
Regarding the one story which Mr. Smith said they wanted to keep
residential, Commissioner Campbell noted that there are homes that are
two-stories there and asked for the height of those homes on Portola, on
the corner of Santa Rosa and Portola. Mr. Drell said those were town
houses and are 24 feet with pitched roofs. They weren't fronting on the
street and they are set back with walls and landscaping. Those were
some of the things they looked at. The character of even a two-story
home tends to differ from a two-story office building and they kind of
went back and forth. Then there were issues of architectural style and at
what point two-story townhouses, which might be compatible, differ
from a two-story office which typically have a different architectural
character. He said it was a good question.
Commissioner Campbell noted that the home on the corner of Catalina
and Portola is a two-story home. Mr. Drell said it is set back considerably
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
further and had probably been there 50 years. Commissioner Campbell
reiterated that those homes are 25 feet. Mr. Drell said 24 feet, although
he wasn't sure how big the older house was.
Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification. The language of the
amendment addressed the 100-foot maximum length. He asked why that
particular number. Mr. Drell said that in terms of building mass, most
homes are less than that, but a duplex might be 100 feet if they had
attached units. In terms of overall building mass, some of the criticisms
of some of our buildings on Fred Waring have been that they are too
long, so that was the kind of the source of that. Why not 80 or 120?
Staff just came up with a number. In essence, this is where maybe
looking at real examples is helpful to decide what is just right or too long.
Commissioner Lopez asked if a typical building was 100 feet what would
be the width. Mr. Drell thought 40 or 50 feet. Commissioner Lopez
indicated that they would be looking at a 4,000 or 5,000 square foot
building. Mr. Drell concurred.
Given the projections on the increased traffic on Portola, Commissioner
Tschopp asked if there had been any thought for if they had quite a few
4,000 or 5,000 square foot buildings built here in this section, about the
ingress and egress of these vehicles into the various parking lots. He
asked if it would be fairly similar to what happens on Monterey or no
worse. Mr. Drell thought it would be better than Monterey since
Monterey takes a lot more traffic now and would take more traffic. It
would be no worse than Monterey since Portola would have less traffic,
so it would be similar to what they were seeing with those little projects.
It was the same thing when they tried to consolidate as many of the
accesses as possible and limit those driveways, but this was kind of a
"darned if you do and darned if you don't." Public Works wants to limit
access onto Portola. The residents want to limit access onto the side
streets. From a pure safety point of view, probably the side streets are
the better access point, but again, the people who live on those streets
don't want to be competing with that commercial traffic in their
neighborhood.
13
,
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
In this discussion they weren't talking about access, but when they look
at projects that is something they have to weigh. The more they can
distribute that traffic to multiples, which goes to the concentration issue
which has some advantages, but the more you concentrate traffic, the
more you impact a single point. So the more they can distribute traffic to
a lot of driveways, then there is a lesser impact at each point. It's a
balancing act.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if a two-story building could be built with
an 18-foot height limit. Mr. Drell said 18 feet allowed one story with a
mezzanine. The Commission actually saw a building like that recently.
Depending on how deep they want to sink it in the ground, a basement
didn't count as a story. Theoretically it could. Once half the wall is sunk,
it's a basement and isn't considered a story. Commissioner Tschopp said
that if he heard right, it sounded like staff was having a little bit of
discussion as to whether it should be one story or just limited to 18 feet
given that perhaps a well-drawn designed building by an architect might
accommodate two stories rather than just limiting it to one story. Mr.
Drell said that was accurate.
Chairperson Jonathan asked when the sunken first floor was not
considered a story. Mr. Drell said that when at least 51 % of the wall is
below existing grade. Chairperson Jonathan said that for example it was
typical to see two-story office buildings at 24 or 25 feet, so if a building
was sunk six feet, then they are over 50% and it didn't count and was
conceivable.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that staff was trying to limit mass and the
appearance to be as consistent as possible with residential. He asked if
staff considered just dealing with the numbers as opposed to trying to
define whether it should be one story and two stories, and 100 feet. For
example, generally what might be offensive in terms of height is the line
of sight. So if a building was set back from Portola and so far from the
residences, that 24 feet might not be offensive to anyone. He asked if
staff looked at standards rather than limiting to one story. Mr. Drell said
that the geometry that is there didn't really allow that. The project before
the commission in the next item is unusually large. For most of the land
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
that this ordinance would apply to, the lots are relatively narrow and to
a certain degree might be moot in that they won't meet the current O.P.
standards for a two-story building in terms of setbacks. Only a limited
number of lots are deep enough to even meet our current standards, so
staff's dilemma was they don't have the room to push it back because
then they are impacting the residents more and if they push it forward,
they are crowding the street with a bigger building.
Chairperson Jonathan clarified that what he was asking was if someone
came up with a creative design that was desirable by the residents and
staff and so forth, what the procedure would be for an exception to the
zoning ordinance amendment. Mr. Drell said that currently in this
particular zone there isn't one. He recalled that about a year or two ago
the Planning Commission recommended an exceptions section that talked
about architectural quality and things like that and the Council denied
that specific ordinance, but approved a project which theoretically
required it for its approval. So the Council has decided that if they like
something they can approve it, but in theory, while they have many
zones that have this process, the O.P. zone isn't one of them.
There were no other questions and Chairperson Jonathan opened the
public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION on this matter. He informed the audience that their
comments should be limited to the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment, not to any specific application which was coming up on the
agenda.
MR. PAUL BOWIE, 71-774 Chuckawalla Way in Palm Desert,
92260, addressed the commission. He stated that he came tonight
to speak on another issue; however, this matter was appropriate
and it brought a question to his mind on the general profile of the
residential neighborhood as it stands today as a single story and
whether or not they are starting to have an encroachment of
something else into the area, say 18 feet, and they can't make a
setback apparently from the street to harbor the appearance of a
taller building. So as he gathered his thoughts about this issue on
the agenda, he could only say that he thought it was inappropriate
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
for the commission to take any action on this matter tonight and
to possibly table it or defer it to another time and ask for a more
complete study about the character profile of the general
neighborhood in regard to these issues.
MS. RAMONA FLETCHER, 73-969 Olive Court, which backs up to
Portola, addressed the commission. Speaking to the code, she felt
it didn't really go far enough if they were going to get this specific.
One of the things that happened to them in another city, not here,
was being subjected to a public access parking lot and the
problems that this addresses, the people who have property
abutting that, and the access they have to all sorts of things that
aren't in the rules, but nonetheless require police action, etc.
Because when they have office professional and residential, which
this property is now stated as residential as listed here, what
happens is they have a real problem with the office professional
people, not while they are there, but when they leave every night
and on weekends and the public access that has been created that
is free to the public to do as they will when they will and this
created a lot of problems. If they were going to be this specific,
she would like to see that part addressed also.
MS. JEAN MARTIN, 44-276 San Jose Avenue, addressed the
commission. She said that was located just west of the proposed
project coming up next. She needed a clarification. It said to limit
building in the O.P. zone on Portola Avenue from Fred Waring
Drive to De Anza Way to single story, etc. All of that property is
presently zoned R-1 and she didn't understand why it was saying
the O.P. zone on Portola when it does not exist between Fred
Waring and De Anza.
Mr. Drell explained that the General Plan designates this area as
potentially O.P. and this had to do with somewhat of an anomaly in the
Council policy created in that normally we would be rezoning properties
consistent with the General Plan. They didn't want to do that before they
created and responded also to the General Plan direction of amending the
zoning ordinance. Since the Council kind of directed them that they
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
shouldn't rezone properties consistent with the General Plan until they
have specific projects, it does create somewhat of a timing anomaly. But
for better or worse, that was the direction by Council on how to proceed
with these things. So obviously the next project there is a proposed
rezoning. So they are saying that if office buildings are built in this area,
these are the standards. It kind of relied on the General Plan as the
authority to do that.
Chairperson Jonathan paraphrased it that the General Plan was recently
amended. That amendment provides for areas where the zoning will
change; however, those changes would not occur until a specific
application comes before the city.
