The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZOA 15-81 HEIGHT LIMIT 1981 ��m i! itum all m ems►- s dbm � II, ` z tn119lip . . e � A ail: V $Mwk In RISO Aw i .irt' J I 1` ■ s 1 S Y to . I r ON, i. 'i. ORDINANCE NO. 279 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, RELATIVE TO CHAPTER 25.30.240 SUBSECTION F, CONCERNING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE PC (4) ZONE. CASE NO. ZOA 15-81 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd i day of December, 1981, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to Municipal Code, Chapter 25.30.240. Subsection F, concerning maximum building height in the PC (4) zone; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. 759, has recommended approval; WHEREAS, said amendments have complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined the project to be Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts to justify its recommendations as described below: 1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: a. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. b. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the Q adopted General Plan and affected Specific Plans. C. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in these cases; 2. That it does hereby approve a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A", to amend Municipal Code, Chapter 25.30.240, Subsection F. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, and shall certify to the passage of adoption of this ordinance, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 17th day of December , 1981 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: McPherson, Newbrander, Puluqi , Snyder & Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Yv ILSON, May ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIItAN, City C1 City of Palm Desert /Ir ORDINANCE NO. 279 EXHIBIT "A" 1. Section 25.30.240 Subsection F, SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS: 25.30.240 Resort Center Development Standards: F. The maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet. Within 100 feet of single family residential zoned property, the height limit shall remain thirty (30) feet. CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council I1. REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.30.240, concerning maximum building height in the P/C (4) Zone. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 15-81 V. DATE: December 3, 1981 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Ordinance No. D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 15-81. E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 759. F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 3, 1981. G. Related maps and/or exhibits. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: This amendment was reviewed and unanimously recommended for approval by Planning Commission at its meeting of November 3, 1981. Bernard Solomon spoke in favor of the amendment, indicating that it would allow for a more imaginative design in his 3 story hotel project. During the hearing no one spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment. The proposed Ordinance would increase the maximum building height in resort commercial PC (4) zone from 30 feet to 35 feet. This would allow for 3 story buildings with a gable roof to be constructed. Presently, 3 story buildings would have to provide a flat roof. Generally, it is felt that a gable roof offers a more aesthetically pleasing appearance than a flat roof. Also, flat roofs are susceptible to leaking. The present limit of 30 feet will be retained in the PC (4) zone for buildings within 100 feet of single family residential zoned property. MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1981 Chairman Kryder opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in Favor or Opposition to this case. MR. BERNARD SOLOMON, 73-185 Irontree, stated he was presently an owner of time-share property and spoke in favor, but stressed the importance of having a hotel tied in for better management. He also pointed out that the method of calculating rental value for the purposes of transient occupancy tax should be the same for Right to Use (RTU) time-shares, as it is for fee simple time-share ownership. In determining rental value, only the purchase price and the maintenance costs should be included. Other costs such as furniture replacement, should not be improved. The method of collecting the transient occupancy tax and transmitting it to the City should be handled through the hotel. Chairman Kryder closed the public testimony. Mr. Smith explained that the reason different formulas were used for RTU and Fee owners was because given two equal time-share developments, if one were sold on a right to use basis and the other on fee simple basis, the fee simple