Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 97-7 PLANNED OFFICE PARK 2000 PROJECT INE4R1VIi?►TION .................. APN ADDRESS EXISTING ZONE CASE NO(S) APPLICANT(S) (name, address & phone number) DESCRIPTION SQUARE FT. MIN. SQ. FT. PARKING MAX. SQ. FT. NO. OF LOTS AVG. SQ. FT. SETBACKS: FRONT SIDES REAR- .......... i ACTIONSD. A HEARINGS N ............... ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MATE ACTION V©TE PLANNING COMMISSION .......... R 71 4'�� :f E604U7 ON A CITY COUNCIL TIOWN0 "v c DOTE TE E.N RECORDED IN GIS DATA BANK BY DATE: ZONING MAP CORRECTED BY DATE: FINAL INSPECTION DATE BY PROJECT PLANNER:- Chapter 25.36 POP PLANNED OFFICE PARK DISTRICT Sections: 25.36.010 Purpose. 25.36.020 Uses permitted by approved precise plan. 25.36.030 Prefiling procedure. 25.36.050 Rezoning and precise plan requirements. 25.36.080 Architectural review of project. 25.36.100 Development standards applicable. 25.36.110 Off-street parking and loading. 25.36.120 Utilities. 25.36.130 Signs. 25.36.140 Outside storage. 25.36.150 Screening. 25.36.160 Trash handling. 25.36.170 Site plan review. 25.36.180 Special standards. 25.36.190 Minimum area. 25.36.200 Perimeter setback and yards. 25.36.210 Building height. 25.36.230 Architectural feature setback exceptions. 25.36.240 Building height. 25.36.250 Required landscaping. 25.36.270 Exceptions. 25.36.290 Building setbacks from the planned street line. 25.36.300 Modifications. 25.36.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of the Planned Office Park (POP) district to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of professional office, research, and community facility uses, both public and private. The POP district is further intended to provide for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments within a park-like setting. The POP district is also established to give a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land development techniques will be given reasonable consideration for approval and to provide the city with assurances that the completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of approval. 1 Chapter 25.36 25.36.020 Uses permitted by approved precise plan. A. The following uses are permitted in a POP district: 1 . General offices; 2. Medical offices and clinics; 3. Laboratories (medical and dental); 4. Community facility; 5. Art studio; 6. Art galleries; 7. Financial institution not including a bank, savings and loan, credit union or check cashing; 8. Research facilities. B. The following uses are permitted in a POP district subject to approval of a conditional use permit: 1 . Professional schools; 2. Business schools; 3. Ancillary commercial uses. 25.36.030 Prefiling procedure. Prior to the submittal of the complete official application, an applicant must prefile a preliminary draft of the required documents and sketch plans for the project with the Director of Community Development for review. It shall be the responsibility of the Director of Community Development to contact interested department and agency personnel regarding necessary meetings with the applicant. After review, the Director of Community Development shall furnish the applicant with written comments regarding the project, including appropriate recommendations to inform and assist the applicant prior to preparing the final components of the application. 25.36.040 Filing procedure. To initiate the review process, the applicant shall file an application for a change of zone to a POP district along with a precise plan and supporting documentation as required in Section 25.36.100 with the Planning Commission through the Department of Community Development. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider the petition for a change to a POP district and the accompanying precise plan. The change of zone and accompanying precise plan shall be subject to approval by ordinance and resolution respectively by the City Council. 2 1 Chapter 25.36 25.36.050 Rezoning and precise plan requirements. A. The Planning Commission may initiate at its discretion the rezoning of properties, according to the provisions of Chapter 25.84. In cases of city initiated rezoning, the change of zone petition may he processed alone; an approved precise plan as set forth in Chapter 25.73 shall be required prior to any,development. B. Rezoning initiated by any person or agency, other than the city, must be accompanied by a precise plan as part of the change of zone application. C. Sites to be rezoned to POP shall front on at least one arterial street or major thoroughfare as delineated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan or have direct access to such a street. 25.36.080 Architectural review of project. Within one year following the final approval of the precise plan, the applicant shall file for the architectural review of the project by filing the information required in Section 25.70.030. The Architectural Review Commission, in addition to its normal finding, shall deem the precise plan construction plans in substantial compliance with the precise plan, provided modification by the applicant does not involve a change of one or more of the following: A. Violate any provision of the Zoning Ordinance; B. Vary the required lot area by more than 10 percent; C. Involve a reduction of more than ten percent of the area reserved for the common open space and/or usable open space; D. Increase or decrease the floor areas proposed by more than ten percent; E. Increase the total ground area covered by buildings by more than 5 percent. If it is determined that the plans are not in substantial compliance, a new precise plan shall be processed through the city. 25.36.100 Development standards applicable. All areas on the precise plan shall be subject to the following: The standards for development of POP districts set forth in this chapter and any supplemental standards for the project designated in the precise plan. In addition, the following development standards of Sections 25.36.110 through 25.36.280 shall apply. 25.36.110 Off-street parking and loading. All parking and loading shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 25.58. 25.36.120 Utilities. For provisions regarding utilities, see Section 25.56.090. 3 Chapter 25.36 25.36.130 Signs. All signs shall be in compliance with Chapter 25.68. 25.36.140 Outside storage. No outside storage shall be permitted in the POP zone unless screened from public view. 25.36.150 Screening. All screening requirements for developments within the POP district shall be determined by the Architectural Review Commission during its site review proceedings. 25.36.160 Trash handling. Trash handling facilities shall be provided for all developments within the POP district. The trash area shall be completely enclosed by walls or buildings. A freestanding trash enclosure shall be constructed of masonry block. No trash shall be allowed to extend above or beyond the enclosure. 25.36.170 Site plan review. A site plan review as prescribed in Chapter 25.70 shall be required before a building permit is issued for any development in the POP district. 25.36.180 Special standards. In addition to requiring all development plans to comply to the following special standards, the City Council and/or Planning Commission may impose such other conditions to the precise plan as it deems necessary or desirable in carrying out the general purpose and intent of this chapter. 25.36.190 Minimum area. The minimum project area shall be two acres. For purposes of revitalization, the Planning Commission may approve projects of less than two acres where significant local improvements is deemed desirable. 25.36.200 Perimeter setback and yards. The minimum project perimeter setback shall be 32 feet from the ultimate right-of-way line on an arterial street or major thoroughfare and 20 feet from other streets. Interior side yards and rear yards shall be a minimum of 10 feet, except when building height exceeds 30 feet, all setbacks shall be increased by one foot for each foot of building height above 30 feet. 4 Chapter 25.36 25.36.210 Building site coverage. The maximum project building site coverage shall be 30 percent of the net area of the site. 25.36.230 Architectural feature setback exceptions. A. Roof overhangs may project six feet into a 30-foot or greater setback and three feet into any setback less than thirty feet. B. Steps and open and unenclosed staircases may project into the setback area. 25.36.240 Building height. The maximum building height shall be thirty feet and two stories. Where a building is not adjacent to residential property and contains more than 40,000 gross square feet, building height may be increased to a maximum of 45 feet and three tiered stories. 25.36.250 Required landscaping. A minimum of 30% of the net site area shall be landscaped. Where a building exceeds the 30-foot height limit, the required landscaping shall be increased to a minimum of 35% of the net site area. 25.36.270 Exceptions. The standards listed in Sections 25.36.190 through 25.36.260 shall be required unless modified by the precise plan. 25.36.290 Building setbacks from the planned street line. The minimum setback for all developments within the POP district shall be designated distances from the ultimate right-of-way line of the streets specified in this section unless otherwise provided in this section or in the approved precise plan or conditional use permit: A. Freeway, 50 feet; B. Major, 32 feet; C. Arterial, 32 feet; D. Collector, 20 feet; E. Local, 20 feet. In order to allow for creative site design, setbacks from major thoroughfares or arterials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 feet for a two-story building and 20 feet for a one- story building, provided that the average 32 feet of setback is maintained. On side streets, the minimum setback for single-story structures shall be 15 feet, provided that the average required setback is maintained. 5 V Chapter 25.36 25.36.300 Modifications. The Planning Commission may approve a precise plan only after finding that the requirements of this title and other ordinances affecting the property have been satisfied. In granting such approval, the Planning Commission may impose and enforce such specific conditions as to site development, phasing and building construction, maintenance and operation as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this title and the general plan. 6 Chapter 25.36 POP PLANNED OFFICE PARK DISTRICT Sections: 25.36.010 Purpose. 25.36.020 Uses permitted by approved precise plan. 25.36.030 Prefiling procedure. 25.36.050 Rezoning and precise plan requirements. 25.36.080 Architectural review of project. 25.36.100 Development standards applicable. 25.36.110 Off-street parking and loading. 25.36.120 Utilities. 25.36.130 Signs. 25.36.140 Outside storage. 25.36.150 Screening. 25.36.160 Trash handling. 25.36.170 Site plan review. 25.36.180 Special standards. 25.36.190 Minimum area. 25.36.200 Perimeter setback and yards. 25.36.210 Building height. 25.36.230 Architectural feature setback exceptions. 25.36.240 Building height. 25.36.250 Required landscaping. 25.36.270 Exceptions. 25.36.290 Building setbacks from the planned street line. 25.36.300 Modifications. 25.36.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of the Planned Office Park (POP) district to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of professional office, research, and community facility uses, both public and private. The POP district is further intended to provide for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments within a park-like setting. The POP district is also established to give a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land development techniques will be given reasonable consideration for approval and to provide the city with assurances that the completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of approval. n rf Chapter 25.36 25.36.020 Uses permitted by approved precise plan. A. The following uses are permitted in a POP district: 1 . General offices; 2. Medical offices and clinics; 3. Laboratories (medical and dental); 4. Community facility; 5. Art studio; 6. Art galleries; 7. Financial institution not including a bank, savings and loan, credit union or check cashing; 8. Research facilities. B. The following uses are permitted in a POP district subject to approval of a conditional use permit: 1 . Professional schools; 2. Business schools; 3. Ancillary commercial uses. 25.36.030 Prefiling procedure. Prior to the submittal of the complete official application, an applicant must prefile a preliminary draft of the required documents and sketch plans for the project with the Director of Community Development for review. It shall be the responsibility of the Director of Community Development to contact interested department and agency personnel regarding necessary meetings with the applicant. After review, the Director of Community Development shall furnish the applicant with written comments regarding the project, including appropriate recommendations to inform and assist the applicant prior to preparing the final components of the application. 25.36.040 Filing procedure. To initiate the review process, the applicant shall file an application for a change of zone to a POP district along with a precise plan and supporting documentation as required in Section 25.36.100 with the Planning Commission through the Department of Community Development. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider the petition for a change to a POP district and the accompanying precise plan. The change of zone and accompanying precise plan shall be subject to approval by ordinance and resolution respectively by the City Council. 2 1F ra Chapter 25.36 25.36.050 Rezoning and precise plan requirements. A. The Planning Commission may initiate at its discretion the rezoning of properties, according to the provisions of Chapter 25.84. In cases of city initiated rezoning, the change of zone petition may be processed alone; an approved precise plan as set forth in Chapter 25.73 shall be required prior to any development. B. Rezoning initiated by any person or agency, other than the city, must be accompanied by a precise plan as part of the change of zone application. C. Sites to be rezoned to POP shall front on at least one arterial street or major thoroughfare as delineated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan or have direct access to such a street. 25.36.080 Architectural review of project. Within one year following the final approval of the precise plan, the applicant shall file for the architectural review of the project by filing the information required in Section 25.70.030. The Architectural Review Commission, in addition to its normal finding, shall deem the precise plan construction plans in substantial compliance with the precise plan, provided modification by the applicant does not involve a change of one or more of the following: A. Violate any provision of the Zoning Ordinance; B. Vary the required lot area by more than 10 percent; C. Involve a reduction of more than ten percent of the area reserved for the common open space and/or usable open space; D. Increase or decrease the floor areas proposed by more than ten percent; E. Increase the total ground area covered by buildings by more than 5 percent. If it is determined that the plans are not in substantial compliance, a new precise plan shall be processed through the city. 25.36.100 Development standards applicable. All areas on the precise plan shall be subject to the following: The standards for development of POP districts set forth in this chapter and any supplemental standards for the project designated in the precise plan. In addition, the following development standards of Sections 25.36.110 through 25.36.280 shall apply. 25.36.110 Off-street parking and loading. All parking and loading shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 25.58. 25.36.120 Utilities. For provisions regarding utilities, see Section 25.56.090. 3 Chapter 25.36 25.36.130 Signs. All signs shall be in compliance with Chapter 25.68. 25.36.140 Outside storage. No outside storage shall be permitted in the POP zone unless screened from public view. 25.36.150 Screening. All screening requirements for developments within the POP district shall be determined by the Architectural Review Commission during its site review proceedings. 25.36.160 Trash handling. Trash handling facilities shall be provided for all developments within the POP district. The trash area shall be completely enclosed by walls or buildings. A freestanding trash enclosure shall be constructed of masonry block. No trash shall be allowed to extend above or beyond the enclosure. 25.36.170 Site plan review. A site plan review as prescribed in Chapter 25.70 shall be required before a building permit is issued for any development in the POP district. 25.36.180 Special standards. In addition to requiring all development plans to comply to the following special standards, the City Council and/or Planning Commission may impose such other conditions to the precise plan as it deems necessary or desirable in carrying out the general purpose and intent of this chapter. 25.36.190 Minimum area. The minimum project area shall be two acres. For purposes of revitalization, the Planning Commission may approve projects of less than two acres where significant local improvements is deemed desirable. 