And approval of the residents of the area. Ms. Martin asked if that
was correct.
Chairperson Jonathan said there was always opportunity for lots of public
testimony.
Ms. Martin stated that a group of them and most of them here had
been involved with the zoning change since 1999 and they keep
going back to it. They had been very fortunate, all the way
through City Council have not approved any zoning change in this
area.
Chairperson Jonathan explained that there wasn't a zoning change yet.
The General Plan allowed and provided for a change of zone along Portola
and what they were doing tonight was discussing the possibility of
amending the office professional zoning just for that area of Portola
should that occur.
Ms. Martin asked if this should be reworded in some way so that
it was understood by the residents who are fighting this. It's
stating "building in the O.P. zone on Portola Avenue from Fred
Waring to De Anza" and if she were reading this and not living in
the area, she would think this was already an O.P. zone.
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Mr. Drell said she was correct and if this proceeds, staff would reword
the request description.
Ms. Martin thanked him.
Chairperson Jonathan said that was the purpose of the public hearing so
when they get to the Planning Commission discussion, if it is the
Planning Commission's desire to modify the wording, they would
certainly do so.
MS. MING LOWE, stated that she lives in Pinyon, but her address
is 73-985 Catalina Way, which is the southwest corner on Portola
and Catalina. She didn't know they were going to bring this up this
way and word it this way, but there were a couple of things she
noticed when they were talking about whatever they were talking
about and that was they said 100 feet per lot per building. She
asked if that was per lot or combined lots, that 100 feet.
Mr. Drell said it didn't matter. A building couldn't be built over a property
line.
Ms. Lowe said that could turn into a massive thing.
Chairperson Jonathan said it was 100 feet per building.
Ms. Lowe said 100 feet per lot, per building. The other thing about
two stories is that she felt it would double the traffic. No one
mentioned traffic, but two stories is a taller building, but it also
doubles the ins and outs. The third thing is that Mr. Drell
mentioned that in order to lighten the traffic, the ins and outs
would be spread out possibly onto a residential street. The project
coming up, the parking lot would be on Catalina and the ins and
outs would be on Catalina, which is a residential street. So that
was just a concern she had when they were talking about the
building, but they weren't talking about the parking lot. And two
stories would double the amount of cars parked, double the
amount of cars coming in and out on a residential street were they
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
to field traffic off of Portola. She also thought that 18 feet was
not copacetic with the neighborhood as it currently. exists.
MS. JUSTINA JEFFERS, 44-251 Portola, stated that her driveway
is on Portola and there is a lot of traffic. She would like them to
consider the amount of additional traffic office professional would
bring to the area. They have at least six schools in the area, so in
the morning she thought they had more traffic than Monterey. In
the evenings if they looked at traffic at five o'clock, they have a
lot of traffic. She asked them to consider the options.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked her and clarified for the audience that
what was before the commission was not a proposal for a change of
zone in terms of the matter they were currently discussing. It just
addressed a modification to the office professional zone in that area
should there be a change of zone.
Ms. Jeffers stated that it didn't appear that way in the wording.
It says O.P. zone. She asked if they were going to fix that.
Chairperson Jonathan said they were going to discuss the matter and
might clarify that. He again stated that whether it showed that way on
the paper or not, they were not here to discuss a change of zone. They
were thereto discuss a modification to the zone should a change of zone
occur.
Ms. Jeffers said that the amount of traffic since the road had been
approved is doubled. It's just doubled. The road was really
wonderful, it was beautiful and she really liked it, but there's no
way she would put her arm straight out while on the sidewalk
without it being taken off. It's the speed that is going through
there. The increased traffic just regularly, right now, without a
change of zoning has been increased dramatically.
Chairperson Jonathan said he wasn't arguing and wasn't disagreeing, he
just wanted to make it clear that the end result of this matter would not
be a change of zone.
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Ms. Jeffers asked what would be the result. She asked what they
were talking about then.
Chairperson Jonathan said he would state it one last time and then they
would move on. They are discussing the possibility of a modification to
the office professional zone in that area should a change of zone occur
at some later time. A change of zone was not a matter before them.
Ms. Jeffers said that by agreeing to this part, it precludes the next
part, so that was her question.
Chairperson Jonathan said they would address that when they got to
that matter.
Commissioner Tschopp commented that in reality the General Plan did
state that given the proposal for the expansion of Portola and so forth
for various reasons including buffering the residential areas on the sides
of the street, that perhaps this could be an area of O.P. zoning in the
future. So they are dealing with this tonight. The reality of the situation
is that at some point in time they will see perhaps more commercial
building requests coming in for this area. He thought that was kind of
what the citizens were asking. Some of it might be semantics, but it isn't
zoned O.P. now, but yes, people will be coming in to put in commercial
buildings here and that is the reality of it. Perhaps the City needed to give
a little more explanation of why in the General Plan they felt this might
be a good way to pursue that. Mr. Drell asked if he should give that a
shot right now. Chairperson Jonathan said no, he would like to move on
instead of belaboring it.
MS. ANN WALKER, 74-539 Monte Verde in Palm Desert, said
they also owned the house at 44-326 Catalina which was right
behind the project coming up. She said she was in favor of what
is on the table right now because she realized it wasn't a zoning
change and was glad it wasn't a zoning change, but if the in future
it could be changed to O.P., she would like it to be single story.
She was in favor of what was going on right now. She knew it
wasn't a zoning change, but was realistic enough to know that
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Portola is pretty darn busy and she wouldn't build her house there,
so she would like to speak in favor of what is on the table.
MR. CHRISTOPHER McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Suite
204, stated that he was the applicant and owner on the next
project and he felt compelled to come up and respond to what is
going on here now. He could get into all the detail later on this,
but he disagreed with this unilateral assumption that 100-foot by
18-foot defined residential character or that anything that would
fit into that box would automatically be residential in character. He
felt that was a generic process of all the cities that he does work
in all over the Coachella Valley. He does 60% residential work and
40% commercial. As an architect, rules like this are hard edged
and lack creativity and vision. That is what this project needed,
vision. That was what he hoped to present later on for another
,project here tonight; however, he saw this as kind of a nail in the
coffin type thing trying to shut his project down without even
getting a hearing.
He said he met with the five City Council members individually and
hoped this was a minority view point that was being perpetrated
on this project. He thanked the commission.
MS. MEREDITH FORD addressed the commission and stated that
she and her husband purchased 44-447 Portola Avenue which is
currently a blighted residential property which they plan to build
office professional on per the General Plan. The commission would
be seeing them down the road and so would the neighbors. She
stated that they have a single story plan and they have everything
they have been suggested to bring about the building, the size, the
architecture, the ingress and egress to make it comfortable for not
only the neighbors, but to blend in with the homes that are there.
She agreed, and they had no problem with the single family. She
thanked the commission.
MS. VON DISHMAN, 73-990 Olive Court in Palm Desert, asked
how much property they were talking about that would be
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
amended and how far that amendment would go. She asked if it
would go all the way down to Santa Rosa or if it was just that one
little parcel there at Catalina and Portola.
Chairperson Jonathan stated that the proposal from staff that was before
the commission would affect Portola between Fred Waring Drive and De
Anza Way.
Ms. Dishman said that it didn't have anything to do with the
Catalina area at this particular moment.
Chairperson Jonathan explained that Catalina is within that stretch. Mr.
Drell said it would affect only those areas potentially designated in the
General Plan.
Ms. Dishman thanked them.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else present who
wished to address the commission regarding this particular item. There
wasn't. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for
commission comments.
Commissioner Finerty said that it seems like they have been over this
before. They spent several sessions discussing whether there should be
office professional on Portola in this particular area. She was opposed to
it then and she remained opposed to it now because she believed that the
residential integrity of the neighborhood should be preserved. She didn't
feel that every spot of dirt needed to be covered with a building. She
would be opposed to any O.P. designation and felt that this area would
be better served as single story units. She understood that medium
density might be appropriate there and she thought that with the parks,
the schools and the existing housing that is what they needed to keep it.