development would, in most instances, have a higher selling price. Therefore, the longer period of years to be used to establish rental value is felt to be valid. Total maintenance costs including furniture replacement and other items are valid inclusions in determining rental value because, .. were this a hotel, the room rate would be increased to compensate for these improvements. This is in keeping with the City's policy of treating time-share as it would a hotel development. There was some discussion on the Bed Tax formula on whether to use one formula or calculate the fees as suggested by Mr. Solomon. Commissioner Richards felt that since this was a new process, this should be kept as proposed and reviewed after a certain time period. Mr. Diaz felt that a formula was needed and suggested that a recommendation be made to keep the formula as proposed, then after the first time-share project, it should be studied. Commissioner Richards concurred and pointed out a time period should be specified in the Ordinance and it should note that changes can be made. After further discussion it was agreed to instruct staff to report to City Council, Planning Commission concerns on this matter. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 758, as submitted, with recommendation to City Council that concerns expressed by Planning Commission be considered. Carried 4-1 (NAY�RICHARDS). Case No. ZOA 15-81 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of an amendment to Municipal Code, Chapter 25.30.240, Subsection F, concerning maximum building height in the PC (4) Zone. Mr. Joy reviewed the proposed amendment and recommended approval. Commissioner Wood asked if this would impact anyone's view or aesthetics. Mr. Diaz replied that Design Review Board would make sure it did not. Chairman Kryder opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in Favor or Opposition to this case. MR. BERNARD SOLOMON, explained that a gable roof raises the height of a building to 34 feet, and in the instance of his proposed project, Granada Royale Hometel, a gable roof would better suit the project rather than a mansard roof. He explained the difference in a flat roof compared to a gable roof, stressing that there would be a greater risk of leakage in a flat roof. Chairman Kryder closed the public testimony. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 759, recommending approval' to the City Council of -5- 0 -9- uewJie40 '2T3S7ANN '4 3021030 :1S211V AJelalOaS 'ZVIS] 'V NOME 'W'd OT:01 1e 2UTlaaw ayi uJnolpe of 'pooh lauOTSslwwOO Aq papuooas 'sp,LgOTd JauOTSSiwwoO Aq panOVV ZN3WN,dnof4V lix 3NON - S1N3WW00 'IX sry passaJdxa osle 'y�eag 2uo l 'moiiTM lse 'Jallew anoge ayi UO Suoiuldo 3 0+ ,C NOWO'IOS Q21VN2I3g 'AW •swalgoJd pool; algissod ;o asneOaq sa2eJe2 ua)iuns ylim sluawdolanap ,Sue of UOTI!soddo sTy passaJdxa 'el01JOd TOT-£+T 'NOSNHOC WI1 2IW SNOIIVOINfiWW00 'IV210 'X -Alsnowiueun paTJJeO 'SUOT1Je s,pJeog MaTAa-1 u2TsaCI 2ulnoidde 'T9L 'ON UOTinTosag UOTSsrwwo0 Suluueid idope 01 'pooM JaOTsSTwwOO Aq papuoaas 'SpJeyOT'l lauOTSSTwwOO Aq paAOW 'II 3SVHd '1S3M S3NId 01 SW'IVd - O LST 'ON asEO 'UOTIawJT;uOD UOTSsnuwo0 2uTuueld `duTJTnbaJ '1861 'LZ JagolD0 ;O 2uTiaaw S1T le paeog malnag u2Tsa4 ayi Aq Slenoidde uaTd AJeuiwilaJd SW31I GWV09 /lAMAMI N0IS34 'IIIA .Xisnowiueun paTlJeO 'TR-OT Z/O 2UlnoJdde '09L 'ON UOTlnlosag UOTSSTwwoO 2UTuueid ldope of 'salrJO Jauolsslwwo0 (q pa' puODaS 'JalT!W Jauoissiwwo0 Aq paAOW •pas0l0 SEA 2UTleay ayl 'auou 2uiaq aaayl •ase0 STy1 01 UOTirsodd0 JO JOARA UT >jeads 01 paySTM auOAUe TT pajse pue AUOLUTlsai OTlgnd ayi pauado JapAiN uewJTe40 •lenoJdde papuawLuo:)aJ put? 1JodaJ ;;els ayl paMainal TTaJd •JW •(ainin;) aATJa eJleuiS >IueJ3 pup (aanln;) anuaAV elolJOd ;O lauJOD lsaAaylJou a43 M paleOol saJZe 091 JOT (aJze/-n'p S ieTluaplsag pauueTd) S-2Td of (AiunoO apiSJanT-T) OZ-Z-M woJ; auOZ ;O a2Ue40 UOTlexauueaid a Jo; ;sanbaJ a ;o uorleJaprsuo0 lueOTTddV '1g3S3q W'IVd 30 A11O - T9-0T Z/O 'ON ase0 •0 -AisnowTueun pailnZ) •lUawpuawe siyl I96T '£ UgUMAON S31fiNIW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 759 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.30.240 SUBSECTION F, CONCERNING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE PC (4) ZONE, A CLASS 5 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA. CASE NO. ZOA 15-81 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of November, 1981, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 25.30.240 Subsection F, concerning maximum building height in the PC (4) zone; WHEREAS, said amendments have complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined the project to be Class 5 Categorical Exemption; arid, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify their recommendations as described below: 1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: a. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. b. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected Specific Plans. C. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in these cases; 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 25.30.240 Subsection F. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of November, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, MILLER, RICHARDS, WOOD, KRYDER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ti GEORGE D. KRYDER, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr -1- PL,AJXNMG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 759 EXMf r`A' 1. Section 23.30.240 Subsection F. SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS: 23.30.240 Resort Center Development Standards: F. The maximum building height shall be thirty- five(35) feet. Within 100 feet of single family residential zoned property, the height limit shall remain thirty (30) feet. l _2_ CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission REPORT ON: Zoning Ordinance Amendment APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 15-81 DATE: November 3, 1981 I. REQUEST: Amendment to Municipal Code, Chapter 25.30.240 sub-section F, concerning maximum building height in the PC (4) Zone. 11. BACKGROUND: A. CASE INITIATION This amendment was initiated by a letter from BPS Development Company to the Director of Environmental Services. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Director of Environmental Services has determined that the propoed amendment is a Class 5, Categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. III. DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance amendment was the result of Case No. 155 C, Granada Royale Hometel. The approved plan calls for a three story structure. To abide by the current thirty (30) foot height limit in the PC (4) Zone, the applicant's architects first considered a mansard roof. The applicant, however, felt that a gable roof would be more favorable aesthetically and more efficient in handling rain runoff. Another reason the applicant favors the gable roof is the additional interior space created to allow room for refrigeration piping and duct work, hiding it from visual exposure. The gable roof in this instance raises the height of the building to 34 feet. Other factors that support the proposed amendment include the recent ordinance amendment raising the maximum building height in the PC (3) zone from thirty (30) to thirty-five (35) feet, and the extra amount of room for creativity in building design. The increase in proposed maximum building height will still limit development to the equivalent of three stories. IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Amend Section 25.68.150; Subsection F, to read: "The maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet." (Existing section) 25.30.240 Subsection F: The maximum building height shall be thirty (30) feet. Changes: increase maximum building height in resort commercial PC (4) zone from thirty 30) feet to Thirty-five (35) feet. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend to the Commission that it adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , increasing the niaxim&m building height in the PC (4) zone to thirty-five (35) feet. "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, recommending to The City Council that it approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment 15-81 concerning the maximum building height in.the PC (4) zone." PREPARED BY: l t REVIEWED & APPROVED BYLi ' -1- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 759 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.30.240 SUBSECTION F, CONCERNING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE PC (4) ZONE, A CLASS 5 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA. CASE NO. ZOA 15-81 ;rc WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of November, 1981, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 25.30.240 Subsection F, concerning maximum building height in the PC (4) zone; WHEREAS, said amendments have complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined the project to be Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify their recommendations as described below: 1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: a. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. b. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected Specific Plans. C. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in these cases; 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 25.30.240 Subsection F. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of November, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, MILLER, RICHARDS, WOOD, KRYDER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE GEORGE D. KRYDER, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission REPORT ON: Zoning Ordinance Amendment APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 15-81 DATE: November 3, 1981 I. REQUEST: Amendment to Municipal Code, Chapter 25.30.240 sub-section F, concerning maximum building height in the PC (4) Zone. IT. BACKGROUND: A. CASE INITIATION This amendment was initiated by a letter from BPS Development Company to the Director of Environmental Services. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Director of Environmental Services has determined that the propoed amendment is a Class 5, Categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. III. DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance amendment was the result of Case No. 155 C, Granada Royale Hometel. The approved plan calls for a three story structure. To abide by the current thirty (30) foot height limit in the PC (4) Zone, the applicant's architects first considered a mansard roof. The applicant, however, felt that a gable roof would be more favorable aesthetically and more efficient in handling rain runoff. Another reason the applicant favors the gable roof is the additional interior space created to allow room for refrigeration piping and duct worki'hiding, it from visual exposure. The gable roof in this instance raises the height of the building to 34 feet. Other factors that support the proposed amendment include the recent ordinance amendment raising the maximum building height in the PC (3) zone from thirty (30) to thirty-five (35) feet, and the extra amount of room for creativity in building design. The increase in proposed maximum building height will still limit development to the equivalent of three stories. IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Amend Section 25.68.150; Subsection F, to read: "The maximum building height -"shall be thirty-five (35) feet." (Existing section) 25.30.240 Subsection F: The maximum building height shall be thirty (30) feet. Chan es: increase maximum building height in resort commercial PC (4) zone from thirty 30) feet to Thirty-five (35) feet. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend to the Commission that it. adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , increasing the maximum building height in the PC (4) zone to thirty-five (35) feet. "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, recommending to The City Council that it approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment 15-81 concerning the maximum building height in the PC (4) zone." PREPARED BY: REVIEWED & APPROVED BYa ,`'i 4- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.30.240 SUBSECTION F, CONCERNING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE PC (4) ZONE, A CLASS 5 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA. CASE NO. ZOA 15-81 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of November, 1981, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 25.30.240 Subsection F, concerning maximum building height in the PC (4) zone; WHEREAS, said amendments have complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert procedures to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined the project to be Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify their recommendations as described below: 1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: a. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. b. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected Specific Plans. C. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: / r 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in these cases; 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 25.30.240 Subsection F. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of November, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: GEORGE KRYDER, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr -1- EXHIBIT "A" 1. Section 25.30.240 Subsection F, SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS: 25.30.240 Resort Center Development Standards: F. The maximum building height shall be thirty- five (35) feet. Within 100 feet of single family residential zoned property, the height limit shall remain thirty (30) feet. -2- PR( OF Cr- PU',�L IC AT 1,13M / (20101 2015. 5 CCP) 1 , PROOF OF PIML TC AT ICIN OF LEGAL NOTICE ZOA 15—P1 =. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. i am the principal clerk of the printer of THE DESERT POSi1 ieoAaNOTICE a newspaper of general Circula— AN AMENDMENT}TO E G TION 23 30 240 O TNE,'M NICIPAL' COD TO IM lion, printed Ottd Published Weekly CREASE+TNEafe ILDI in the City of Riverside , County HEIONT/LIMIT WITH pI THEgPG/IZONE ROMyy�3� of . Riversidet and which newspaper FEET TO&350FErT�, CL•AS�S ICATE00R I EAL -',has been adjudged a newspaper Of EXEMPTION3FOR PUR- geheral circulation by the POSES OFiCEpA. CASEtNO..ZOA 31 NOTICELISYHERre ` Superior Cnurt of the' County of N*at a PubI4C3 Hearin3 P,iversidel State of California , °eihe1 P a�ltn lOfeC�n1e+PPlm 11nln°(Commisslon ConilderRonfAmendmenr o under date of October 5t 1964, Section 25.30.240 of M.