25.36.200 Perimeter setback and yards. The minimum project perimeter setback shall be 32 feet from the ultimate right-of-way line on an arterial street or major thoroughfare and 20 feet from other streets. Interior side yards and rear yards shall be a minimum of 10 feet, except when building height exceeds 30 feet, all setbacks shall be increased by one foot for each foot of building height above 30 feet. 4 Chapter 25.36 25.36.210 Building site coverage. The maximum project building site coverage shall be 30 percent of the net area of the site. 25.36.230 Architectural feature setback exceptions. A. Roof overhangs may project six feet into a 30-foot or greater setback and three feet into any setback less than thirty feet. B. Steps and open and unenclosed staircases may project into the setback area. 25.36.240 Building height. The maximum building height shall be thirty feet and two stories. Where a building is not adjacent to residential property and contains more than 40,000 gross square feet, building height may be increased to a maximum of 45 feet and three tiered stories. 25.36.250 Required landscaping. A minimum of 30% of the net site area shall be landscaped. Where a building exceeds the 30-foot height limit, the required landscaping shall be increased to a minimum of 35% of the net site area. 25.36.270 Exceptions. The standards listed in Sections 25.36.190 through 25.36.260 shall be required unless. modified by the precise plan. 25.36.290 Building setbacks from the planned street line. The minimum setback for all developments within the POP district shall be designated distances from the ultimate right-of-way line of the streets specified in this section unless otherwise provided in this section or in the approved precise plan or conditional use permit: A. Freeway, 50 feet; B. Major, 32 feet; C. Arterial, 32 feet; D. Collector, 20 feet; E. Local, 20 feet. In order to allow for creative site design, setbacks from major thoroughfares or arterials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 feet for a two-story building and 20 feet for a one- story building, provided that the average 32 feet of setback is maintained. On side streets, the minimum setback for single-story structures shall be 15 feet, provided that the average required setback is maintained. 5 Chapter 25.36 25.36.300 Modifications. The Planning Commission may approve a precise plan only after finding that the requirements of this title and other ordinances affecting the property have been satisfied. In granting such approval, the Planning Commission may impose and enforce such specific conditions as to site development, phasing and building construction, maintenance and operation as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this title and the general plan. 6 10-ACRE SITE ONE STORY Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 30% (130,680 sq ft) 522 167,000 sq ft 137,800 sq ft(31.6%) 35% (152,400 sq ft) 610 195,200 sq ft 87,940 sq ft(20.2%) TWO STORY Coveraoe Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 30% (130,680 sq ft) 1,044 334,080 sq ft ----- (-10%) 25% (108,900 sq ft) 871 278,720 sq ft 47,980 sq ft (11%) 20% (87,120 sq ft) 697 223,040 sq ft 125,440 sq ft(28.8%) THREE STORY Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 25% (108,900 sq ft) 1,307 418,176 sq ft . -------- (-20%) 20% (87,120 sq ft) 1,045 334,464 sq ft 14,016 sq ft (3%) 15% (65,340 sq ft) 784 250,880 sq ft 119,300 sq ft (27%) TIERED: THREE STORY Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 1st Floor 30% (130,680 sq ft) 2nd Floor 25% (108,900 sq ft) 3rd Floor 20% ( 87.120 sq ft) 326,700 sq ft 1,307 418,176 sq ft ----- (-25%) OR Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 1st Floor 25% (108,900 sq ft) 2nd Floor 20% ( 87,120 sq ft) 3rd Floor 15% ( 65.340 sq ft) 261,360 sq ft 784 250,880 sq ft 97,600 (22.4%) PROPOSAL Site = 21 acres = 914,760 sq ft -- want total of 160,000 sq ft One Floor = 17.5% coverage Plus 640 Parking Spaces = 204,800 sq ft = 22.4% Open Space = 60% 1 i ONE STORY 30% coverage OK 35% coverage 152,520 surface; 42,680 underground TWO STORY 30% coverage 130,680 + 130,680 = 261,360 174,240 surface; 159,840 underground 25% coverage 180,900 + 130,680 = 239,580 196,020 surface; 82,700 underground 20% coverage 87,120 + 130,680 = 217,800 217,800 surface; 5,240 underground THREE STORY 25% coverage 108,900 + 130,680 = 239,580 196,020 surface; 222,156 underground 20% coverage 87,170 + 130,680 = 217,800 217,800 surface; 116,664 underground 15% coverage 65,340 + 130,680 = 196,020 239,580 surface; 11,300 underground TIERED THREE STORY 30% 1st floor 130,680 + 130,680 = 261,360 174,240 surface; 243,936 underground 25% 1 st floor 108,900 + 130,680 = 239,580 196,020 surface; 54,860 underground U.S. FILTER (near Sunrise) 17,540 building coverage 19% 90,313 site area ---- 41,200 parking & walks 46% 31,620landscape 35% SUNLIFE - 2-story 7,640 building coverage 21% 36,312 site area --- 20,876 parking & walks 57% 7,796 landscape 22% MONTEREY PROPERTIES - 2-story 5,781 building coverage 29.2% 19,790 site are -- 6,768 parking & walks 34.2% landscape 35% (much in interior courtyard) HOMME AT MONTEREY & FRED WARING 12,500 building coverage 27.8% 45,000 site area --- 14,725 parking & paving 32.7% 17,775landscaping 39% AVANS OFFICE DDS 2,330 building coverage 32% 7,280 site area -- parking & walks 52% 1,125landscaping 15.5% OLIPHANT/MAZNER - 2-story building 2,200 building coverage 15.1% 14,560 site area --- 11,211 parking & walks 77% 1,100landscaping 7.5% FOXX DEVELOPMENT CORP 4,974 building coverage 34% 14,560 site area ---- 5,610 parking & walks 39% 3,976landscaping 27% wp\zorclpopp.2 ICI _ Chapter 25.36 POPP PLANNED OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL PARK DISTRICT Sections: 25.36.010 Purpose. 25.36.020 Uses permitted by approved precise plan. 25.36.030 Prefiling procedure. 25.36.050 Rezoning and precise plan requirements. 25.36.080 Architectural review of project. 25.36.100 Development standards applicable. 25.36.110 Off-street parking and loading. 25.36.126 Utilities. 25.36.130 Signs. 25.36.140 Outside storage. 25.36.150 Screening. 25.36.160 -Trash handling. 25.36.170 Site plan review. 25.36.180 Special standards. 25.36.190 Minimum area. 25.36.200 Perimeter setback and yards. 25.36.210 Building height. 25.36.230 Architectural feature setback exceptions. 25.36.240 Building height. . 25.36.250 Required landscaping. 25.36.270 Exceptions. 25.36.290 Building setbacks from the planned street line. 25.36.300 Modifications. 25.16.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of the Planned Office/Professional Park (POPP) district to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of professional office, research, and community facility uses, both public and private. The POPP district is further intended to provide for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments. The POPP district is also 'established to give a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land development techniques will be given reasonable consideration for approval and to provide the 'city with assurances that the completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of approval. 25.16.020 Uses permitted by approved precise plan. A. The following uses are permitted in a POPP district: Chapter 25.36 1 . General offices; 2. Medical offices and clinics; 3. Laboratories (medical and dental); 4. Community facility; 5. Art studio; 6. Art galleries; 7. Financial institution not including a bank, savings and loan, credit union or check cashing; 8. Research facilities. B. The following uses are permitted in a POPP district subject to approval of a conditional use permit: 1 . Professional schools; 2. Business schools; 3. Ancillary commercial uses.( maximum o 0% of tota oor area in o o total floor area in uildin s Ies 25.16.030 Prefiling procedure. Prior to the submittal of the complete official application, an applicant must prefile a preliminary draft of the required documents and sketch plans for the project with the Director of Community Development for review. It shall be the responsibility of the Director of Community Development to contact interested department and agency personnel regarding necessary meetings with the applicant. After review, the Director of Community Development shall furnish the applicant with written comments regarding the project, including appropriate recommendations to inform and assist the applicant prior to preparing the final components of the application. 25.16.040 Filing procedure. To initiate the review process, the applicant shall file a petition for a change of zone to a POPP district along with a precise plan and supporting documentation as required in Section 25.36.100 with the Planning Commission through the Department of Community Development. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider the petition for a change to a POPP district and the accompanying precise plan. The change of zone and accompanying precise plan shall be subject to approval by ordinance and resolution respectively by the City Council. 25.16.050 Rezoning and precise plan requirements. A. The Planning Commission may initiate at its discretion the rezoning of properties, according to the provisions of Chapter 25.84. In cases of city initiated rezoning, the change 2 Chapter 25.36 of zone petition may be processed alone; an approved precise plan as set forth in Chapter 25.73 shall be required prior to any development. B. Rezoning initiated by any person or agency, other than the city, must be accompanied by a precise plan as part of the change of zone application. C. Sites to be rezoned to POPP shall front on at least one arterial street or major thoroughfare as delineated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 25.36.080 Architectural review of project. Within one year following the final approval of the precise plan, the applicant shall file for the architectural review of the project by filing the information required in Section 25.70.030. The Architectural Review Commission, in addition to its normal finding, shall deem the precise plan construction plans in substantial compliance with the precise plan, provided modification by the applicant does not involve a change of one or,more of the following: A. Violate any provision of the Zoning Ordinance; B. Vary the required lot area by more than 10 percent; C. Involve a reduction of more than ten percent of the area reserved for the common open space and/or usable open space; D. Increase or decrease the floor areas proposed by more than ten percent; E. Increase the total ground area covered by buildings by more than 5 percent. If it is determined that the plans are not in substantial compliance, a new precise plan shall be processed through the city. 25.36.100 Development standards applicable. All areas on the precise plan shall be subject to the following: The standards for development of POPP districts set forth in this chapter and any supplemental standards for the project designated in the precise plan. In addition, the following development standards of Sections 25.36.110 through 25.36.280 shall apply. 25.36.110 Off-street parking and loading. All parking and loading shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 25.58. 25.36.120 Utilities. For provisions regarding utilities, see Section 25.56.090. 25.36.1.30 Signs. All signs shall be in compliance with Chapter 25.68. 3 Chapter 25.36 25.36.140 Outside storage. No outside storage shall be permitted in the POPP zone. 25.36.150 Screening. All screening requirements for developments within the POPP district shall be determined by the Architectural Review Commission during its site review proceedings. 25.36.160 Trash handling. Trash handling facilities shall be provided for all developments within the POPP district. The trash area shall be completely enclosed by walls or buildings. A freestanding trash enclosure shall be constructed of masonry block. No trash shall be allowed to extend above or beyond the enclosure. 25.36.170 Site plan review. A site plan review as prescribed in Chapter 25.70 shall be required before a building permit is issued for any development in the POPP district. 25.36.180 Special standards. In addition to requiring all development plans to comply to the following special standards, the City Council and/or Planning Commission may impose such other conditions to the precise plan as it deems necessary or desirable in carrying out the general purpose and intent of this chapter. 25.36.190 Minimum area. The minimum project area shall be two acres. 25.36.200 Perimeter setback and yards. The minimum project perimeter setback shall be thirty-two feet from the ultimate right-of- way line on an arterial street or major thoroughfare and twenty feet from other streets. Interior side yards and rear yards shall be a minimum of ten feet, except when building height exceeds 30 feet, all setbacks shall be increased by one foot for each foot of building height above 30 feet. 25.36.210 Building site coverage. The maximum project building site coverage shall be 30 percent of the net area of the site. 25.36.230 Architectural feature setback exceptions. 4 Chapter 25.36 A. Roof overhangs may project six feet into a thirty-foot or greater setback and three feet into any setback less than thirty feet. B. Steps and open and unenclosed staircases may project into the setback area. 25.36.240 Building height. The maximum building height shall be thirty feet and two stories. Where a building is not adjacent to residential property and contains more than 40,000 gross square feet, building height may be increased to a maximum of 45 feet and three tiered stories. 25.36.250 Required landscaping. A minimum of 25% of the net site area shall be landscaped. Where a building exceeds the 30-foot (thirty) height limit, the required landscaping shall be increased to a minimum of 30% of the net site area. 25.36.270 Exceptions. The standards listed in Sections 25.36.190 through 25.36.260 shall be required unless modified by the precise plan. 25.36.290 Building setbacks from the planned street line. The minimum setback for all developments within the POPP district shall be designated distances from the ultimate right-of-way line of the streets specified in this section unless otherwise provided in this section or in the approved precise plan or conditional use permit: A. Freeway, fifty feet; B. Major, thirty-two feet; C. Arterial, thirty-two feet; D. Collector, twenty feet; E. Local, twenty feet. In order to allow for creative site design, setbacks from major thoroughfares or arterials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 feet for a two-story building and 20 feet for a one- story building, provided that the average 32 feet of setback is maintained. On side streets, the minimum setback for single-story structures shall be 15 feet, provided that the average required setback is maintained. 25.36.300 Modifications. The Planning Commission and/or City Council may approve a precise plan only after finding that the requirements of this title and other ordinances affecting the property have been satisfied. In granting such approval, the City Council may impose and enforce such specific conditions as to site development, phasing and building construction, maintenance 5 Chapter 25.36 and operation as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this title and the general plan. A. All development within the POPP district shall comply with the development plan as approved and adopted by the City Council. 6 i d� n' I Z N a �� U1 i � i i � ,,nn U: � I I / -�--- i (��� �� \�i C ro i i � � I I � � -� � i i I i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD PLANNED OFFICE PARK DISTRICT (POP) CASE NO. ZOA 97-7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 4?!�q�day of February, 1�9Wo�.�. hold a duly iced public hearing to consider the amendment of the Zoning Ordilriance Section 2elating to Planned Office District; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined the amendment to be a Class 5 categorical exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment: 1. The proposed amendment to add Section 25.35 Planned Office Park District to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and protects the community health, safety and general welfare. 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 it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of ZOA 97-7 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit "A". 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day February, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 CITY 01 P M OESERT ire73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o61 I FAX: 760 341-7o98 a-60P info@ palm-deserr.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: February 3, 2000 City of Palm Desert Re: ZOA 97-7 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of February 1 , 2000: PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO TABLE CASE NO. ZOA 97-7 BY MINUTE MOTION. 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. STEPHEN R. SMITH, ACTING SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal 'La MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 thought this building had the potential of having that effect. He said he consulted with the experts at ARC and generally they liked to follow a 1 :1 ratio and he heard some regrets expressed that they didn't stick to that here. A 1 :1 ratio in this case would create a 24 or 25 foot setback requirement and he felt that would be appropriate. Because of the lack of adequate setback on Alessandro and for that reason alone, he would not be in favor. He called for the vote. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1970, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 99-12, PP 99-20 subject to conditions, and certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioner Finerty voted no). THE NEXT TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE CONDUCTED SIMULTANEOUSLY. to. z Case No..ZOA 97-7 -•CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant) Request for approval of an amendment to Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code adding the Planned Office Professional Park District. E. Case Nos. PP/CUP 97-14 and C/Z 00-1 MICHAEL HOMME, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a change of zone from O.P. (office professional) to POP (planned office park district) and a precise plan of design/conditional use permit for a 37,980 square foot mixed use office commercial complex, including a 3,528 square foot restaurant on 3.78 acres at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. Chairperson Jonathan noted that staff's recommendation was to continue the matter to March 7, 2000. Mr. Smith concurred that that would ultimately be staff's recommendation. He noted that there was a site plan and an artist's rendering of the project on display. As well, there were building elevations and the color material sample board. He indicated that the goal of the city was to 17 LL MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 try and come up with a new zoning district which would create applicable development standards for office parks/complexes. The existing office professional zone currently in effect in the city was established to create a buffer or transition between arterial streets and residential developments. It had special setback requirements, special height calculations in it for buildings in excess of 18 feet, and generally it was designed for lots like along Fred Waring and Monterey Avenue (former residential lots that were no longer appropriate for residential purposes). At the time the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) was looking at this back in 1998,.they had several large office businesses that were looking at various sites in the city. They felt it necessary to come up with zoning standards for parcels and set a minimum size of two acres. They must also be on a major thoroughfare or an arterial street in order to qualify for this. The goal was to create developments in a "park-like" setting used in the purpose of the draft ordinance. Other than that, staff basically extended the permitted uses or the conditionally permitted uses to include some ancillary commercial uses and the plan before the commission by Mr. Homme included a request for a conditional use permit to use the southeasterly most building for restaurant purposes, not fast food. The draft of the POP ordinance came out of several meetings of the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee. They then sat on the ordinance waiting until a project requested its usage. Staff got that from Mr. Homme and were now proceeding with it. The district as presently proposed was reasonably flexible. It prescribed a basic height of 30 feet--2 stories and would allow 3 stories of up to 45 feet high if it was tiered and if the setbacks were increased by an additional foot for each foot of building height above 30 feet. It also allowed setback averaging. He said they would get into the setback issue with the Homme project. The question posed in the staff report was whether the commission would want to consider if a "park-like" setting could be achieved with less than 32 feet of average setback when there was an entire single story complex. The plan as submitted by Mr. Homme for the most part met the basic setbacks (i.e., 15 feet along Portola and 20 feet along Country Club) but it didn't meet the averaging requirement which said that the average setback from both those streets would be 32 feet. As noted on the bottom of page one, commission was basically simultaneously evaluating the proposed design standards and the project to determine how well each of them were achieving the objectives. If the project was inconsistent with the standards but appeared to achieve those goals, then the standards should be modified. If the project met the standards but didn't appear to meet the objectives, then both should be modified. He explained that the project as designed proposed an access point from Country Club and two from Portola. In the Public Works 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Department comments, they stipulated that they would prefer a single access onto Portola. They had some concerns with the northerly access and how it could impact on the property to the north, which was also zoned office professional. He noted that the applicant was assuming the full 15% reduction for non usable space. At this point staff didn't have anything to confirm that, but thought that through the architectural review process that they could assure that. The. architecture indicated a single story project entirely at 18 feet in height. The architecture was somewhat similar, but not the same, to the Homme building at Fred Waring and Monterey. ARC granted preliminary architectural approval. They had some concerns with the roof pitches and the applicant indicated that when he came back before them he would have some revised roof studies to show them. The change of zone to POP, if the city established the POP district, then the standard somewhat consistent with what was before them and the applicant would qualify for the zone change in that the parcel is greater than two acres and is on an arterial street. The POP district standards were more flexible and more appropriate in staff's opinion than the office professional, which it is currently zoned. Therefore, staff would recommend approval of the change to POP if they created the district. Staff had no problem with the proposed restaurant at the southeast corner. Mr. Smith didn't know exactly which restaurant it would be, but knew it wouldn't be fast food and it approved, they would have design input into the building itself when it came through architectural review. In formalizing the POP district standards, commission needed to determine the appropriateness of the setbacks that were prescribed in it. He said there were different standards of setbacks for two story and three story. buildings, but they didn't create anything special for single story buildings. Basically that was what staff was asking commission. Should they create a third category of setback requirements for a totally single story complex or should it meet the 32-foot average. If they were going to create this averaging, he had some questions as to how to determine the average setback when they had a series of buildings, like how much credit should be given to the areas between buildings. Would they include the area that was the total depth of the building, would they include 12 feet back, or any openings? Would they require a certain minimum width in order to be included? Those were not issues that were discussed at ZORC because the didn't have a proposal in Y P P front of them when they did this and they were questions raised when they got into the "nuts and bolts" of an actual application. He asked for any questions. Staff's recommendation was that these items be continued to March 7 to send it back to ZORC, with the commission's direction, but he 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 knew that Mr. Homme had some things to add and the commission's decision to continue might be impacted by his comments. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission wanted to address both D and E at this time or if they should formally set aside item D and get into E, or if it mattered. Mr. Smith noted that what they did with D might impact E. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission was free to ask questions about both the POP district and the proposal. Mr. Smith said yes. Commissioner Campbell asked what the setback were of the church right next door and Manor Care. Mr. Smith said it was considerable. Probably 60 or 70 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked where the entrance to the project was from Country Club--if it was after the last building. Mr. Smith pointed it out. Commissioner Campbell asked what the distance was between the corner of Country Club and Portola and the entrance at Portola. Mr. Smith said that the Public Works comments indicated that it was around 420 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be an additional right turn lane for that entrance. Mr. Smith concurred that there would be a deceleration lane. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Smith could be more descriptive as to what a "coffee shop/convenience type user" and "lunch/dinner oriented user" was. Mr. Smith deferred that question to Mr. Homme since he used that language in a letter that was included in the packet. Chairperson Jonathan asked if POP had a different parking requirement than OP. Mr. Smith said no. Staff assigned the medical office portion at 6/1 ,000, the general office at four, and the restaurant at ten. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that on page two the staff report said that the required parking for the project was 197 spaces, but on page three the code requirements in chart form indicated that the POP code requirement was only 167. Mr. Smith clarified that was with the assumed 15% reduction. Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that the 167 was with the full 15% reduction for which they didn't have floor plans yet. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that the POP zone provided for a higher height limit to 30 feet, but as high as 45 feet. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked.for the maximum height in the OP zone. Mr. Smith said it was 25 feet. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the POP zone would possibly allow three stories as opposed to the two stories maximum under OP. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan noted that it would end up with lower setback requirements compared to OP. He asked if that was correct with the averaging. Mr. Smith said that the minimum in the OP zone was 12 feet with 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 an average of 15. The minimum here varied on the street, but on an arterial it was 20 feet with an average of 32 and on a major thoroughfare like Portola, 15 feet with an average of 32. Chairperson Jonathan noted that he was trying to understand what ZORC was after in terms of creating a "park-like setting." He asked how that objective was furthered by allowing a height limitation going from 25 feet to 45 feet and going from two stories to three stories? He asked how that accommodated a park-like setting. Mr. Smith said that section 250 on page five increased the required landscaping. As the height of the building increased, the landscape requirement also increased, so when any building exceeded the 30-foot height limit, the landscaping was increased to 35% of the site area. The standard for shorter buildings was 30%. Chairperson Jonathan asked if going from 30% to 35% was how they accomplished a "park-like setting." Mr. Smith said they also increased setbacks and were on a 1 :1 ratio at that point. Commissioner Campbell asked what the setback was between Desert Willow on Frank Sinatra approximately to the fence. Mr. Smith said he would guess 20 feet. Mr. Greenwood said he would also estimate 20 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked if it would be the same setback as Desert Willow. Mr. Smith said it was fairly consistent. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Hargreaves how he should proceed. If he should open the public hearing on one, the other, or both. Mr. Hargreaves said that he could open the public hearings on both items. Chairperson Jonathan said that he just didn't want to create a hazard of litigation for the city. Mr. Hargreaves said he wasn't concerned and they should do whatever was the most expedient in terms of getting the matters addressed. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearings on both public hearing items D and E. He asked Mr. Homme to address the commission as the applicant for item E. MR. MIKE HOMME, 46-300 Desert Lily, addressed the commission and indicated that Mr. Al Cook, his architect, was also present. He indicated that a few years ago when he and Mr. Smith first talked about this property and the office park zone, what interested him was that in the office park zone they could have other uses and not just offices. That really made office park development more of a complete project where people could go and get a copy made at a Kinko's or get lunch, or to a coffee shop for a cup of coffee and they didn't have to leave the 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 property. That was not allowable in the office professional zone and that was what kind of interested him with this office park zone. Also, those uses really allowed them to minimize rather than trying to put in as much square footage on a piece of property as possible. It would allow them to minimize the square footage because some of those uses could pay a little more rent than just an office user. This project was designed to minimize square footage and minimize height. He indicated the big problem with the office park zone was that it kind of rewarded someone for going to the middle or back of a piece of property and doing something really high, but leaving a large space with cars in the front. He said his project had nice architecture on a pretty street with a lot of green area, open corners, space in between buildings and those kinds of things that in his estimation was what an office park was all about. He thought it was interesting that the setbacks were really in excess of what would be required by an office professional use and because they couldn't count the driveway and the spaces in between, they didn't get the 32-foot average, but if they could go back where there wasn't a building and figure that area, they would meet the average. He didn't think there was a good definition of that term which made it confusing. He said that he had been working and waiting to do this for about a year and a half so he was getting a little bit more anxious as time went along because it had been a long time to try and work this out in this particular zone. He pointed out that the buildings would only cover about 22% of the site. There were all kinds of landscaping and the parking, even though it used the 15% requirement, it was set up so that a certain percentage of the building could be medical, a certain percentage could be office, and a certain percentage could be a restaurant type of a use. If they asked him if a specific building was going to be a restaurant, he wasn't sure. All he could say was that if there was a 3,500 square foot restaurant type of a user, there was adequate parking for that user. He thought projects like this developed as they went along. The same way with trying to figure out a floor plan, they find a user that was appropriate for the space, as long as it didn't go over the square footage and the use was in line with the uses approved by the city. And the Architectural Review Board would look at them each time. In terms of the access, the Engineering Department wanted the road there because there was another vacant piece of property that needed access to Country Club Drive, so that had to be a shared use. The idea of the other exit was more for emergency purposes because fire trucks didn't want to be trapped back into that 22 II� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 corner. They wanted to have a way in and out. Since the traffic only moved in one direction and they couldn't cross over, it seemed like a relatively smart thing to do. He said the point he was trying to make was that the whole idea was to minimize things, like the building they were just talking about that was a big, tall building in the middle of a parking lot. This was trying not to do that. Even the covered parking helped to tie together the architecture of the area so they weren't looking at an ocean of parking. That was the intention and he thought Mr. Cook had accomplished that and had done a great job. He said it would be nice to go ahead and go on and if there were little details to work out, perhaps they could be worked out during the process of going to the next public hearing. He said he wanted to be patient because he thought that would make for a nicer project for Palm Desert and that was important to him. MR. ALFRED COOK, the project architect, addressed the commission. He said that the ordinance said that on Portola they could have a setback of as little as 15 feet. All of the setbacks didn't exceed more than 20 feet. Even along Portola where it was allowable to have 15 feet, they were still sitting back a minimum of 20 feet from the property line. On that streetscape they met the average. It was on Country Club that they needed to accept the fact that the area was more of a setback and he pointed out which areas had to be counted and then they got to the average of 32 again. He said it would be easy if this was a single building on a site because then they could just take the average along the front of the building and the street and they would have it. Here they had several buildings with spaces between and different setbacks. They had tried to make what the ordinance called a park-like setting and that was to really make parks occur between buildings and along the street frontage instead of looking at a 15 or 20-foot strip of landscaping and then a building sitting in the middle of parking. They tried to make it a campus feel on the street frontage rather than setting it back in a parking lot. Even the one building that sits back in the parking area had a sizeable patio in front of it with landscaping, so he thought they met the requirements of the proposed ordinance and were very happy with the way the plan came out. Also, all of the structures were. residential in scale. They were not commercial in scale. They were all smaller buildings, low profile, and the materials were stone, poured in place concrete, plaster, metal roof, and glass. He asked for any questions. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Commissioner Beaty noted that the ARC report referred to U.S. Filter and asked if they were a potential tenant for the site. Mr. Homme said that Mr. Heckman, the CEO, was one of his partners in the property. He thought they would look .for a much bigger building on a much bigger piece of property. He thought this was more for the office user in Palm Desert, a person who wanted 1 ,500 to 3,000 square feet, his own building, in a nice area. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Homme had a specific tenant. Mr. Homme said no, it was really to be built as speculation and be done in phases. He said they were planning to do four of the buildings to start out with and would be putting in all of the parking/covered parking, all the landscaping and fountains. . He said he just finished a similar project with different architecture in Rancho Mirage across from the post office. He said it was a different architecture, so it wasn't really the same thing. He said that project had been very successful and he thought this was a lot less coverage, it was more open and more park like. Commissioner Campbell stated that was a beautiful project. She asked if Mr. Homme could tell commission which four buildings he would construct first. Mr. Homme pointed them out on the map. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Homme to explain what restaurant usage meant. Mr. Homme said that it was hard to define what the restaurant really was, but the prime thing was that it wouldn't be a fast food restaurant., What came to mind was a coffee place like Starbucks, a Tully's or maybe a lunch-dinner kind of a place. Commissioner Beaty asked if would be like a Coco's or Denny's. Mr. Homme thought it would be something like that. That was really nice in an office like setting because people could stay there on the property, enjoy the property and it was something the office professional zone really lacked. Office professional was great for little 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 strips of property and had made a big difference in Palm Desert as a buffer for residential, but people had to get in their. cars to go everywhere and when they had something a little bigger like that, it was kind of a shame to have to do that when they could make it part of the use and it let them not be concerned with trying to get more square footage because it was a better payer than an office user. The economics had to work, too. Commissioner Campbell felt a restaurant there would be a very good use for all the neighbors around there. She noted that the Marriott was near, but this would be nice. Chairperson Jonathan asked what the problem was with a restaurant in the O.P. zone and if it could be allowed with a CUP. Mr. Homme said restaurants just weren't allowed. He indicated it would be easier to just say this was office professional and then the setbacks would more than meet every requirement. Chairperson Jonathan asked about the O.P. zone saying that for projects over two acres a restaurant use shall be allowed in an amount not to exceed 50%. Mr. Homme also suggested ancillary uses. Chairperson Jonathan asked if something like that would meet Mr. Homme's needs for this particular proposal. Mr. Homme said it would. He had a lot of conversations with Mr. Smith about this office park use and he thought what they were really trying to 'accomplish were bigger green areas because the percentage of landscape area got much larger than in the office professional zone. Again, he was just working on this piece of property and staff had a bigger scope than he did. Commissioner Campbell asked what the distance was between buildings. Mr. Homme said they varied from ten feet and greater. Mr. Cook confirmed that the minimum was ten feet. He also noted that the exit only parking was intended to be the ideal place for nurses and 25 I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 medical assistants, etc., that would not be taking up parking spaces in the general parking for the tenants, so it would be for parking all day and not through traffic. Chairperson Jonathan asked about the side yard issue and thought they were talking about a difference of three feet, or the front setback on Country Club. He said the POP code requires a 20-foot minimum, they were providing 17 and then they got into the whole discussion of averaging. Mr. Cook said that the 17 feet would be 20. It worked out to move the building three feet forward to 20 feet and it was actually 30 inches, not three feet. Chairperson Jonathan noted that they were meeting the minimum, but it was the average that was the issue. Mr. Cook said that was the discussion on how to count the average. He asked if they could count the space between the buildings. He said that in some cases they were counting that space in the average, but not the area along Portola. It wasn't needed on Portola, just Country Club. Chairperson Jonathan asked what portion of the space between the buildings was being counted. Mr. Cook said that if they looked at the way the code was written now, they want an average of 32 feet, but they could go as close as 20. That was a 12-foot difference. If they took 12 feet behind the 32 that was the space they used between the buildings; 12 feet behind the 32 and averaging off the 12 feet in front. Chairperson Jonathan requested that Mr. Cook to point out what he meant on the plans. Mr. Cook showed commission the 20-foot line, and then showed the 32 plus 12. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that Mr. Cook was taking 32 feet into the project from the 32-foot line and adding that into the calculation for the average. 26 I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Mr. Cook said it was 32 plus 12 because they were giving him 12 feet in front of 32, so between buildings he should be giving them back 12 feet behind 32. He said the space he was counting was from the 32 foot setback, and the 12 feet they were allowing him to go toward the street in relation to the 12 feet he gave them behind the 32. feet between the buildings. He said it was very difficult on where to draw the line on what was available as a tradeoff. He said another question was if he could count the whole distance, or just up to the curb with the 12 feet. Chairperson Jonathan asked about ZORC not anticipating all of that in defining the calculations. Mr. Cook said he didn't think that ZORC thought about a business park as a campus of buildings. When reading the ordinance, they were talking about larger buildings, taller buildings, and setbacks. . That wasn't the way they approached it. They were trying to keep it on a residential scale and make the park-like portions of the buildings more accessible rather than putting landscaping out in parking lots. The ordinance only wanted 30% landscaping and that could be accomplished in a parking lot. Chairperson Jonathan asked if he really liked Mr. Homme's project but had a problem with the POP ordinance, if Mr. Homme cared if the commission found another way to approve the project. Mr. Homme said he was trying to accomplish something and he had been working with Mr. Smith for a year and a half trying to accomplish that. He felt there was a real need to have mixed uses in an office park. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he concurred with that and liked the whole concept of a self-contained business park. Mr. Homme said that right now the only way to do that was with a general commercial zone and that probably wouldn't be permitted at the proposed location. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission found another way, Mr. Homme wouldn't particularly care what the zoning or what mechanism they used. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Mr. Homme said not really. Commissioner Finerty concurred. She thought the POP zone needed to be i better thought out. She liked Mr. Homme's project and certainly liked the idea of having a restaurant, but as Mr. Smith explained, if they were to just leave it at O.P., then they couldn't have the restaurant. She noted that Mr. Smith also said that Mr. Homme was in somewhat of a hurry and would like to get started by June or July and she didn't know how quickly this ordinance could come together, but her concern was three stories up to 45 feet high. They could have a building like the Dr. Shah building on all the city's major arterials. They could be totally boxed in and she thought they really needed to look at the big picture and questioned what they would like their city to look like. She noticed that ZORC in their minutes got an ordinance from Newport Beach and she knew the section they were referring to which was an office park and she asked if that was really what they wanted Palm Desert to look like. She asked if this POP ordinance, by allowing higher and larger tall office buildings, was consistent .and compatible with their image of a resort destination. She had a lot of questions about that. She stated that she really liked single story, which was probably why she liked Mr. Homme's project so much. Two story would be okay. She loved the idea of a park-like setting and certainly liked the idea of a restaurant where people wouldn't have to drive. They would save on the emissions and traffic and people could walk and that was great. She thought this was such a major decision to allow this POP district and thought it needed a lot more study, but didn't want to hold Mr. Homme up. She said that if Chairperson Jonathan knew of a way.to allow this restaurant that would be great. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for additional commission comments. Chairperson Jonathan thought that there were quicker ways if it was the desire of the commission to approve the project but not deal with the POP issue, which he thought was a "hornet's nest." He asked Mr. Smith if there was a mechanism that would allow the commission to approve a restaurant use at this juncture and change the zone for that part of the project when the actual restaurant site was determined. In other words, if they approved the project with up to 5,000 square feet of restaurant use subject to a change of zone once that specific site was identified. He noted that Ruth's Chris was in an office complex but didn't know it's zoning and thought there must be some mechanism that would allow a restaurant next to an office. Mr. Smith noted 28 I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 . that Ruth's Chris was in a general commercial zone. Chairperson Jonathan suggested changing just that one building pad, once it was identified, to general commercial, but vote tonight to allow that change of zone once the specific pad was identified. He said if there were other mechanisms that would work better, that would be fine. He thought there must be a way for the commission to say, yes, this is good and if there was a restaurant the commission was okay with that. Mr. Smith stated that he wouldn't suggest that the commission indicate that they were going to change the zone at some future time because that wasn't what the legal notice identified and they would have to go back through that process. He deferred to the City Attorney. Mr. Cook asked if there was a way to approve the project as it stands with the POP district and with recommendation to further study the POP. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he would be opposed to doing anything with the POP ordinance. He thought it was a problem. If it was the commission's desire to approve the project with a restaurant use of up to 4,000 or 5,000 square feet, he asked how they could do that tonight. Mr. Hargreaves said he wasn't sure the commission could. Whatever they did tonight would not be effective until they went back and changed to zone to permit what they had already done. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they could just state that the zoning would be changed as necessary to accommodate the restaurant usage once it was specifically identified. Mr. Hargreaves said they could go ahead and approve it and it would be an anomaly and he didn't recommend that they do that. They could go ahead and give it conceptual approval and direct staff to come back with an amendment to the O.P. zone as suggested to allow restaurant uses for projects with more than two acres and they could have that ready for the meeting after next and then they would have a complete package at that point and then they could take it onto council, which would probably be the quickest way to do that. Whatever they did, they would have to fix the zoning before they had the restaurant in there. Chairperson Jonathan said that he would like, if the time frame allowed it, regardless of what they ultimately did with POP, he thought Office Professional should allow the possibility of restaurant and/or ancillary office uses for projects that were large enough and he would define that as over two acres. They were dealing with almost 90,000 square feet of land at that point so building size would be nearly 30,000. He would be in favor of modifying the O.P. ordinance to allow a restaurant and other ancillary business uses. If that process of amending the O.P. zone didn't take too long for the applicant, then maybe they could do that hand in hand. He thought it would ultimately be a quicker process than dealing with POP, which he could see as getting hung up in ZORC for more months, at Planning Commission and then at 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Council. Mr. Hargreaves said another consideration here was that whatever happened needed to go to City Council and they might have a totally different idea and if they ended up holding this up at this point to go back and do that, it would probably put it back a month and then if it went on to council at that time, they might have different ideas. He said that.what the commission could do at this meeting was basically approve it conceptually to get it in front of council and at the same time go back and start the ordinance amendment. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they could simultaneously recommend to council that the O.P. zone be amended to allow restaurant and ancillary business uses for O.P. projects over two acres. He asked if they could make that recommendation concurrently with recommending approval of this project. He said he wanted to find a way, if it was the commission's desire, to make this work. Mr. Homme said he went through this conversation in the past and city council didn't want to impact existing office professional uses. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was even if the commission stipulated over two acres. Mr. Homme suggested that maybe the thing to do would be to change his application for the office professional zone and with some effort maybe they could get the office professional ordinance changed. Chairperson Jonathan said that was what they were suggesting. That the proposed project go forward under the O.P. zone, but concurrently--and it would have to go to council because restaurants weren't allowed in O.P.--so the commission would be making a recommendation to council to begin the process of amending the O.P. zone to accommodate the restaurant usage, not just in this project obviously but in all projects over two acres. Mr. Homme stated that his experience has been that the city of Palm Desert was a good place to be and he would like to take the chance to see if this could go through in O.P. and maybe council would see the need for that and it would be better. Commissioner Beaty said that he thought Mr. Homme was hearing from the commission that they really, really liked this concept and would do what they could to get this approved. Commissioner Campbell asked if the setbacks would also be different for the O.P. zone. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Homme had any plans to change the ones on the plan. Mr. Homme said no. He thought the proposed plan was really exceptional and he believed that they didn't have to build high rise two story buildings. Commissioner Lopez agreed that this was a beautiful project and thought it should be the model to design the POP around. He said they were almost going two directions. They would take this plan that they would put in the middle of open space and then build huge things, which would look even 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 bigger sitting in the middle out in the open. He thought they went against each other. In this case, where it was all single story in a very park-like atmosphere and they had the opportunity to do the restaurant, this should be the model of where they should go. He noted that Mr. Homme would be willing to amend his application. He indicated that they could approve the building, but it wouldn't be a restaurant now, but they could develop the program and move ahead and use this as a model and then develop the POP with this as a guideline. He didn't want to hold up this project. Chairperson Jonathan suggested that they entertain a motion to that effect, to approve this under the O.P. zone with a recommendation to council that the O.P. zone be revised and amended to allow restaurant use and ancillary office uses for O.P. projects of over two acres in size. Mr. Hargreaves said he thought there was a conceptual problem if they approved it as an O.P. use when it was noticed as something else, but on the other hand, if they approved it as an O.P. use the project wouldn't have to go to council. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that the restaurant use would have to go to council. Mr. Hargreaves explained that they couldn't send it on until there was a public hearing. They would have to back up and do something on the zoning side to accommodate the restaurant and it would have to go to ZORC and Planning Commission and then City Council. It would be nice if they were going to go ahead and do it concurrently and get it up to the City Council. He felt that it was appropriate to at least look at it so that they didn't end up wasting a lot of time doing something that they wouldn't be happy with. Commissioner Finerty asked if they even needed to look at POP if they were to just (as suggested by Chairperson Jonathan) modify O.P. to look like (as Commissioner Lopez said) Mr. Homme's project. Mr. Smith said that he didn't think they wanted to get into amending O.P. because it has worked quite well for the city for infill situations and thought it was more than appropriate for the smaller lots where they had done hundreds of developments. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that they were talking about amending it for the larger projects. Commissioner Finerty concurred and said it was for the two acres and more in size, which was basically what the POP concept was. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they could just approve the project under O.P. Mr. Smith said the applicant wouldn't be able to finance the restaurant if they couldn't find it in the zoning. Mr. Hargreaves said what they would essentially have was a conditional approval until they went back and modified the zoning. If that didn't happen, he would be without the restaurant. Chairperson Jonathan suggested doing that and at the same time recommend that the zoning needed to be adjusted. Mr. Smith suggested that the commission 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 approve the project as submitted tonight with the modification that Building H would be a general office building. As a second portion of the commission's action, they could direct staff to come back at the soonest possible time, which would be March 7, 2000, with an amendment to the O.P. standards to accommodate restaurants in O:P. projects in excess of two acres and on a major arterial street. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the first part of the approval would be under O.P. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty asked if they wanted to approve this under POP. Mr. Smith said no, the commission would just table 'POP and approve the office park concept without a restaurant at this point. The applicant had heard very substantial support from the commission for the restaurant use and then staff would come back with the two pieces. The O.P. revisions and the restaurant request on March 7, 2000. Commissioner Beaty said he would put that in the form of a motion. Commissioner Campbell said she would second that motion. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that they would table Item D, which was the POP ordinance, and approve Item E without a specific restaurant use at this time. Commissioner Beaty clarified as amended by Mr. Smith. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, tabling ZOA 97-7 and approving PP/CUP 97-14 excluding the restaurant use at this time and directing staff to process a revision to the Office Professional zone and return with the restaurant request and OP revision on March 7, 2000. Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Jonathan said they probably needed a resolution of approval. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1971, approving PP/CUP 97-14. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Beaty asked if they had a resolution or if staff would create one. Mr. Smith said yes, staff would create one. It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, recommending to City Council modification of the O.P. zone to enable restaurant and ancillary business uses in O.P. projects over two acres in size. Motion carried 5-0. 32 f CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 1 , 2000 CASE NO.: ZOA 97-7 REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code adding the Planned Office Professional Park District APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND Several major corporations have expressed interest in constructing large office complexes in the City. The O.P. zone district does not adequately address those needs. The O.P. zone standards were designed for small infill lot situations. The goal was to insert office buildings fronting on arterial streets and provide a transitional use to residential uses. The O.P. zone has special setback limits which require increased setbacks for structures in excess of 18 feet to afford protection to residential uses. Staff drafted an ordinance to address the needs (i.e., broader range of uses and more flexible design provisions) for larger sites. The draft ordinance was presented to ZORC on October 1 , 1997 and was discussed extensively at six meetings (see attached minutes). On January 7, 1998, ZORC endorsed the proposed ordinance. Staff held the ordinance in abeyance until we received a development proposal. IL ANALYSIS If this chapter is added to the zoning ordinance, then applications could be submitted to rezone sites to this zone. These sites would need to comply with the provisions of the chapter, including meeting the minimum size and location requirements. The proposed ordinance allows for the rezoning of property with direct or indirect access to at least one arterial or major thoroughfare as delineated in the General Plan without negatively impacting jresidential property. Minimum size of two acres is specified. The application would also include proposed building site plans and proposed uses. At this time, we have one such. application in process for property at the northeast corner of Country Club and Portola. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 97-7 FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Maximum building height in the POP District is flexible in that the basic maximum height is 30 feet and two stories. Three-story buildings of up to 45 feet may be approved with tiered levels if the setbacks are increased by an additional foot of setback for each foot of building height above 30 feet. Also, setback averaging is allowed. Setbacks from major thoroughfares or arterials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 feet for a two-story building and 20 feet for a one-story building, provided that the average 32 feet of setback is maintained. All of these flexible standards have been provided to encourage creativity in design of large office projects. The ordinance will allow ancillary commercial uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Staff has added a fourth conditional use for light industrial uses ancillary to a permitted office use. The goal is not to preclude assembly of goods associated with a permitted use. This ordinance in its purpose states that the goal is to create an office complex within a "park-like setting." At Section 25.36.290 the draft ordinance specifies a minimum average setback of 32 feet from arterials and major thoroughfares. A question commission may wish to consider is whether we can achieve a "park-like setting" with less than 32 feet of average setback when we have an entire single story complex. This issue is discussed at length in the report on Case No. PP/CUP 97-14. Staff will suggest that the two items be considered together. III. CEQA REVIEW The proposed amendment is a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION That Case No. ZOA 97-7 be continued to March 7, 2000. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 97-7 FEBRUARY 1, 2000 V. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Resolution B. Exhibit "A" of Draft Resolution C. Minutes of various meetings of the Zoning Ordinance Review Commission D. Copy of Legal Notice of Public Hearing Prepared by Ste a Smith J Reviewed and Approved-by P it Drell /tm 3 Chapter 25.36 POP PLANNED OFFICE PARK DISTRICT Sections: 25.36.010 Purpose. 25.36.020 Uses permitted by approved precise plan. 25.36.030 Prefiling procedure. 25.36.050 Rezoning and precise plan requirements. 25.36.080 Architectural review of project. 25.36.100 Development standards applicable. 25.36.110 Off-street parking and loading. 25.36.120 Utilities. 25.36.130 Signs. 25.36.140 Outside storage. 25.36.150 Screening. 25.36.160 Trash handling. 25.36.170 Site plan review. 25.36.180 Special standards. 25.36.190 Minimum area. 25.36.200 Perimeter setback and yards. 25.36.210 Building height. 25.36.230 Architectural feature setback exceptions. 25.36.240 Building height. 25.36.250 Required landscaping. 25.36.270 Exceptions. 25.36.290 Building setbacks from the planned street line. 25.36.300 Modifications. 25.36.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of the Planned Office Park (POP) district to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of professional office, research, and community facility uses, both public and private. The POP district is further intended to provide for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments within a park-like setting. The POP district is also established to give a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land development techniques will be given reasonable consideration for approval and to provide the city with assurances that the completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of approval. CHAPTER 25.36 25.36.020 Uses permitted by approved precise plan. A. The following uses are permitted in a POP district: 1 . General offices; 2. Medical offices and clinics; 3. Laboratories (medical and dental); 4. Community facility; 5. Art studio; 6. Art galleries; 7. Financial institution not including a bank, savings and loan, credit union or check cashing; 8. Research facilities. B. The following uses are permitted in a POP district subject to approval of a conditional use permit: 1 . Professional schools; 2. Business schools; 3. Ancillary commercial uses; 4. Ancillary light industrial uses. 25.36.030 Prefiling procedure. Prior to the submittal of the complete official application, an applicant must prefile a preliminary draft of the required documents and sketch plans for the project with the Director of Community Development for review. It shall be the responsibility of the Director of Community Development to contact interested department and agency personnel regarding necessary meetings with the applicant. After review, the Director of Community Development shall furnish the applicant with written comments regarding the project, including appropriate recommendations to inform and assist the applicant prior to preparing the final components of the application. 25.36.040 Filing procedure. To initiate the review process, the applicant shall file an application for a change of zone to a POP district along with a precise plan and supporting documentation as required in Section 25.36.100 with the Planning Commission through the Department of Community Development. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider the petition for a change to a POP district and the accompanying precise plan. The change of zone and accompanying precise plan shall be subject_to approval by ordinance and resolution respectively by the City Council. 2 CHAPTER 25.36 25.36.050 Rezoning and precise plan requirements. A. The Planning Commission may initiate at its discretion the rezoning of properties, according to the provisions of Chapter 25.84. In cases of city initiated rezoning, the change of zone petition may be processed alone; an approved precise plan as set forth in Chapter 25.73 shall be required prior to any development. B. Rezoning initiated by any person or agency, other than the city, must be accompanied by a precise plan as part of the change of zone application. C. Sites to be rezoned to POP shall front on at least one arterial street or major thoroughfare as delineated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan or have direct access to such a street. 25.36.080 Architectural review of project. Within one year following the final approval of the precise plan, the applicant shall file for the architectural review of the project by filing the information required in Section 25.70.030. The Architectural Review Commission, in addition to its normal finding, shall deem the precise plan construction plans in substantial compliance with the precise plan, provided modification by the applicant does not involve a change of one or more of the following: A. Violate any provision of the Zoning Ordinance; B. Vary the required lot area by more than 10 percent; C. Involve a reduction of more than ten percent of the area reserved for the common open space and/or usable open space; D. Increase or decrease the floor areas proposed by more than ten percent; E. Increase the total ground area covered by buildings by more than 5 percent. If it is determined that the plans are not in substantial compliance, a new precise plan shall be processed through the city. 25.36.100 Development standards applicable. All areas on the precise plan shall be subject to the following: The standards for development of POP districts set forth in this chapter and any supplemental standards for the project designated in the precise plan. In addition, the following development standards shall apply. 25.36.110 Off-street parking and loading. All parking and loading shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 25.58. 25.36.120 Utilities. For provisions regarding utilities, see Section 25.56.090. 25.36.130. Signs. All signs shall be in compliance with Chapter 25.68. 3 CHAPTER 25.36 25.36.140 Outside storage. No outside storage shall be permitted in the POP zone unless screened from public view. 25.36.150 Screening. All screening requirements for developments within the POP district shall be determined by the Architectural Review Commission during its site review proceedings. 25.36.160 Trash handling. Trash handling facilities shall be provided for all developments within the POP district. The trash area shall be completely enclosed by walls or buildings. A freestanding trash enclosure shall be constructed of masonry block. No trash shall be allowed to extend above or beyond the enclosure. 25.36.170 Site plan review. A site plan review as prescribed in Chapter 25.70 shall be required before a building permit is issued for any development in the POP district. 25.36.180 Special standards. In addition to requiring all development plans to comply to the following special standards, the City Council and/or Planning Commission may impose such other conditions to the precise plan as it deems necessary or desirable in carrying out the general purpose and intent of this chapter. 25.36.190 Minimum area. The minimum project area shall be two acres. For purposes of revitalization, the Planning Commission may approve projects of less than two acres where significant local improvements is deemed desirable. 25.36.200 Interior side and rear setback and yards. Street interior side yards and rear yards shall be a minimum of 10 feet, except when building height exceeds 30 feet, all setbacks shall be increased by one foot for each foot of building height above 30 feet. 25.36.210 Building site coverage. The maximum project building site coverage shall be 30 percent of the net area of the site. 4 CHAPTER 25.36 25.36.230 Architectural feature setback exceptions. A. Roof overhangs may project six feet into a 30-foot or greater setback and three feet into any setback less than thirty feet. B. Steps and open and unenclosed staircases may project into the setback area. 25.36.240 Building height. The maximum building height shall be thirty feet and two stories. Where a building is not adjacent to residential property and contains more than 40,000 gross square feet, building height may be increased to a maximum of 45 feet and three tiered stories. 25.36.250 Required landscaping. A minimum of 30% of the net site area shall be landscaped. Where a building exceeds the 30-foot height limit, the required landscaping shall be increased to a minimum of 35% of the net site area. 25.36.270 Exceptions. The standards listed in Sections 25.36.190 through 25.36.260 shall be required unless modified by the precise plan. 25.36.290 Building setbacks from the planned street line. The minimum setback for all developments within the POP district shall be designated distances from the ultimate right-of-way line of the streets specified in this section unless otherwise provided in this section or in the approved precise plan or conditional use permit: A. Freeway, 50 feet; B. Major, 32 feet; C. Arterial, 32 feet; D. Collector, 20 feet; E. Local, 20 feet. In order to allow for creative site design, setbacks from major thoroughfares or arterials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 feet for a two-story building and 20 feet for a one-story building, provided that the average 32 feet of setback is maintained. On side streets, the minimum setback for single-story structures shall be 15 feet, provided that the average required setback is maintained. 