Chairperson Jonathan said that as he understood it, that wasn't the
matter they were there to address or discuss. Commissioner Finerty said
it was in a sense because if they are going to set standards of single
story and 18 feet if and when it goes to O.P., she was just saying that
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
she is opposed to O.P. in the first place and, therefore, did not believe
discussing what kind of standards was appropriate. She believed the area
should remain residential. Chairperson Jonathan said he wasn't
persuaded, but understood what she was saying.
Commissioner Lopez stated that the item before them tonight, the zoning
ordinance amendment as it was before them, had merit. He thought it
had merit from the standpoint that should some day a project come
before them that is office professional that makes sense for that
particular area, in lieu of a single family home that would have a difficult
time getting out of their driveway on Portola at that particular junction,
not farther down Portola and even farther down Portola it was difficult.
But in this particular situation it had merit. He would rather see in the
future a well-designed residential in character, whether 100 feet or 65
feet or whatever the case might be, and he thought that putting a length
on it limited it somewhat, but he did think a height restriction was
required. The residents that back up to this property did not have before
them a 25-foot building that impacts their property. It has been shown
in the past that office buildings blockading major thoroughfares, and
Portola was going to be that in the future whether they liked it or not, it
was going to be a busy street, and these buildings do block the traffic
noise from the residential areas on the other side of the building. It has
shown to be successful and are items that have been approved and built
in areas along Fred Waring Drive that prove that. But in this particular
case as it pertains to the area between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza
Way, it shows merit that there needs to be a height restriction. Whether
it would ever be used, they didn't know, although there was a feeling
that it might be used very soon. But in the case of this particular
amendment, he thought it showed merit and they needed to work with
the language of it so that is understandable by the residents and maybe
a little more clearly for the commission as well.
Commissioner Campbell stated that the office professional buildings that
exist on Portola between De Anza and Alessandro are one-story and she
thought they really looked very nice along Portola. They do quite a bit of
business. She knew that the dentist had taken in another dentist, so she
knew he was quite busy there. As far as the parking was concerned, the
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
egress is on Portola, but the ingress is on Alessandro. She was sure that
just having the maximum height of 18 feet or beyond, maybe up to 20
along Portola, would make a nice project. But again, as she brought up
earlier, there are two-story homes along there and she questioned making
this 18 feet and yet these other homes were up to 24 or 25 feet. They
have also approved buildings in other areas, office professional buildings,
that buffer on residential homes and they do not allow them to have
windows on that side. So it was really difficult to say they could have
one story when there was something there a lot higher. It would be good
to have office professional like Commissioner Lopez stated. It was a good
buffer for the residential and she didn't think that Portola was going to
be widened anymore. Mr. Drell said that in the long range it may be
widened another six or eight feet, so it might be widened. Commissioner
Campbell said that maybe they wouldn't have enough room to have
office professional right there. Mr. Drell said they would. Commissioner
Campbell said that they would be narrowing it more. Mr. Drell said that
the office professional development on Monterey on the east side south
of Fred Waring, those lots are only 65 or 70 feet wide because their
depth used to face those residential streets. They have successfully
developed far more narrower sites as office professional. It does more
severely impact residential development, especially the existing homes
there since if it ever happens, they would lose a big chunk of their front
yards.
Commissioner Campbell asked about the building that was just completed
on Monterey. She asked if that was the one he was speaking of, the
medical building by John Vuksic across from the community gardens.
Mr. Drell clarified that it was on San Pablo. That building was about 140
feet deep. Commissioner Campbell asked about the length. Mr. Drell said
that building would not have met this standard if it was going to be built
on Portola. It meets the current O.P. standards in terms of height,
setbacks and mass. Part of the Council's motivation in giving this
direction was not simply our normal concern for the impacts of the
residents behind because these residents would be impacted no more or
less than any of the residents who have been impacted by all the
development on Fred Waring and Monterey. But it was as much on the
physical appearance when driving on Portola from Fred Waring to
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Highway 111 . They are still driving through what is essentially a
residential area, so it was both motivated by concern from behind and
concern for the motorist, the image as one drives through the area, which
is a little different then how they've thought of things in the past.
Commissioner Campbell reiterated that they were looking toward
widening Portola. Mr. Drell said Public Works has discussed it in terms
of the ultimate right-of-way as specified in the General Plan. There is a
desire to put bike paths on the street which don't exist now. Right now,
as discussed, it is quite intimidating walking up and down since people
are driving 40 mph 18 inches away from the sidewalk. So there is a
desire to move the sidewalk away from the curb and to create a buffer
in the form of a bike path to allow bicyclists to go up and down the
street and to separate the automobile traffic from the sidewalk. And
there was a desire to put in a landscaped median to further enhance the
visual quality of the street. Any future office that would apply to develop
on Portola would be required to dedicate whatever perspective real estate
we might need. Commissioner Campbell said it would be a smaller
building and they would require less parking because it would be less
land.
Commissioner Tschopp said that issue before them is the proposed
amendment that wants to limit commercial building height and length if
it is constructed on Portola. He agreed strongly that whatever type of
commercial building if they go ahead on Portola would be limited in
height and size because there was an ambience in this area that needs
to be preserved. He wasn't convinced that the wording in the
amendment is the right way in that he hated to see them limit or hinder
architectural design creativity with arbitrary 18-foot limits in height and
100-foot buildings because sometimes architects could do a better job
given a little creativity. He also wasn't all that convinced that they need
more office space along Portola. He heard the arguments of the proximity
of the various schools, the various amenities in the neighborhood, the
park going in, the bike paths coming into the street and he wasn't sure
what bicyclists would think if they knew they were a buffer between
traffic and the sidewalk. But to him it was almost too bad they didn't
have the time to really look at this area a little more in depth and see
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
what truly they would want to do on a long-range plan to see how it
develops out. But given that the issue is limiting commercial building
height and size, he would be in favor of limiting it for that purpose.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that what they were being asked to do
tonight is recommend to the Council approval of this amendment. Right
now the new General Plan allows office professional along Portola if there
is a change of zone, because right now Portola is zoned residential. What
they could do in theory if there was office professional allowed on Portola
right now and someone came in for a change of zone, they could go 25
feet, two stories and so forth. So what this amendment was seeking to
do is soften that and say no, they are going to set less intrusive
standards and lower the building height, mass and size. If there was
going to be office, it was going to be softer office is what this
amendment was doing.
What he was hearing the commission say is that there is still some doubt
or lack of understanding as to whether, even though the General Plan has
been amended to allow office professional in this part of Portola, whether
in fact the Council has intent of following through with an actual change
of zone in that area. So if they have that doubt, since what they were
being asked to do was make a recommendation to Council, their response
to Council could be, Council, would you clarify for us if in fact there is a
long-term intent to allow the development of office professional along
Portola. Mr. Drell thought they had to take them by their word that they
acted with the General Plan to do that. Chairperson Jonathan thought
that was a matter of his opinion. They were in the discussion stage and
he was just suggesting that as a possibility. They didn't have to
recommend either yes or no to this amendment. They could seek
clarification if in fact in their mind they aren't sure that is the direction
they want to proceed. And if it was a simple response from them yes,
we modified the General Plan, we voted on it, we the City Council are
intending to allow office professional, but we aren't sure we want the
same standards in this area as in the rest of the city. If they tell the
commission that, it clarifies it. He said they should keep in mind that this
is commission discussion. That is an option they might want to pursue.
He asked for commission comments.
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Commissioner Tschopp noted that the comment was raised by
Commissioner Finerty of having residential here. He asked if they have
looked at an alternative multi-family going in along this street and what
the impact on traffic and the amenities and so forth would be. The
General Plan stated O.P., but it also said residential, medium density. Is
that the direction they want to be taking? But given the information the
commission had here, he didn't know how they could come up with a
decision on that tonight.