- unn Vol Code!to Increase}he Case number P3658 ; that the ^°=1 NIMILTI ln:}he�F . 3l(ResootltCor^^ notice, of which the annexed is TMO u. clal AID'iota.Pb11c;.He^rin° 1 a printed copy, has been published heldron11Iovembcy}I, 193I :00P.m the Co�cl C in each regular and entire iss Hall ue hers lntihfPalmlDeSeHlci , 75 �A of said newspaper and not in any cane. Pal 35-2 a Prick Iv m 1J��CCant nla,�o} Idr Ime=atldlPI supplement thereof on the fo11 ° pint al;mreres}edpersons .. vlred.to�aHen -and'be d a t e s r t o-wit : RPu1�mjDe.�en Pion�i�e - mission 10122 , 1981 ° I Certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the fore-going .is true and correct. _ Gated October 221 .1981 at Riverside, '.california- C.IT.Y OF PALM OESEkT CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 25.30.240 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT WITHIN THE PC-4 ZONE FROM 30 FEET TO 35 FEET, A CLASS 5 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA. CASE NO. ZOA 15-81 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an Amendment to Section 25.30.240 of the Municipal Code, to increase the building height limit within the PC-4 (Resort Commercial) zone from 30' to 35'. SAID Public Hearing will be held on December 3, 1981, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post November 19, 1981 L�n� 2)IZ(Td0 .n2Znt 60M#an� .-1 2 21981 October 20, 1981 E i GO �F�PALM DESERT SERVICES Mr. Ramon A. Diaz Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert , California 92260 Dear Ray: Enclosed are the elevations of the latest Granada Royale Hometel recently completed at 44th and McDowell Road in Phoenix. You will note a mansard and flat roof combination was used and although the building is four stories in lieu of three stories , it shows the relative architectural aesthetics of the two systems. I thought you might be able to use these in the presentation to The Planning Commission and The Council. With be t regards. Very ruly yours , /Ber rd Solomon / BS/rmm Enclosure 3140 EAST WILLOW STREET LONG BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90806 PHONE: 426-1389 '1 N it �cS TL Evefo#mmnt Com`ianty e September 17, 1981 /'+ ,J � � ENV i 1981 Direcrn A. Diaz Pof Environmental Services cl ry �r pACrj C p S Director ty of FRTFS 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert , California 92260 Subject : Case No. 155-C Granada Royale Hometel Dear Mr. Diaz: In order to comply with the ordinance regarding height limit, our architects proposed a mansard roof combined with a flat roof. It is my opinion that this presents many problems with with respect to leaks and aesthetically is not very pleasing. Consequently, I have instructed our architect to incorporate a design using a gable roof. In addition to a better looking building , a gable roof will offer additional space to allow room for refrigeration piping and duct work. I feel that this would conserve enegry and make the piping more accessible for maintenance and pro- tection against leaks. The problem arises , however , in that the resultant height from grade to the ridge is 341 . I therefore request that an application be made to The Planning Commission and City Council to change the ordinance to allow for a 35, height limit. It is my opinion that the intent of the 30 ' height limit was to limit the structure to 3 stories using a flat roof.. It has been proven in the past 10 years that a flat roof is not practical in the desert due to the problems experienced in roof leaks . 3140 EAST WILLOW STREET LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90806. PHONE: 426-1389 1 :^., ll �IBlfll? W L'onz/iL September 17, 1981 Mr. Ramon A. Diaz 2 Please advise if any further documentation is required to initiate the above request. Your usual prompt cooperation will be appreciated. Ver,�ruly yquvt , Bern rd Sotomon BS/rmm . Enclosure I G±LQ�� off aDm m 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 October 16, 1981 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 25.30.240 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT WITHIN THE PC-4 ZONE FROM 30 FEET TO 35 FEET, A CLASS 5 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA. CASE NO. ZOA 15-81 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that. a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consideran Amendment to Section 25.30.240 of the Muni- cipal Code, to increase the building height limit within the PC-4 (Resort Commercial ) zone from 30' to 35' . Said Public Hearing will be held on November 3, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post October 22, 1981