5 CHAPTER 25.36 25.36.300 Modifications. The Planning Commission may approve a precise plan only after finding that the requirements of this title and other ordinances affecting the property have been satisfied. In granting such approval, the Planning Commission may impose and enforce such specific conditions as to site development, phasing and building construction, maintenance and operation as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this title and the general plan. 6 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE JANUARY 7, 1998 MINUTES MINUTES ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE JANUARY 7, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:20 p.m. Present: Jean Benson, Sonja Campbell, Jim Foxx, Frank Goodman, Steve Smith II. CONTINUED REVIEW OF PLANNED OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL ZONE STANDARDS The consensus of the Committee was to endorse the standards as revised and forward to the Planning Commission for consideration at a Public Hearing in February. III. CONTINUED REVIEW OF SIGN ORDINANCE Mr. Smith directed the Committee's attention to Page 452, Section 25.68.610,which pertains to signs on awnings, marquees, canopies, arcades or similar structures, and stated that the policy has been to allow one canopy awning per building. Member Goodman suggested that a requirement be imposed to ensure that there is an adequate amount of space between each canopy so that the view of the buildings are not blocked. Member Foxx felt that the existing policy of one canopy per building is acceptable, and believed that those which extend to the street enhance the scale of the building, breakup the sidewalk areas, and make the streets more pedestrian friendly. Member Foxx noted that the storefronts on the north side of El Paseo have a problem with damage to window displays due to the heavy sun exposure, and the palm trees offer no shade protection. Member Campbell recalled that Ficus trees previously grew on El Paseo, but were removed because the foliage blocked the storefronts, to which Member Foxx replied that the storefronts would not be blocked by foliage if the Ficus trees were properly trimmed. Member Foxx felt that it would not be possible to have too many canopies, to which Member Benson responded that she would prefer not to have canopies all over the place because it would not look good. 1 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2, 1997 MINUTES Member Benson commented that this project is quite unique, and for that reason, she would have no objection to a signs larger than the ordinance permits as long as they are aesthetically pleasing, and suggested that the developer submit a proposed design for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission. Member Foxx felt that both retail and restaurant uses with second floor locations should be allowed to have more signage than the ordinance currently allows. Member Foxx indicated that he doesn't understand the logic of restricting the second floor offices at the Sunlife Medical building to half the sign area that ground floor tenants are allowed. Member Foxx suggested that all second floor businesses be given an equal amount of sign area as ground floor tenants. Mr. Drell noted that the ordinance was written with the intent to discourage individual tenant signage, and Mr. Smith recalled that it was also written with the intent to discourage two- story buildings. Member Benson indicated that she still does not wish to encourage two- story buildings. Member Leo concurred with Member Benson's comments and added that every section of the City cannot be treated the same, and since this is a unique project, it should be granted an exception if the Architectural Review Commission so deems. The consensus was that the Gardens project should be processed as an exception to the. ordinance if the Architectural Review Commission so deems, and that the ordinance need not be amended. II. RECONSIDERATION OF PLANNED OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL ZONE STANDARDS Mr. Smith reported that he obtained copies of ordinances from the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, but those ordinances do not address the subject of ancillary commercial uses for a planned office/industrial zone in as much detail as the Committee is considering. Member Foxx commented that he would have no objection to a large, stand-alone office building having an ancillary commercial use as long as it is located toward the interior and geared toward serving the offices rather than oriented toward the street frontage where it would encourage patronage from persons other than tenants and employees. Member Leo noted that quite a few of the large office buildings in Orange County have upscale, full service restaurants, and this is a trend which can be observed throughout the country. 2 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2, 1997 MINUTES Member Foxx pointed out that as long as ancillary commercial uses are permitted via Conditional Use Permit, the City will be able to maintain adequate control, and, therefore, there is no need to make the ordinance overly restrictive, since an overly restrictive ordinance could inhibit creative development as well as the possibility of a nice restaurant. Member Leo indicated that he would prefer not to get hung up on restricting ancillary commercial uses to a certain percentage of a development's square footage, and suggested that the focus should be on the type of use,with which Member Foxx agreed. Member Foxx noted_that a developer_with a 10-to 15-acresite may wish.to design an_offiice.complex with several buildings,one of which could have a high concentration of ancillary commercial uses to serve the entire complex. Member Foxx stated that his intent is to avoid a convenience store use in an office park as a use permitted in the zone. At 3:45 p.m., Member Benson indicated that she must attend a meeting elsewhere, and the group agreed to meet again at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 17, 1997. Mr. Drell suggested allowing restaurant or specific office-oriented ancillary commercial uses via Conditional Use Permit, with which Members Leo and Foxx concurred. III. PC(4) ZONE INTERPRETATION Mr. Smith reported that there is only one remaining location in the City which is zoned PC(4), and that is on the south side of El Paseo east of Highway 74 next to the Le Paon restaurant, and that land is now up for sale. Member Foxx commented that the art gallery use is wonderful, and the existence of three nearby restaurants works well for this zone, with which Member Leo agreed. IV. ADJOURNED The Committee adjourned at 4:00 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 3 4 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE DECEMBER 17, 1997 MINUTES Mr. Hargreaves indicated that he will research case law and develop a proposal for the Committee's consideration. Member Benson stated that she would be more interested in something that will cover the City without opening it up to legal challenge, and indicated she would be interested in establishing a maximum size. Member Bartlett indicated that he would like some legal guidelines regarding regulating commercial signs, to which Mr. Hargreaves replied that there hasn't been much of a problem, but he will look into some general parameters. Mr. Smith referenced Page 446 regarding freestanding signs, and asked if the Committee would be interested in allowing more than one monument sign on each street frontage of a center, to which Member Foxx responded that there could be problems if the center has more than one owner. Member Bartlett noted that Palms to Pines has 15 owners from Highway 74 to El Paseo, and suggested that the City encourage aesthetically pleasing monument signs rather than limiting the number of monument signs. Mr. Smith noted the consensus is there is no need to change this section. IL CONTINUED REVIEW OF PLANNED OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL ZONE STANDARDS Mr. Smith requested that the Committee provide clarification regarding Page 2, Section B.3, which states, "Ancillary commercial uses (not exceeding a maximum of 10% of total floor area in buildings exceeding 40,000 gross square feet and 15% of total floor area in buildings less than 40,000 gross square feet). The consensus of the Committee was to rewrite that section to state, "Ancillary commercial uses" without imposing other restrictions or limits. III. ADJOURNED The Committee adjourned at 4:25 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 3 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 19, 1997 MINUTES II. RECONSIDERATION OF PLANNED OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL ZONE STANDARDS Mr. Smith reported that, pursuant to the comments made at the last Committee meeting, staff has updated the proposed language for Planned Office Professional Park District. Member Bartlett referenced Section 25.36.190 regarding minimum area, and commented that two acres is too small for this type of zone, and 10 acres would be more appropriate. Member Bartlett added that one would not want an ancillary use such as a convenience store in a 40,000 square foot building, and he does not think a 40,000 square foot building would support an ancillary,use such as a coffee shop. Member Ferguson remarked that the intent was riot to include ancillary commercial uses for any building smaller than 40,000 square feet, and suggested that the criteria for ancillary commercial uses be geared toward the number of employees in a building, i.e., 500 employees. Member Ferguson stated that allowing 10% ancillary commercial use on a two- acre lot would effectively preclude space for a park, which.is what is intended for this zone. Member Foxx felt that two acres is sufficient, and indicated that he could put together such a two-acre project on Fred Waring and San Anselmo. Member Foxx questioned the need to allow churches in this zone, and indicated he would be opposed to such a use in this zone, with which Members Bartlett and Benson concurred. Member Ferguson left the meeting at 4:00 p.m. Member Benson suggested that staff obtain copies of ordinances pertaining to ancillary commercial uses from the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. Member Foxx asked if a credit union constitutes a financial institution, to which Mr. Smith responded affirmatively. Member Leo suggested that credit unions specifically be listed in the ordinance as a non-permitted use. Member Benson suggested that check cashing businesses also be listed in the ordinance as a non-permitted use. Member Bartlett referenced Section 25.36.390 regarding building setbacks, and suggested eliminating the setback requirement for freeways, since he believes the City should encourage such developments to build up to the freeway. Member Benson disagreed and suggested that the language remain unchanged. III. REVIEW OF SIGN ORDINANCE 3 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 1997 MINUTES PROPOSAL Site = 21 acres = 914,760 sq ft — want total of 160,000 sq ft One Floor = 17.5% coverage Plus 640 Parking Spaces = 204,800 sq ft = 22.4% Open Space = 60% Mr. Smith reported that Mike Homme has a proposal for the property on the northeast comer of Portola and Country Club Drive, and Mr. Homme is looking for the type of uses which would be permitted in the zone. Mr. Homme commented that the O.P. zone is too restrictive and makes it difficult for a developer to add a mix of uses on a large property, i.e., 15 acres. The City of Costa Mesa. had problems with one of their very large office parks, and in order to make the project successful, they allowed a pitch and putt golf course, a restaurant and ancillary business uses. Mr. Homme noted that he does a lot of business with U.S. Filter, which has an administrative office in Palm Desert, and U.S. Filter likes their Palm Desert location because it has a residential feel. Mr. Homme remarked that he is personally opposed to allowing three-story buildings in Palm Desert, but if the building were stepped back and there was enough open space, it would probably be acceptable, and added he believes U.S. Filter would not be interested in a three-story building, but would be interested in a campus-type atmosphere with two-story buildings spread throughout the property. Mr. Homme stated that the O.P. zone does not give enough consideration to setbacks, because if setbacks are too high, then the project ends up with an ocean of parking in the front and a building in the rear, instead of a more attractive arrangement of detached buildings spread throughout the property. He would suggest that there be a way for developers to petition the City, i.e., via the Conditional Use Permit process, to consider something attractive without requiring a development agreement. Mr. Smith pointed out that the proposed ordinance does allow ancillary commercial uses as long as it doesn't exceed a maximum of 10% of the total floor area of the project, to which Mr. Homme responded that 10% is probably not sufficient, as a Kinko's business alone would use up that much space. 3 / ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 1997 MINUTES Mr. Smith suggested considering increasing the amount of ancillary uses to 15% for buildings less than 40,000 square feet, to which Member Urrutia responded that he would prefer that each project be considered on a case-by-case basis. Regarding Country Club Drive, Mr. Smith recommended retaining a 32-foot average setback, providing a minimum of 25-foot setback with a two-story development and a minimum 20-foot setback on a single-story development, and in order to allow for creative sign design, he would suggest adding language to indicate that these standards shall be, from arterial streets, a minimum setback average of 32 feet with a basic minimum of 25 feet for tWd-story structures and a basic minimum-of 20 feet for single-story structures; and on side streets, a basic minimum of 15 feet for single-story structures. The Committee agreed with the recommendation. Member Urrutia suggested that the reference to three-story buildings be clarified to indicate tiered three-story buildings. III. RECONSIDERATION OF R1 ZONE STANDARDS Mr. Smith reported that the changes approved by the Committee at its last meeting have been incorporated. Member Leo suggested including a reference to badminton, since that sport has become very popular. Mr. Smith suggested amending Section 25.16.120.13. to add "unless approved by a Conditional Use Permit," with which the Committee concurred. Mr. Smith recommended deleting Section 25.16.130 regarding pool enclosure requirements, with which the Committee agreed. Regarding Section 25.16.150, Mr. Smith reported that he spoke with Gordon Bricken, the City's consultant, who suggest that the Section read, "No air conditioning equipment shall be located closer than five (5) feet to any property line, unless it is demonstrated that the noise level at the property line will comply with the noise levels of Municipal Code Section 9:24.030." The Committee agreed. Mr. Smith indicated that he will submit these changes to the Planning Commission. 4 MINUTES ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 1, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m. Present: Tim Bartlett, Jean Benson*, Jim Ferguson, Jim Foxx, Bob Leo, Steve Smith, Frank Urrutia* *Member Benson joined the meeting at 3:37 p.m. *Member Urrutia joined the meeting at 3:20 p.m. II. RECONSIDERATION OF PLANNED OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL ZONE STANDARDS Mr. Smith reported that some major corporations have expressed interest in having large office complexes in town, however, the OP zoning designation does not address those needs; so staff has proposed a new Planned Office/Industrial District (POI) which would allow a broader range of uses than the OP zone permits in order to allow for large office complexes on lots with a minimum of two acres located along major arterials, and subject to a Conditional Use Permit, also permit ancillary commercial uses. Mr. Smith directed the Committee's attention to the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments and asked for the Committee's input regarding landscape requirements, building height restrictions and setback requirements. Mr. Smith referenced proposed Section 25.36.250, which indicates that a minimum of one- third of the net site area shall be landscaped,to which Members Bartlett and Leo responded by indicating one-third would be too much. Member Ferguson reported that U.S. Filter and Gunthy-Renker have approached the Redevelopment Agency regarding each company's desire for a 40,000 square foot planned office professional complex, expandable to 80,000 square feet, which would initially house 250 to 500 employees, and possibly as many as 1,000 employees. Member Ferguson felt that a 30% landscaping requirement is too high and unnecessary, and pointed out that the City would probably not have very many of this type of large office complex. Member Urrutia joined the meeting at 3:20 p.m. Member Foxx felt that ancillary commercial uses in such a developments should also be within walking distance of other office developments. 1 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 1, 1997 MINUTES Regarding the proposed building height for the POI zone, Member Foxx suggested that large office complexes of 40,000 square feet or more should not be limited to two stories and 30.feet as long as the complex is not adjacent to residential development, and pointed out that since a three-story building would have a smaller footprint than a two-story building, the City could require a larger setback to mitigate the visual impact of a taller building, and since the parking requirement would remain the same for a building of that size, a larger landscaping requirement would not necessarily be a burden to the developer. Member Foxx noted that the height of the Marriott development has not been a problem. Mem—Gar-Ferguson co—mmented-that-the ancillary oommerciatvses on -Cask Street now comprise approximately 50% of the uses in that industrial area, which was not intended for that area; so he would agree that ancillary commercial uses should be limited to a certain percentage of the development area and also be restricted to those types of uses which do not generate additional automobile traffic. Member Ferguson agreed that a higher building height limit should be allowed for the proposed POI district as long as developments are not contiguous to residential uses. Member Foxx suggested that the area along Fred Waring between San Pablo and San Anselmo would be a good location for the proposed POI district, since this type of zoning would serve to clean up that area. Member Foxx recommended that a formula be developed to ensure adequate setbacks for proposed developments greater than two stories and thirty feet in a POI district. Councilmember Benson joined the meeting at 3:37 p.m. Councilmember Benson agreed that three stories could be appropriate for developments in a POI district which are not adjacent to residential uses, but felt that four stories would be too much and would most likely elicit opposition from residents of Silver Sands and Santa Rosa. Member Foxx felt that allowing additional building height will give architects more design flexibility. Member Ferguson indicated that the U.S. Filter and Gunthy-Renker are considering a location at Cook and Hovley as well at Portola and Frank Sinatra, and would require 25 acres for a project which can expand to 80,000 square feet, and Councilmember Benson agreed that the Portola locations would be good for this type of use. Member Foxx preferred the site near Desert Willow. 