To some extent, Chairperson Jonathan didn't really want to revisit all
those issues because he thought they did address them. When they made
their recommendation to Council about this area, they addressed it and
looked at it in depth and said there was a possibility for appropriate office
professional development along this part of Portola. That was his
personal opinion. Commissioner Finerty noted that some of the
commission thought that, others didn't. Chairperson Jonathan said he
was talking about the majority vote and they knew in any good
organization, once they took a majority vote, they all stand behind it and
move forward. He didn't want to go backwards and revisit issues they
already have, he was just suggesting the possibility that if in fact they
aren't certain of Council's direction, then they can ask for clarification.
But as they sit here today, his understanding was that Council has
approved the General Plan amendment which includes the possibility, not
an actual change of zone yet, but the possibility of office professional on
Portola. What they are being asked to do is go a step further and say if
there is going to be office professional in that area of Portola, then they
want to provide further limits on essentially the mass, the height of the
buildings and the look of the buildings. He didn't know what direction
they want to go in. If the commission was comfortable about what
Council wants from them, then they can address this proposed
amendment. If they weren't, and that was why he brought it up because
he was sensing a certain level of uncertainty, and if the commission
wanted to ask the Council for clarification, that could be the
commission's response to this.
Mr. Drell stated that the direction to amend the code was also in the
General Plan. That was a specific program that the Council inserted into
27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
the Urban Design Element. So he thought their direction on amending the
code was also fairly clear. That is a program approved unanimously, he
believed, on a vote of the Council to amend the code in this situation. So
they have spoken rather specifically on that issue. The discussion here
wasn't whether it should be amended, but how it should be amended.
Chairperson Jonathan said that if that is the commission's wish, then
they can respond by some modification of the wording that clarifies that
in the event that a change of zone occurs along this part of Portola, then
it is the commission's recommendation that certain restrictions be added
into this zoning in that area having to do with height limitations or mass.
He asked if they wanted to go in that direction and put in a qualifier.
Commissioner Campbell asked why they should limit it to one story and
a maximum height of 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said he was going
to get to that part of the discussion, but asked if they wanted to at least
go in that direction in saying that in the event that a change of zone
should occur on Portola, then they recommend the following.
Commissioner Tschopp said yes. Chairperson Jonathan said they should
then go in that direction.
Having said that, Chairperson Jonathan noted that Commissioner
Campbell wasn't entirely comfortable with the wording proposed by
staff. Commissioner Campbell didn't think it should state that it would be
limited to one story with a maximum height of 18 feet unless a project
came before them and as she said earlier, it could go up to 20 feet to
make it aesthetically feasible. Commissioner Finerty asked if there are 20-
foot single story houses in that area. Mr. Drell said no, there are some
24-foot two-story houses; 20-foot single family homes typically might be
in very unusual circumstances (very rare) at the peak. Typically they are
a pitched roof.
Commissioner Finerty asked for the height of the homes in that area. Mr.
Drell thought the single family homes averaged 13 or 14 feet.
Commissioner Finerty said they were smaller than 18 feet because of
their age. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Finerty noted that 18 is
even stretching it to stay within the current character of the
neighborhood. Mr. Drell said that 18 feet is the City's current height limit
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
on single story. Commissioner Finerty said she understood that, but this
was a special circumstance where they were trying to match the
residential character of the neighborhood and if in fact they were trying
to do that, then it seemed to her that they needed to stay in the 13-14
foot range because that is in fact what the height of the houses are. She
asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that the newer houses that have
been built are typically higher than that in the area. And they have had
24-foot high. Commissioner Finerty noted that in that area, the houses
that would actually be behind any proposed development are 13-14 feet
in height. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that one of them
right behind further down in the area they are talking about has a two-
story house right behind it. He thought that was the point Commissioner
Campbell was making. Commissioner Finerty said that if they were to
look at the residential neighborhood as a whole, of all the homes that
back up to any proposed project, she asked what the average height
would be in Mr. Drell's opinion. Mr. Drell assumed it would be 14 or 15
feet.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that the existing residential structures in that
area vary from 13-14 to 24. Commissioner Campbell noted they had flat
roofs that they used to have years ago.
Continuing with the discussion on whether they were going to
recommend an amendment to the zoning ordinance in that area,
Chairperson Jonathan asked if they wanted to be as specific with height,
length and so forth. Commissioner Finerty said yes. She said that if
Council's direction is to keep it as residential as possible, then they
needed to try to match the average height of what is there now and Mr.
Drell said that was 14-15 feet. She was sure there were exceptions of
24 feet, but if they were going to look at 90%, she knew it was much
lower than the suggested 18 feet. Therefore, she believed it should be
limited and was only fair to the residents that are there to preserve their
neighborhood and she thought the 18 feet was too high and that it
should be limited to 15 feet.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if someone wanted to build a duplex or
something of that nature, he asked if they would just be limited to the
29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
height. Mr. Drell said their residential multi-family zones were
automatically limited to 18 feet if they are adjacent to a single story
zone. So those properties have single story behind them and would be
limited to the 18 feet as a residence as well.
Commissioner Tschopp said that if someone came in that lives in the
neighborhood and wanted to remodel their home, tear it down, they
would be able to build an 18-foot high unit. Mr. Drell said they have a
special review process for homes between 15 and 18 feet at the
architectural commission. And one of the things they do is look at the
adjacent homes. They look at the overall architectural quality and what
they often do is require hipped roofs down at the property lines so in
essence at the property lines the houses might only be 12 or 13 feet.
They might have peaks that are 18, but they try to architecturally soften
the houses at the edges where they interact with a lower home.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if it would be appropriate to incorporate
something of that nature into this. Mr. Drell said they could do that. In
essence, as a matter of right they could only have 15 feet, but based on
architectural quality they could go to 18 feet or any other number the
commission preferred.
Rather than their recommendation to Council getting so specific,
Chairperson Jonathan said it seemed to him they were trying to replicate
within the office professional zoning for this area something that looks
as close to residential as possible. He suggested that they just say that.
Instead of getting into an actual height limit, mass and length, why not
say that the desired objective for this area is to create office professional
buildings that look as residential as possible and meet the residential
zoning ordinance. Commissioner Finerty asked if he was suggesting that
it be allowed to go up to 24 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said it would be
for single family residences. Commissioner Finerty asked if he was
suggesting a limit to 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said it could.
Commissioner Finerty noted that he was saying not to do specific
numbers, but if he said they were limiting it to residential and they were
talking about single story, then they really are talking 18 feet. If they
30
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
were talking two-stories, then it is 24 feet. She asked where he was
thinking this ought to go.
Chairperson Jonathan clarified that he was suggesting that in the
amendment to the ordinance that they reference single family residential
standards, whatever those might be. He understood that those standards
had specifics. He wasn't trying to dodge those specifics, but he was
saying in this amended ordinance, rather than go do the list of those
specifics that they just indicate they should be the standards that apply
here. Just have a reference to those standards. That was his suggestion.
Commissioner Finerty asked him to repeat that. She was asking if he was
suggesting that it be residential, one story, or residential in nature.
Chairperson Jonathan said both. He was suggesting that in amending the
ordinance for office professional in this area that the style, the
appearance, etc., should attain as residential a feel as possible and that
the standards that exist for single family residential apply equally to the
office professional amended zone here. So if an architect is going to
design office professional, then when he needs to look at height
limitations he will go to the single family residential. If he wants to see
setbacks, he'll go to single family residential. His intent is to end up with
an office building that is as least intrusive and looks as residential as
possible, but functions as an office building.
Commissioner Finerty asked if it was his intent to limit to one story.
Chairperson Jonathan thought single family residential by its very nature
would be limited to one story. Commissioner Finerty said that what he
was saying was the current standard of 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan
said that if that is what applies in single family residential, that would be
the height limit. Mr. Drell said that as a matter of right they are entitled
to 15 feet; they can get to 18 feet based on the architectural review
commission's review of their design. Chairperson Jonathan said that was
fine. Mr. Drell said the rules that would apply to a single family home in
this area would apply to an office. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. Build
an office but make it subject to the residential standards.
Commissioner Finerty reiterated that those residential standards are any
where from 15 to 18 feet. Mr. Drell said anything between 15 and 18
31
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
feet is discretionary based on design. In an office, somewhat in response
to Mr. McFadden's comment that if you do this you get approved, no.
Every project gets design review beyond whether or not they meet the
strict physical standards. There is still a subjective review that everything
is subject to that would still go into the conclusion whether it is
residential scale or not. Someone could build a 10-foot high building that
wasn't residentially appropriate, so this was just a physical starting point
for the discussion in terms of what is appropriate. He didn't have any
problem with that approach saying they have a standard that is
residential scale and it is contained in the R-1 chapter and they would
just apply it.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that 15 feet would be permitted, but over
15 would have to show that it is justified, but in no event could it exceed
18 feet. Commissioner Finerty concurred.
Commissioner Lopez thought that if they were going to attempt to
provide some flexibility within this amended ordinance, this was probably
the best way to do it. It gave architects the ability to be creative, it gave
some guidelines they believe to be less intrusive, and it made sense. The
language they recommended to Council would be important.
Mr. Drell said the R-1 zone requires a 20-foot setback. In the O.P. they
allow the O.P. buildings to get closer to the commercial street to increase
the potential for setbacks in the rear. And if more widening occurs, they
are dealing potentially with tighter situations. He thought the R-2
standards, and the General Plan designates the alternative land use as
medium density residential which really was the R-2 zone, it would still
be limited to a single story since it is adjacent to single story behind. But
it allowed a 15-foot front setback and allowed those buildings to be
pushed a little further to the front.
Commissioner Finerty suggested the approach they took on Fred Waring
where the setback needed to be equal to the height. Mr. Drell said 1 :1 as
measured from the curb. Commissioner Finerty asked why that couldn't
apply to this location. Mr. Drell said it would. Commissioner Finerty
thought that would take care of the 20-foot setback because they
32
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
wouldn't allow anything to be 20 feet high. Mr. Drell said that in the R-1
they would be setback 20 feet even if they were 12 feet high, so their
intent was to allow them to be pushed forward a little bit. For example,
in R-1 the rear setback is only 15 feet and in the O.P. the rear setback is
20 feet. So in essence what they did with the O.P. is increase the rear
setback by five feet and decreased the setback from 20 to 15 in the front
to push those buildings away from the R-1 . He believed the R-2
standards are 15 feet in the front and 20 feet in the rear. Commissioner
Finerty noted that what they are really saying to the residents that back
up to this is they could be backed up to a parking lot. Mr. Drell said 20
feet didn't really provide dimension to a parking lot, but those people
were going to make that choice anyway. They have a lot of O.P.
properties with parking lots in the back and there really hadn't been any
problems. It's an issue of balancing. They do tend to push the building
farther away and they haven't had the enforcement or police problem all
along Fred Waring or Monterey. They did have a problem in some of the
cul-de-sacs and they dealt with problems just like they do with any
problem in the city, they send in the police and the problem disappears.
He suggested that they use the standards for the R-2 which would still
limit it in this situation to one story, 18 feet, but adjust for the setbacks.
Commissioner Finerty asked if the R-2 height started out at 15 feet. Mr.
Drell said he didn't think it was 15. Commissioner Lopez asked if medium
density covered both R-1 and R-2. Mr. Drell said R-1 was all low density.
Chairperson Jonathan suggested that the proposed amendment stand as
staff had it, but provided that with regard to height, the presumed
allowed limit was 15 feet similar to the R-1 procedure that 18 might be
allowed if it made a proper showing. Commissioner Finerty said they
could leave the setback issue out of it because it got pretty complicated.
Chairperson Jonathan agreed. Mr. Drell said they could stick with the
current O.P. standards. Chairperson Jonathan said they would only
modify it based on height. He liked the flexibility of moving a building
around depending on what was best for the neighborhood, such as
putting it closer to Portola and where to put the parking lot. He asked if
that worked. Commissioner Finerty said it worked for her.
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were ready for a motion.
Commissioner Finerty said they would amend staff's language to limit it
to one story in the residential character of the neighborhood to start at
15 feet, but not to exceed 18 feet. That would be totally discretionary.
Mr. Drell said that everything above 15 feet would go to the architectural
commission. Commissioner Finerty stated that nothing would be above
18 feet. Mr. Drell said that offices go through the whole architectural
review process. Chairperson Jonathan confirmed that the presumed limit
was 15 feet and anything in excess of 15 required a special showing and
in no event would it exceed 18 feet. Commissioner Finerty concurred.
Commissioner Campbell asked about the length. She asked if they were
going to leave the language 100 feet. Chairperson Jonathan didn't think
they should specify the length because someone could create a 100-foot
long structure that looked horrible, but someone else could create a 120-
foot structure that looks like two structures and looks good.
Commissioner Finerty said they again had to go back to the residential
character. They didn't see houses that were 140 feet in length. She
asked what the average length of a house was. Commissioner Campbell
asked if it was 30 feet or 40. Mr. Drell thought they were probably 50
or 60 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said if the commission wanted to leave
it in there that was fine. Commissioner Finerty thought 100 might be too
much if their goal is to preserve the residential character of that particular
neighborhood. If they are 50 or 60, she would be more comfortable with
75 feet in length. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they wanted to leave the
specific reference out and just say that in terms of length, depth and
mass the structure shall be as consistent with the residential flavor of the
neighborhood as possible. He asked if that was too open. Commissioner
Finerty thought that was too open. Even if they said 75 feet, they knew
how things went. Commissioner Campbell made note to the one house
earlier on the agenda that was going to be built at 32,000 square feet.
That would be over 100 feet. Commissioner Finerty said she would be
more comfortable with 75 feet because that was still in excess for the
neighborhood, but would allow for a little larger size office building if they
have to go that route.
34
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Commissioner Tschopp noted that at the same time they could chop
these building up so small that they would actually create more problems
with traffic in the number of employees going to very small businesses
and so forth. He thought they needed to be careful that way. If they give
the architects a little bit of latitude and creativity and word it such that
they are looking at creativity to justify the length and so forth, that would
get the word out. He would rather do that then restrict it so much that
one, it becomes economically infeasible for them to do anything that
even made sense. Chairperson Jonathan summed up that Commissioner
Tschopp would be in favor of no specific reference to the length, and
have general language that in terms of the mass of the structure, it
should be as consistent with the residential flavor of the neighborhood as
possible. Commissioner Tschopp concurred.
Commissioner Lopez concurred that they should leave some flexibility and
let the process handle each of the specific applications they receive and
if they make sense, as they do every meeting, if there is too much mass,
if it is inappropriate for the location they are looking at, they were all
going to be sensitive to what happens in this location and they would
address that through the process. But as far as putting specifics, because
if they are going to put in height, length and width, this place would
never change. They needed to have some flexibility and so did the
developer to proceed with these locations and let the system take care
of what goes there and what they approve and disagree with.
Commissioner Campbell agreed with that because the commission had
to approve it anyway. It would come before them.
In terms of process, Chairperson Jonathan said they got into the
discussion in the middle of the motion, so Commissioner Finerty was
hearing a consensus and didn't know if she wanted to incorporate that
into her motion or not, but he would let her finish making it.
Commissioner Finerty asked if they could do two separate motions.
Chairperson Jonathan said she was free to propose any motions she
wished. Commissioner Finerty didn't think they were being totally
consistent here because they were saying that with the height they feel
strongly apparently about the 15 feet up to 18 feet. Commissioner Lopez
said he wasn't saying that. He was staying that he wanted to stay with
35
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
the residential character of the neighborhood. If those areas are defined
as 15-18 feet, that is what they are looking at. But he wasn't saying
they should restrict the height. He wanted to go with the current
guidelines in the residential flavor, and whether it was R-1 or R-2 was
irrelevant, what is medium density designation. And in this particular case
they were looking at the office professional amendment that would
follow those guidelines. Then they would designate what those guidelines
would be. Put the medium density at R-1 or R-2, then go that direction.