2 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 1, 1997 MINUTES The Committee reached consensus for a setback ratio of 1:1 for developments in excess of 30 feet in height, and also agreed upon a maximum building height of 45 feet, and Member Bartlett clarified that the 1:1 setback ratio requirement for structures exceeding 30 feet in height would be measured from the point where the setback for buildings less than 30 feet ends. Member Ferguson stated that he is not comfortable with the word "Industrial' in the title of the proposed zoning designation, and Member Bartlett opined that the word would have a negative connotation in this type of situation; so the Committee agreed to delete that word from the title and suggested that it be titled Planned Office Professional Park District. Regarding the proposed uses permitted by approved precise plan, the Committee agreed to eliminate community facilities from the list of uses subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Member Ferguson suggested that"ancillary commercial uses" should be defined, to which Mr. Smith responded by pointing out that since such uses would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission would make the determination as to which uses are appropriate for each site. Member Bartlett suggested limiting ancillary commercial uses to 10% of each proposed development site, with which Member Ferguson concurred, and Member Foxx suggested that additional approval should be required for any request for an ancillary commercial use exceeding 10% of the area. Member Ferguson left the meeting at 4:15 pm. Mr. Smith indicated that he will report back to the Committee regarding a landscaping requirement of 30% of the net site, with scenarios based on one-, two- and three-story buildings. III. RECONSIDERATION OF R1 ZONE STANDARDS Mr. Smith reported that the Committee previously discussed R1 zone standards and recommended a proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission; however the Planning Commission has referred the proposed ordinance back to the Committee because some of the language is directive rather than prescriptive, i.e., use of the words "encourage" and "discourage"; so staff has developed alternative language in that regard. 3 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 1997 MINUTES Ill. RECONSIDERATION OF PLANNED OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL PARK DISTRICT Mr. Smith directed the Committee's attention to the following calculations for a 10-acre site: 10-ACRE SITE ONE STORY Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 30% (130,680 sq ft) 522 167,000 sq ft 137,800 sq ft(31.6%) 35% (152,400 sq ft) 610 195,200 sq ft 87,940 sq ft(20.2%) TWO STORY Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 30% (130,680 sq ft) 1,044 334,080 sq ft ----- (-10%) 25% (108,900 sq ft) 871 278,720 sq ft 47,980 sq ft (11%) 20% (87,120 sq ft) 697 223,040 sq ft 125,440 sq ft(28.8%) THREE STORY Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 25% (10,890 sq ft) 1,037 418,176 sq ft ----- (-20%) 20% (87,120 sq ft) 1,045 334,464 sq ft 14,016 sq ft (3%) 15% (65,340 sq ft) 784 250,880 sq ft 119,300 sq ft (27%) TIERED: THREE STORY Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 1st Floor 30% (130,680 sq ft) 2nd Floor 25% (108,900 sq ft) 3rd Floor 20% ( 87,120 sq ft) 326,700 sq ft 1,307 418,176 sq ft ---- (-25%) OR Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 1st Floor 25% (108,900 sq ft) 2nd Floor 20% ( 87,120 sq ft) 3rd Floor 15% L65.340 sq ft) 261,360 sq ft 784 250,880 sq ft 97,600 (22.4%) 2 PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been No.3724 CITVrOF.PALM DESERT adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the LEGALINOTICE Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of CASE NOrZOA•97-7 NOTICE,IS HEREBYAGIVEN thatfe public hearing California under the date of March 24,1988.Case will.be before.the Palm;Desert Plannin C0 - Number 191236;that the notice,of which the missionitotcorsideyhin}amendment wither onin� Ortllnance to}rescind thetcurrenI proms,ons=a . annexed is a printed copy(set In type not smaller Chapter.25.36 PI(Planned Induand i Dle rlct)and re' than non panel,has been published in each regular place same with POPP (Rlanned off ice/Pm fession- al ID pu istrlct). and entire issue of said newspaper and not In any SAID public•hearingg.will be heltl on Tuesdayy, Feb- supplementthereofonthefollowingdates to wit: uarylt,N?000, beforejthelpalmtDesertl Planning Co mmission-at)7:00 Pi..vinithe'Council,Chambeir atithe•Palml Desen it tHall 1.3-5101 Fred lWaring January 18th Dnve,tjPalm Desert, CaliforniaTTattwhichitimevandd place.all•interested.persons-are^.invited,to'attand and I belheard.4 W rittenIcommentsiconcerning tall- Items f covered.by:this!public,hearingg:notice-shall. beracceptedtup lto theaadateIofithelheanng.11nfor mationiconcerning therproposed rprolect Ltand/or, nagativettleclaretic isjavailablel.forjreviev�]myythe department[of[communityrdevelapment atyihe All in the year 2000 above atld ress between.the hours.0ii�5:00'a.mffand 5:00 p.maMontlay.throug 1 Fridaytlfjyou•challenga the'proposetl!actions-in.court,�youh-mayybeiiimlted I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the to[raising-ant yitnose tissues vouiortsome one[Rise raised Tat ythe ppubliclhearingl dbetl{inithlsjno- foregoing is tree and correct escr� tirsimwntten•comespondeno delivered ce,to 'to Live I Still Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public Dated at Palm Springs,California th's day hearing. PHI RELL, Secretary January Palm Desert Planning Commission of '2000 PUB. January 18,�2000 Signature JAN 2 1 2000 COMWINITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAIITMENT CDY OF PAIL DESERT l CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 17, 1998 CASE NO.: ZOA 97-7 pp REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code adding the Planned Office Professional Park District APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND Several major corporations have expressed interest in constructing large office complexes in the City. The O.P. zone district does not adequately address those needs. The O.P. zone standards were designed for small infill lot situations. The goal was to insert office buildings fronting on arterial streets and provide a special setback limits which The O.P. zone has s transitional use to residential uses. P require increased setbacks for structures in excess of 18 feet to afford protection to residential uses. Staff drafted an ordinance to address the needs (i.e., broader range of uses and more flexible design provisions). The draft ordinance was presented to ZORC on October 1, 1997 and was discussed extensively at six meetings (see attached minutes). On January 7, 1998, ZORC endorsed the proposed ordinance. II. ANALYSIS If this chapter is added to the zoning ordinance, then applications could be submitted to rezone sites to this zone. These sites would need to comply with the provisions of the chapter, including meeting the minimum size and location requirements. The proposed ordinance allows for the rezoning of property with direct or indirect access to at least one arterial or major thoroughfare as delineated in the General Plan without negatively impacting residential property. Minimum size of two acres is specified. The application would also include proposed building site 1 I r PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 1998 ZOA 97-7 plans and proposed uses. At this time, we have one such application in process for property at the northeast comer of Country Club and Portola. If this ordinance amendment is approved, we will set the application for hearing. Maximum building height is flexible in that the basic maximum height is 30 feet and two stories. Three-story buildings of up to 45 feet may be approved with tiered 'levels if the setbacks are increased by an additional foot of setback for each foot of building height above 30 feet. Also, setback averaging is allowed. Setbacks from major thoroughfares or arterials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 feet for a two- story building and 20 feet for a one-story building, provided that the average 32 feet of setback is maintained. All of these flexible standards have been provided to encourage creativity in design of large office projects. The ordinance will allow ancillary commercial uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Staff has added a fourth conditional use for light industrial uses ancillary to a permitted office use. The goal is not to preclude assembly of goods associated with a permitted use. Section 25.35.140 originally prohibited outside storage. With the addition of light industrial uses ancillary to permitted uses, outside storage may be necessary. Therefore, staff suggests adding "unless fully screened from public view." Sections 2,5.35. 00 and 350.290 have been combined to more clearly delineate the setba k gwrement and limit of exceptions. The setback section has also been revised to more adequately protect residentially zoned properties. When the POP zone is more than 200 feet from residentially zoned property, the setbacks will be as provided in subsection "A" of Section 25.35.200. If the POP zone is within 200 feet of residentially zoned property, then it will need to meet the requirements of subsection "B" which is a modified version of the O.P. zone standards. Lastly, staff is suggesting deleting the term "professional"from the title of ordinance. This section will be known as Planned Office Park District. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 1998 ZOA 97-7 III. CEQA REVIEW The proposed amendment is a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION That Case No. ZOA 97-7 be recommended for approval to the City Council. V. ATTACHMENTS Minutes of various meeting of the Zoning Ordinance Review Commission Draft Resolution Exhibit "A" of Draft Resolution Copy of Legal Notice of Public Hearing Prepared by St ve Smith Reviewed and Approved by Phil Drell 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD PLANNED OFFICE PARK DISTRICT (POP) CASE NO. ZOA 97-7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of February, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance Section 25.35 relating to Planned Office District; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined the amendment to be a Class 5 categorical exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any,of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment: 1. The proposed amendment to add Section 25.35 Planned Office Park District to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and protects the community health, safety and general welfare. 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 it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of ZOA 97-7 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit "A". 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day February, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 17, 1998 CASE NO.: ZOA 97-7 . REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code adding the Planned Office Park District APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND The Zoning Ordinance Review Committee has endorsed a draft ordinance to establish a Planned Office Park District. In reviewing the draft ordinance, staff discovered areas where additional discussion is necessary. II. RECOMMENDATION That Case ZOA 97-7 be tabled. Prepared by Ste a Smith Reviewed and Approved b` ILU �- Phil rell C i CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 17, 1998 CASE NO.: ZOA 97-7 . REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code adding the Planned Office Park District APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND The Zoning Ordinance Review Committee has endorsed a draft ordinance to establish a Planned Office Park District. In reviewing the draft ordinance, staff discovered areas where additional discussion is necessary. II. RECOMMENDATION That Case ZOA 97-7 be tabled. Prepared by . Ste a Smith \\`\ o Reviewed and Approved bg �-�' Pll ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE JANUARY 7, 1998 MINUTES MINUTES ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE JANUARY 7, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:20 p.m. Present: Jean Benson, Sonja Campbell, Jim Foxx, Frank Goodman, Steve Smith II. CONTINUED REVIEW OF PLANNED OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL ZONE STANDARDS The consensus of the Committee was to endorse the standards as revised and forward to the Planning Commission for consideration at a Public Hearing in February. III. CONTINUED REVIEW OF SIGN ORDINANCE Mr.Smith directed the Committee's attention to Page 452, Section 25.68.610,which pertains to signs on awnings, marquees, canopies, arcades or similar structures, and stated that the policy has been to allow one canopy awning per building. Member Goodman suggested that a requirement be imposed to ensure that there is an adequate amount of space between each canopy so that the view of the buildings are not blocked. Member Foxx felt that the existing policy of one canopy per building is acceptable, and believed that those which extend to the street enhance the scale of the building, break up the sidewalk areas, and make the streets more pedestrian friendly. Member Foxx noted that the storefronts on the north side of El Paseo have a problem with damage to window displays due to the heavy sun exposure, and the palm trees offer no shade protection. Member Campbell recalled that Ficus trees previously grew on El Paseo, but were removed because the foliage blocked the storefronts, to which Member. Foxx replied that the storefronts would not be blocked by foliage if the Ficus trees were properly trimmed. Member Foxx felt that it would not be possible to have too many canopies, to which Member Benson responded that she would prefer not to have canopies all over the place because it would not look good. t ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2, 1997 MINUTES Member Benson commented that this project is quite unique, and for that reason, she would have no objection to a signs larger than the ordinance permits as long as they are aesthetically pleasing, and suggested that the developer submit a proposed design for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission. Member Foxx felt that both retail and restaurant uses with second tloor-locations should be allowed to have more signage than the ordinance currently allows. Member Foxx indicated that he doesn't understand the logic of restricting the second floor offices at the Sunlife Medical building to half the sign area that ground floor tenants are allowed. Member Foxx suggested that all second floor businesses be given an equal amount of sign area as ground floor tenants. Mr. Drell noted that the ordinance was written with the intent to discourage individual tenant signage, and Mr. Smith recalled that it was also written with the intent to discourage two- story buildings. Member Benson indicated that she still does not wish to encourage two- story buildings. Member Leo concurred with Member Benson's comments and added that every section of the City cannot be treated the same, and since this is a unique project, it should be granted an exception if the Architectural Review Commission so deems. The consensus was that the Gardens project should be processed as an exception to the. ordinance if the Architectural Review Commission so deems, and that the ordinance need not be amended. 11. RECONSIDERATION OF PLANNED OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL ZONE STANDARDS Mr. Smith reported that he obtained copies of ordinances from the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, but those ordinances do not address the subject of ancillary commercial uses for a planned office/industrial zone in as much detail as the Committee is considering. Member Foxx commented that he would have no objection to a large, stand-alone office building having an ancillary commercial use as long as it is located toward the interior and geared toward serving the offices rather than oriented toward the street frontage where it would encourage patronage from persons other than tenants and employees. Member Leo noted that quite a few of the large office buildings in Orange County have upscale, full service restaurants, and this is a trend which can be observed throughout the cou ntry. 2 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2, 1997 MINUTES Member Foxx pointed out that as long as ancillary commercial uses are permitted via Conditional Use Permit, the City will be able to maintain adequate control, and, therefore, there is no need to make the ordinance overly restrictive, since an overly restrictive ordinance could inhibit creative development as well as the possibility of a nice restaurant. Member Leo indicated that he would prefer not to get hung up on restricting ancillary commercial uses to a certain percentage of a development's square footage, and suggested that the focus should be on the type of use, with which Member Foxx agreed. Member Foxx noted that a developer with a 10- to 15-acre site may wish to design an office complex with several buildings, one of which could have a high concentration of ancillary commercial uses to serve the entire complex. Member Foxx stated that his intent is to avoid a convenience store use in an office park as a use permitted in the zone. At 3:45 p.m., Member Benson indicated that she must attend a meeting elsewhere, and the group agreed to meet again at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 17, 1997. Mr. Drell suggested allowing restaurant or specific office-oriented ancillary commercial uses via Conditional Use Permit, with which Members Leo and Foxx concurred. 