He wasn't saying he wanted to put a limit on the height and a limit on
the width and the length, let's follow the guidelines of residential
character and then let the process take care of that.
Commissioner Finerty said she would try her motion without any changes
before they go much further. Chairperson Jonathan said anyone was free
to make a motion and asked her to repeat it.
Action:
Commissioner Finerty stated that her motion was that it was going to be
residential in character with the minimum starting height of 15 feet,
which could go up to 18 feet with discretionary approval based on the
architecture. Chairperson Jonathan noted there was no reference to
length or mass, etc. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Chairperson
Jonathan asked if there was a second. Commissioner Campbell seconded
the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked for discussion.
Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification. They discussed setbacks and
asked if that would be covered adequately in this particular motion. Mr.
Drell said that this is an amendment to the zone, so the O.P. setback
standards would continue to apply. Chairperson Jonathan thought that
the only change to the existing O.P. standards is language that indicates
that the design shall be residential in nature and that the height is to be
15 feet, or with proper showing up to 18 feet. Commissioner Finerty
concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said that was the motion and the
second.
Commissioner Tschopp noted that this is only in the event that buildings
are approved that are commercial in nature for this area. Chairperson
36
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Jonathan concurred. Also, the amendment is to apply only to Portola
Avenue between Fred Waring and De Anza as indicated if and when the
property is rezoned. Commission and staff concurred. Chairperson
Jonathan said that was the precursor to the amendment, that in the
event of a rezoning of this area of Portola. Everyone concurred.
There was no further discussion and Chairperson Jonathan called for the
vote. Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Drell confirmed that they needed to adopt a resolution recommending
to City Council what they just did. Commissioner Finerty said she didn't
know if the resolution they had in their packet was specific enough. Mr.
Drell said they would adjust the wording accordingly. Commissioner
Finerty said she would like the residential character part in there because
that is what they were directed to do. Mr. Drell indicated it said
restricting the size and character of buildings in the O.P. zone. He said it
would be included. Commissioner Finerty said he had the gist. He
concurred.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2291 , approving
the findings and recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA
04-01 as amended. Motion carried 5-0.
For the audience, Chairperson Jonathan summarized the action of the
commission. Currently Portola is zoned residential in that area. The
General Plan allows with a change of zone in that area office
professional. Office professional has a variety of standards such as a
height up to 25 feet and so forth. What they did tonight was recommend
to the City Council a modification to the office professional standards for
this area so that instead of a 25-foot height, only 15 feet is allowed, or
up to 18 feet with proper showing. They also recommended to Council
that in amending the office professional zone for this area that the design
of any buildings would be residential in character. Commissioner Finerty
complimented Chairperson Jonathan on his summary. Chairperson
Jonathan noted that it was a recommendation to Council, so everyone
was welcome to attend that meeting as well.
37
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 7, 2004
CASE NO: ZOA 04-01
REQUEST: Approval of a zoning ordinance amendment, Chapter 25.25, to limit
buildings in the O.P. zone on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive
and De Anza Way to single story, maximum 18 feet in height and maximum
100 feet in length.
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
I. BACKGROU
ND:
During the review of the General Plan there was considerable discussion as to the
appropriate land use along the west side of Portola Avenue south of Fred Waring Drive.
Ultimately, the City Council dual designated the area residential medium density/office
professional and directed staff to return with appropriate amendments to the O.P.
standards to provide buildings that are: a) one story; and 2) "architecturally residential'
in character. (See minutes of City Council dated January 29, 2004, pages 14-17 and 56;
and February 5, 2004, pages 14-16 and 54, attached.)
We are also in receipt of an application for a two-story office building in this same area.
That application will be processed concurrent with this item.
II. ANALYSIS:
City Council in its discussion of the appropriate land use along Portola south of Fred
Waring Drive determined that O.P. could be acceptable provided that the buildings were
residential in scale.
Accordingly, staff was directed to process a code amendment requiring office buildings
to reflect a residential scale. Restrictions to be considered included building heights, one
story, two stories, setbacks and overall building mass.
The enclosed amendment, if approved, will limit buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots
adjacent to or fronting on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
to one story with a maximum height of 18 feet and a maximum length of 100 feet, the
intent being to have office buildings which are residential in character. Given the low
building height of the existing homes in the area, a two-story office building would be out
of character.
` I
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Project will be subject to O.P. setback standards which are already consistent with
residential standards.
The proposed amendment reads:
"Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots adjacent to or fronting on
Portola Avenue between Fred Waring and De Anza shall be limited
to one .story with a maximum height of 18 feet and limited to a
maximum length of 100 feet. Project to be subject to O.P. setback
standards."
III. CEQA REVIEW:
The proposed code amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of
CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
That Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 04-01
by adoption of the draft Planning Commission Resolution attached hereto.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
C. City Council Minutes of January 29 and February 5, 2004
Prepared by: Revi w" nd Approved by:
Steve Smith P it Drell
i
FCroy
er Director of Community Development
cur:
ACM for Develo a Services
/tm
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 25.25 TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF BUILDINGS IN THE
O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON OR ADJACENT TO
PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; 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. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of CEQA Guidelines; 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.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare then 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of September, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
That Section 25.25.019 be added to read:
25.25.019 Building Limitations for O.P. Zoned Lots Fronting on or Adjacent to
Non Arterial Streets
Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots adjacent to or fronting on Portola
Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story
with a maximum height of 18 feet and limited to a maximum length of 100 feet.
Project to be subject to O.P. setback standards.
3
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
RAS Councilman Ferguson.
JF Well, along the same lines, I was just amazed that we're so good that
everything south of Frank Sinatra is perfect, and we haven't looked at the
Commercial Core Plan, we haven't looked at the Palma Village Plan. I
personally have seen the evolution of the Service Industrial zone along Cook
Street evolve into a mixed use with some retail and that we've got a
supermarket there and a bank and a restaurant when it was supposed to be
Industrial. As a result of that, we now have people coming back and saying
there are parking problems and circulation problems. And it amazes me that
we haven't at least looked at that or addressed it or double checked our
thinking or somehow acknowledged that maybe the use has evolved from
when it was originally envisioned. And couldn't we at least take a look at the
Service Industrial area all the way from our affordable housing development
all the way over to KESQ and...why didn't we...
PD And we did. To say that we didn't change it doesn't mean to say that we
didn't look at it. We have changed our whole definition of"Industrial" based
on the reality of what the market has responded to in those areas. We no
longer have a Service Industrial designation. We're calling it Industrial
Business Park because the reality of what has happened in all those areas is
a mixture of, you know...really, we started with that zone to put the junk that
we wanted to get off of Highway 111. That was really the...and what it
evolved into was what you just said, it's a mixture of offices, industrial areas,
and that's why we changed the category to be much broader. But, you know,
those areas are 98% built out, as is most of the area south of Frank Sinatra,
and what we tried to do is, where we did make changes in categories or we
did make some changes, that they were reflective of the physical
development out there. So the fact that things...that we're not recommending
any changes doesn't mean we didn't look at it. It's just that we looked at it
and said what's there is...in terms of a General Plan discussion, is pretty
much what's going to be there, with the exception of areas where we said
because of the evolution of the City, these designations aren't appropriate,
and those are things we've talked about...on Portola, on north Highway 111,
we'll talk about it now on Fred Waring. As I say, the fact that they didn't
change it doesn't mean that we didn't look at it. And, again...
BAC In that same light, the discussion that we will have on Deep Canyon and
building of another building on San Pablo, an O.P. building on San Pablo, at
least brings an issue to me as one person that I'd like us to discuss at some
point, and that is...it certainly appears that (inaudible) O.P. can be
appropriate along our six-lane major arterials...Fred Waring, Monterey...but,
one person's opinion, that they appear to be much less appropriate on
streets that are not those wide, six-lane, kind of streets. I know we're
14
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
now...collector streets...we're now looking at Portola and O.P. on Portola
north and south of Fred Waring, we're being asked to look at O.P. on Deep
Canyon, San Pablo, and I suspect other places as well.
RSK And a bunch in the North Sphere.
BAC A bunch out there, so I would like to at least look at the issue of having O.P. .
where we so choose along those types of streets to both be a) one-story; b)
"architecturally residential" in character. That doesn't mean they're
residences, but that means that to a passerby, it has a less commercial feel
to it. Now, I don't know if anybody else thinks that or not, but I just...I look
again at a very beautiful building, I'm sure, architecturally on San Pablo, right
next to the street, da-da da-da da-da, and...we've never learned this lesson
very well...here we are yet another time with something that when we look at
it, it all seems fine and wonderful, and when we build it...I've had that with
Charlie Martin's building 20 years ago and Dr. Shah and so on. Perhaps, as
say, on the major ones, fair enough, but on these other ones...I'd at least
like to look at that issue.
PD And it can be...the next step in the process would be to re-examine the
Zoning Ordinance to adjust whatever goals and objectives that the current
code might be pursuing, how they might be changed.
BAC Maybe this is a General Plan goal...
PD Correct.
BAC ...if the Council so...anyhow, I'd like to visit that in one of our sessions.
PD Sure. In the listing of programs and policies within the land use element as it
relates to the Zoning Ordinance,we can identify that that program, that issue
and that program, to be focused on when we re-examine the Zoning
Ordinance.
RAS Councilman Kelly.
RSK Along with...I agree wholeheartedly with Mayor Pro Tern Crites. Also, there's
a setback problem because we have this building across the street th
at
right almost on the street, and even with six lanes wide it's still a problem, so
there's a long way...and I agree 100%, there should be areas where
one-story is allowed and it should blend in, and there are areas where
probably two-story might be okay, but...along with the two-story should be
some setback.
RAS Councilman Ferguson.
15
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
JF Well, I agree with both the Mayor Pro Tern and Councilman Kelly, and it goes
back to what I asked Mr. Criste at our last meeting, which is the finer details
of this General Plan, which I hope will engraft some of the genius of the
philosophy of my colleagues on this Council on items such as...as a general
rule of thumb, we don't like to crowd corners...as a general rule of thumb, we
like to provide view corridors where possible—as a.general rule of thumb,
we'd like to preserve open space...as a general rule of thumb, we want
setbacks. All of those philosophies really don't codify well into a specific item
in the General Plan, but somehow that philosophy needs to be worked in
here. And when you say we didn't change anything south of Frank Sinatra,
did we at least include some of those concepts?
PD There are those sort of concepts in the urban design element. When I made
that statement, I was talking about land use designations, which is what
we're talking about right now.
JF Well, I just don't want to give our residents the opinion that all we care about
is north of Frank Sinatra, and to hell with the rest of the City, we're just going
to leave it as it is. Because I think we are trying to engraft what we did to the
south part of the City in a document so that people have a good indicator of
what they should do north of Frank Sinatra when we get down to the
specifics of planning.
RAS Councilwoman Benson.
JMB (Inaudible)
PD I think we'd like to finish the General Plan. Remember...at any time,
remember, we have a pending ordinance that any time the Council give us
specific direction as to what to come back with, we bring something back.
The...so...I mean, again,we're...you know, we've been amending ordinances,
you know, right and left over the last 20 years, trying to better address the
general goals of our existing General Plan. Any time you want to direct staff
to come back with an ordinance on any subject, we can do that.
JF Was it your thought that, since we did take an action on the hillsides, that we
get an ordinance in the works sooner as opposed to later?
JMB (Inaudible)
RDK Councilmember Benson, is your microphone on, or close enough to you? I
wouldn't want to miss your comments.
PD Do you want to put what we had...
16
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
JMB It was just my thought that we should bring that one back as soon as possible
to get it cemented, I guess.
JF Well, I guess pursuant to my druthers, Riverside County is promulgating an
ordinance, and if you could check with them, I think they're trying to work off
of our ordinance. And I would at least express to you personally some desire
to see you work off of their version as well because they're the same, and it
doesn't matter where a property owner lives on that section line, they're
going to live under the same rules no matter what.
PD Yes, it's just the...I've distributed, and I probably should distribute to all of
you...unfortunately, the ordinance that was distributed to me bears no
relationship to, I think, our particular goals. The structure might have some
interesting aspects to it, but in terms of the specifics of it, it's actually
probably more permissive than our current ordinance.
JF Well, then, maybe you can share that with the Planning Director of Riverside
County because I think his goal is the same as ours.
PD Okay. If that's the ordinance he wants to (inaudible) then that's not going
to...that doesn't help us all that much. I distributed, and I'd love to get
comments, and I don't know if Jean's gotten it...
RSK I don't remember it.
PD Okay. Well, we'll get that to all of you, and you can look at it. Unfortunately,
it is thicker than our entire Zoning Ordinance, but...I'd love to get comments,
and based on those comments,just like we did the previous process with the
hillside, we drafted something and sent it to you guys,we got comments, and
then we came back to you with something. If you want to take a look at this
thing, give me comments, and...
RSK Double comment here. I agree with Councilmember Ferguson. It seems like
if they're doing an ordinance and we're doing an ordinance, we ought to do it
so that they're the...people have the same ordinance if they're going to live
next door to each other. But that's that part. But the other part is...this is off
the subject, but it's not off the subject because I see Jean down there needed
a balloon like I used to...but another organization where I chair it, they have a
wish to speak button, and as Chairman of that, it's really valuable because I
can just sit there and watch the audience and also see the button when
somebody wants to speak. And having sat on the end for quite a while, I
wish we had a button so the Mayor would know when we wanted to say
something.
RAS Well, we actually have one.
17
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 29, 2004
3. Land Use North of Frank Sinatra Drive and Related Land Use Items
Cook Street at Whitewater Channel/Merle
Directed staff to provide the City Council with a detailed area map
of the area along Cook Street north of the Whitewater Channel to
discuss in a future Closed Session potential acquisition of the
vacant lots adjacent to the Coachella Valley Recreation & Park
District (CVRPD) Golf Center, further requesting that input from
CVRPD also be obtained as to whether any future recreational
opportunities would be available at this site.
Area Along Fred Waring
- Directed staff to bring to the next General Plan Meeting a
discussion regarding current designations and uses in the
Palma Village Plan as they relate to Office Professional along
Fred Waring and Santa Rosa.
Commercial Core Plan/Palma Village Plan/Cook Street Service Industrial
- Asked staff to bring back a review of the named areas and
designations.
Office Professional Designation
- Requested review of O.P. in areas along collector streets where
one-story and an architecturally residential character would be
more appropriate, along with review of O.P. setbacks.
Hillside Ordinance
- Asked for near future consideration of the revised City Hillside
Ordinance along with staff to review and critique the proposed
County Hillside regulation for compatibility with the City's
intentions for this region.
Next meeting to begin with taking up Land Use, including staff to provide a
worksheet showing what the City has done historically to date,also asked for
an analysis of the financial aspect of the commercial/retail mix being able to
support the cost for the North Sphere. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of the General
Plan will be taken up after concluding the Land Use discussion.
Vill. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
None
56
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
JF I have no further (inaudible)
PD One other little item..you have a memo from me that was also handed
out...last meeting there was some discussion about developing different
standards on...different OP standards on different types of roadways...this is
not the time to actually produce a new ordinance, but if you...in the urban
design element we have an existing policy 10 which states commercial
institutional industrial development projects shall contribute positively to the
design objectives of the community and the specific district or corridor design
standards and guidelines in which they are located. Proposing that to that we
add a program that...a specific program that the office professional OP shall
be amended to include more restrictive architectural height and setback
standards along non-arterial street corridors to ensure compatibility with
surrounding residential areas.,And so then we'll proceed with developing an
ordinance amendment. Another thing to take note of...I always hate to bring
these things up, but I'm always compelled...the discussion on Deep Canyon
which we were hoping to defer to a specific hearing. That applicant has
withdrawn his application, so there will not be a specific hearing. We're
then...we therefore propose that based on the Planning Commission's action
that the OF zone be pulled back to the south side of Ramona. If you want to
see it on the (inaudible)...I guess this is again serendipity...in reality, the
original map was drawn with it going a little bit further north, but when the
graphic Deep Canyon was put on it wiped out that portion. So...as shown is
then as the Planning Commission now recommends it. And that...so that
completes...if there are any other questions about land use issues.
RAS Are you saying it's not necessary for us to do anything (inaudible)
PD Basically you're just confirming that as it's shown there is now is the
appropriate extent of the OP designation. It's a couple of lots more. Right
now there's two lots between the last office and the corridor of Ramona, and
this would extend it to the corner of Ramona.
RAS Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Quite a few
people here today. If we start to get involved in any area that you're
interested in, please let me know so that you can have your place.
TN I am Tom Noble, 74-075 El Paseo, Suite A through E, Palm Desert.
Sorry...I'm not really clear. Are we talking of the area on this side of the
freeway now, the Portola/Gerald Ford/Dinah Shore area? Is that what you
want to hear about or...
PD Yes, the whole (inaudible)
14
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
TN Okay. Thank you. Specifically, I would like to just refer to two letters that I
sent to Mr. Drell during the Planning Commission hearings. There's one
dated September 15'" and one dated October 7t'. I think those have been
provided to you and would just like to incorporate those in your proceedings
as well. In particular, I'm talking today about the what will be the intersection
of Portola Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive. . The northwest corner of that
intersection you can see on the map...excuse my pointing, but where Portola
goes up above Gerald Ford and then sort of a curved line...actually, right in
there, exactly. That's contiguous to the existing parcel map 24255 which is
our commercial industrial project that runs from the Dinah Shore extension
over to Monterey Avenue. The staff recommended alternative and the
Planning Commission have recommended that that property stay in what is
now service industrial and will become business industrial park as far as your
zoning designation. I'm the owner of that property and would just like to
express my support of that designation. There was some discussion at the
advisory committee of making a portion of that high density residential, which
I think would not be an appropriate use for a number of reasons as set forth
in those letters but largely because of the proximity to the railroad tracks and
the freeway and the fact that children living in that area would have to cross a
very busy street to get to schools and parks and those things.
RAS So you're suggesting that Planning Commission's recommendation—you're
in agreement with.
TN Yes, sir.
RAS Okay. Thank you.
TN Thank you very much.
RAS Councilman Kelly, you had something you wanted to...
RSK (Inaudible)
JF What is the this you've got?
RSK (Inaudible) we've accomplished something this afternoon (inaudible)
BAC I would so second accomplishing something.
RAS All in favor, please vote.
RDK Well, just to make sure the Clerk's clear, what is it that you're looking at and
you're approving.
15
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
BAC No, no, this will come back to haunt you later.
JF Addition of Program 10B to the urban design element dealing with special
office professional standards along non-arterial residential corridors.
RDK Okay.
RSK So that we can (inaudible)
RDK Councilmember Benson...thank you. The motion carries by unanimous vote.
RAS Thank you, Councilman Kelly.
BAC Mr. Mayor. While we're in this area, Mr. Drell asked about land use...at our
last meeting we noted that we would come back to the Palma Village Plan at
this meeting.
PD I...what my comment was...we did come back to the Palma Village Plan and
we discussed what we thought was the area of controversy which was the
interface with Palma Village at the Highway 111 alley. I didn't recall any...I
don't recall any other issue of the Palma Village Plan which was...
BAC Yes...
PD For example.
BAC (Inaudible) issue of commercial and whether commercial should back all the
way along Fred Waring to...
PD Oh, you're right.
BAC ...Santa Rosa and whether we should buffer it and...
PD You're right.
BAC ...the pros and cons of that.
PD You're right, right.
BAC So I assume that we have decided to have that at our next meeting?
PD Mr. Criste will be able to present it at the next meeting.
16
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 5, 2004
with changes, not things that have been approved, so that anyone who reads
the newspaper account should not say that x and y has happened, but x and
y will be considered.
PD Sure. Nothing gets approved until you finally approve the encompassing
resolution on the whole General Plan.
JF Yeah, and that also gives folks that own property out there that are affected
by these decisions a chance to get back to us with their input as well.
BAC Yup. And it may be if all these things happen (inaudible) has some bearing
on how people feel on this other piece and where we go on some of those
issues.
RSK That's true.
BAC Are there other issues the members of the Council (inaudible)this afternoon?
Are there issues from staff? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to
offer final public...final opportunity for public comments on anything that has
been said today or that is not on where we've been today? Hearing none, we
will adjourn to, then, 1 o'clock on the 26'". So ordered.
RDK 4:34 p.m.
The following actions were taken and/or direction was given at this public
hearing:
1. Urban Design Element-Office Professional Standards Along Non-arterial
Residential Corridors
Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the addition of
Program 10.B to the Urban Design Element dealing with special Office Professional
Standards along non-arterial residential corridors. Motion was seconded by
Mayor Pro Tern Crites and carried by 5-0 vote.
2. Land Use
The following direction relates to the `City of Palm Desert - City Limits -
General Plan 2000 Planning Commission Recommended Alternative'Map
dated February 4, 2004, requesting that said direction be implemented on a
DRAFT "City Council Preferred Alternative"map to be presented at the next
General Plan Meeting.
♦ Commercial Desiqnations
54
rIIY OE p 0 1 M pESrnj
"R` I73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALN DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8
TEL: 76- 346—D611
FAX:760 341-7098
info®pvlm-du.rr.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.25 to limit
building size in the Office Professional (O.P.) zone on non-arterial streets to single story,
maximum 18 feet in height and maximum of 100 feet in length, among other matters.
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
August 26, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission
,
k,ECE IV ED
CITY CLERK'S PALH DESERT,
CA
2g04 SEP - I AM 10: 39
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clcrles Filing Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P)
i
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.sa4s CITr.OF.PALM DESERT
LEGAL!NOTICE
above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a cnsE No!zoA oa-01
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING NOT CE_IS HEREB GIVE that public hearing
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, wllubetheidjj beforeliff yPdImlDesertl Planning
Commission(tosconsld r%.a•amentlmenlito Sthe
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, zoning'Ordinance Chapter1252Sto;lllmd,building
size in the Offwe Professional(O.P.)zone on non-
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been height and streets to
single
1t00 ffeai'nriengtn,�amongl
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the mattemidlind
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of SAID pub is hearing it be held on uesday,
California under the date of March 24,1988.Case Septembewit2004.at I I. rp mlin-the•Councll
Chamber.at the Palm Desert Civic center}73-510 it
Number 191236;that the notice,of which the Fred waring SDrlvetPalml,Desert,►calnomla7[at
anara
nexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller i twit d to anandnd land ne Iheare twattten°.cr moments
than non ariel has been ublished in each re ular conceminq-allliitems'.covered_by:this-publicthear-
P P g in notice shall)be acceptetl'up to the date of-the
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any hearing;Information=concerning)the propposed
project and/or negative declaration`,n'a avallable for'
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: reviewliI tyre.Departma of commumry,Dav010
ment_at.the reboveatldress'betweenlhe'.hours of
We. and, :00.p.m;Monday:through•Fritlay.
August 26r" iflyou-chaliengeatnr�proposed..•aectionswinvrcourt,
g ou�maylbe�limlted.to3falsing S0 IthoseLssues
you or_someone else-reised•el the public hearing q
tlescribed rin_thisTnotice�oryn:written:conespon-
dencerdelivereditoithetPlannmg Cammiss'wn flt,
or'pnor[o, the public'hearing.
PHI IPA nma Secretary
All in the year 2004 Palm Desert ]ann ng Commission
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the - Pue: August 6, z004
foregoing is true and correct. - �' •
Dated at Palm Springs,California this—27f"—day -
of AuAuggustt ,2004
Signature
1
1