111. PC(4) ZONE INTERPRETATION Mr. Smith reported that there is only one remaining location in the City which is zoned PC(4), and that is on the south side of El Paseo east of Highway 74 next to the Le Paon restaurant, and that land is now up for sale. Member Foxx commented that the art gallery use is wonderful, and the existence of three nearby restaurants works well for this zone, with which Member Leo agreed. IV. ADJOURNED The Committee adjourned at 4:00 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 3 k' ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE DECEMBER 17, 1997 MINUTES Mr. Hargreaves indicated that he will research case law and develop a proposal for the Committee's consideration. Member Benson stated that she would be more interested in something that will cover the City without opening it up to legal challenge, and indicated she would be interested in establishing a maximum size. Member Bartlett indicated that he would like some legal guidelines regarding regulating commercial signs, to which Mr. Hargreaves replied that there hasn't been much of a problem, but he will look into some general parameters. Mr. Smith referenced Page 446 regarding freestanding signs, and asked if the Committee would be interested in allowing more than one monument sign on each street frontage of a center, to which Member Foxx responded that there could be problems if the center has more than one owner. Member Bartlett noted that Palms to Pines has 15 owners from Highway 74 to El Paseo, and suggested that the City encourage aesthetically pleasing monument signs rather than limiting the number of monument signs. Mr. Smith noted the consensus is there is no need to change this section. II. CONTINUED REVIEW OF PLANNED OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL ZONE STANDARDS Mr. Smith requested that the Committee provide clarification regarding Page 2, Section B.3, which states, "Ancillary commercial uses (not exceeding a maximum of 10% of total floor area in buildings exceeding 40,000 gross square feet and 15% of total floor area in buildings less than 40,000 gross square feet). The consensus of the Committee was to rewrite that section to state, "Ancillary commercial uses" without imposing other restrictions or limits. III. ADJOURNED The Committee adjourned at 4:25 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 3 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 19, 1997 MINUTES II. RECONSIDERATION OF PLANNED OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL ZONE STANDARDS Mr. Smith reported that, pursuant to the comments made at the last Committee meeting, staff has updated the proposed language for Planned Office Professional Park District. Member Bartlett referenced Section 25.36.190 regarding minimum area, and commented that two acres is too small for this type of zone, and 10 acres would be more appropriate. Member Bartlett added that one would not want an ancillary use such as a convenience store in a 40,000 square foot building, and he does not think a 40,000 square foot building would support an ancillary use such as a coffee shop. Member Ferguson remarked that the intent was not to include ancillary commercial uses for any building smaller than 40,000 square feet, and suggested that the criteria for ancillary commercial uses be geared toward the number of employees in a building, i.e., 500 employees. Member Ferguson stated that allowing 10% ancillary commercial use on a two- acre lot would effectively preclude space for a park, which is what is intended for this zone. Member Foxx felt that two acres is sufficient, and indicated that he could put together such a two-acre project on Fred Waring and San Anselmo. Member Foxx questioned the need to allow churches in this zone, and indicated he would be opposed to such a use in this zone, with which Members Bartlett and Benson concurred. Member Ferguson left the meeting at 4:00 p.m. Member Benson suggested that staff obtain copies of ordinances pertaining to ancillary commercial uses from the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. Member Foxx asked if a credit union constitutes a financial institution, to which Mr. Smith responded affirmatively. Member Leo suggested that credit unions specifically be listed in the ordinance as a non-permitted use. Member Benson suggested that check cashing businesses also be listed in the ordinance as a non-permitted use. Member Bartlett referenced Section 25.36.390 regarding building setbacks, and suggested eliminating the setback requirement for freeways, since he believes the City should encourage such developments to build up to the freeway. Member Benson disagreed and suggested that the language remain unchanged. III. REVIEW OF SIGN ORDINANCE 3 / ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 1997 MINUTES PROPOSAL Site = 21 acres = 914,760 sq ft — want total of 160,000 sq ft One Floor = 17.5% coverage Plus 640 Parking Spaces = 204,800 sq ft = 22.4% Open Space = 60% Mr. Smith reported that Mike Homme has a proposal for the property on the northeast comer of Portola and Country Club Drive, and Mr. Homme is looking for the type of uses which would be permitted in the zone. Mr. Homme commented that the O.P. zone is too restrictive and makes it difficult for a developer to add a mix of uses on a large property, i.e., 15 acres. The City of Costa Mesa. had problems with one of their very large office parks, and in order to make the project successful, they allowed a pitch and putt golf course, a restaurant and ancillary business uses. Mr. Homme noted that he does a lot of business with U.S. Filter, which has an administrative office in Palm Desert, and U.S. Filter likes their Palm Desert location because it has a residential feel. Mr. Homme remarked that he is personally opposed to allowing three-story buildings in Palm Desert, but if the building were stepped back and there was enough open, space, it would probably be acceptable, and added he believes U.S. Filter would not be interested in a three-story building, but would be interested in a campus-type atmosphere with two-story buildings spread throughout the property. Mr. Homme stated that the O.P. zone does not give enough consideration to setbacks, because if setbacks are too high, then the project ends up with an ocean of parking in the front and a building in the rear, instead of a more attractive arrangement of detached buildings spread throughout the property. He would suggest that there be a way for developers to petition the City, i.e., via the Conditional Use Permit process, to consider something attractive without requiring a development agreement. Mr. Smith pointed out that the proposed ordinance does allow ancillary commercial uses as long as it doesn't exceed a maximum of 10% of the total floor area of the project, to which Mr. Homme responded that 10% is probably not sufficient, as a Kinko's business alone would use up that much space. 3 / ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 1997 MINUTES Mr. Smith suggested considering increasing the amount of ancillary uses to 15% for buildings less than 40,000 square feet, to which Member Urrutia responded that he would prefer that each project be considered on a case-by-case basis. Regarding Country Club Drive, Mr. Smith recommended retaining a 32-foot average setback, providing a minimum of 25-foot setback with a two-story development and a minimum 20-foot setback on a single-story development, and in order to allow for creative sign design, he would suggest adding language to indicate that these standards shall be, from arterial streets, a minimum setback average of 32 feet with a basic minimum of 25 feet for two-story structures and a basic minimum of 20 feet for single-story structures; and on side streets, a basic minimum of 15 feet for single-story structures. The Committee agreed with the recommendation. Member Urrutia suggested that the reference to three-story buildings be clarified to indicate tiered three-story buildings. III. RECONSIDERATION OF R1 ZONE STANDARDS Mr. Smith reported that the changes approved by the Committee at its last meeting have been incorporated. Member Leo suggested including a reference to badminton, since that sport has become very popular. Mr. Smith suggested amending Section 25.16.120.13. to add "unless approved by a Conditional Use Permit," with which the Committee concurred. Mr. Smith recommended deleting Section 25.16.130 regarding pool enclosure requirements, with which the Committee agreed. Regarding Section 25.16.150, Mr. Smith reported that he spoke with Gordon Bricken, the City's consultant, who suggest that the Section read, "No air conditioning equipment shall be located closer than five (5) feet to any property line, unless it is demonstrated that the noise level at the property line will comply with the noise levels of Municipal Code Section 9:24.030." The Committee agreed. Mr. Smith indicated that he will submit these changes to the Planning Commission. 4 MINUTES ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 1, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m. Present: Tim Bartlett, Jean Benson*, Jim Ferguson, Jim Foxx, Bob Leo, Steve Smith, Frank Urrutia* *Member Benson joined the meeting at 3:37 .p.m. *Member Urrutia joined the meeting at 3:20 p.m. H. RECONSIDERATION OF PLANNED OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL ZONE STANDARDS Mr. Smith reported that some major corporations have expressed interest in having large office complexes in town, however, the OP zoning designation does not address those needs; so staff has proposed a new Planned Office/Industrial District (POI) which would allow a broader range of uses than the OF zone permits in order to allow for large office complexes on lots with a minimum of two acres located along major arterials, and subject to a Conditional Use Permit, also permit ancillary commercial uses. Mr. Smith directed the Committee's attention to the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments and asked for the Committee's input regarding landscape requirements, building height restrictions and setback requirements. Mr. Smith referenced proposed Section 25.36.250, which indicates that a minimum of one- third of the net site area shall be landscaped, to which Members Bartlett and Leo responded by indicating one-third would be too much. Member Ferguson reported that U.S. Filter and Gunthy-Renker have approached the Redevelopment Agency regarding each company's desire for a 40,000 square foot planned office professional complex, expandable to 80,000 square feet, which would initially house 250 to 500 employees, and possibly as many as 1,000 employees. Member Ferguson felt that a 30% landscaping requirement is too high and unnecessary, and pointed out that the City would probably not have very many of this type of large office complex. Member Urrutia joined the meeting at 3:20 p.m. Member Foxx felt that ancillary commercial uses in such a developments should also be within walking distance of other office developments. 1 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 1, 1997 MINUTES Regarding the proposed building height for the POI zone, Member Foxx suggested that large office complexes of 40,000 square feet or more should not be limited to two stories and 30 feet as long as the complex is not adjacent to residential development, and pointed out that since a three-story building would have a smaller footprint than a two-story building, the City could require a larger setback to mitigate the visual impact of a taller building, and since the parking requirement would remain the same for a building of that size, a larger landscaping requirement would not necessarily be a burden to the developer. Member Foxx noted that the height of the Marriott development has not been a problem. Member Ferguson commented that the ancillary commercial uses on Cook Street now comprise approximately 50% of the uses in that industrial area, which was not intended for that area; so he would agree that ancillary commercial uses should be limited to a certain percentage of the development area and also be restricted to those types of uses which do not generate additional automobile traffic. Member Ferguson agreed that a higher building height limit should be allowed for the proposed POI district as long as developments are not contiguous to residential uses. Member Foxx suggested that the area along Fred Waring between San Pablo and San Anselmo would be a good location for the proposed POI district, since this type of zoning would serve to clean up that area. Member Foxx recommended that a formula be developed to ensure adequate setbacks for proposed developments greater than two stories and thirty feet in a POI district. Councilmember Benson joined the meeting at 3:37 p.m. Councilmember Benson agreed that three stories could be appropriate for developments in a POI district which are not adjacent to residential uses, but felt that four stories would be too much and would most likely elicit opposition from residents of Silver Sands and Santa Rosa. Member Foxx felt that allowing additional building height will give architects more design flexibility. Member Ferguson indicated that the U.S. Filter and Gunthy-Renker are considering a location at Cook and Hovley as well at Portola and Frank Sinatra, and would require 25 acres for a project which can expand to 80,000 square feet, and Councilmember Benson agreed that the Portola locations would be good for this type of use. Member Foxx preferred the site near Desert Willow. 2 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 1, 1997 MINUTES The Committee reached consensus for a setback ratio of 1:1 for developments in excess of 30 feet in height, and also agreed upon a maximum building height of 45 feet, and Member Bartlett clarified that the 1:1 setback ratio requirement for structures exceeding 30 feet in height would be measured from the point where the setback for buildings less than 30 feet ends. Member Ferguson stated that he is not comfortable with the word "Industrial' in the title of the proposed zoning designation, and Member Bartlett opined that the word would have a negative connotation in this type of situation; so the Committee agreed to delete that word from the title and suggested that it be titled Planned Office Professional Park District. Regarding the proposed uses permitted by approved precise plan, the Committee agreed to eliminate community facilities from the list of uses subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Member Ferguson suggested that"ancillary commercial uses' should be defined, to which Mr. Smith responded by pointing out that since such uses would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission would make the determination as to which uses are appropriate for each site. Member Bartlett suggested limiting ancillary commercial uses to 10% of each proposed development site, with which Member Ferguson concurred, and Member Foxx suggested that additional approval should be required for any request for an ancillary commercial use exceeding 10% of the area. Member Ferguson left the meeting at 4:15 pm. Mr. Smith indicated that he will report back to the Committee regarding a landscaping requirement of 30% of the net site, with scenarios based on one-, two- and three-story buildings. Ill. RECONSIDERATION OF R1 ZONE STANDARDS Mr. Smith reported that the Committee previously discussed R1 zone standards and recommended a proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission; however the Planning Commission has referred the proposed ordinance back to the Committee because some of the language is directive rather than prescriptive, i.e., use of the words "encourage" and "discourage"; so staff has developed alternative language in that regard. 3 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 1997 MINUTES III. RECONSIDERATION OF PLANNED OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL PARK DISTRICT Mr. Smith directed the Committee's attention to the following calculations for a 10-acre site: 10-ACRE SITE ONE STORY Coveraae Parking_Spaces Parking Area Open Space 30% (130,680 sq ft) 522 167,000 sq ft 137,800 sq ft(31.6%) 35% (152,400 sq ft) 610 195,200 sq ft 87,940 sq ft(20.2%) TWO STORY Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 30% (130,680 sq ft) 1,044 334,080 sq ft - (-10%) 25% (108,900 sq ft) 871 278,720 sq ft 47,980 sq ft (11%) 20% (87,120 sq ft) 697 223,040 sq ft 125,440 sq ft(28.8%) THREE STORY Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 25% (10,890 sq ft) 1,037 418,176 sq ft ------- (-20%) 20% (87,120 sq ft) 1,045 334,464 sq ft 14,016 sq ft (3%) 15% (65,340 sq ft) 784 250,880 sq ft 119,300 sq ft (27%) TIERED: THREE STORY Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 1 st Floor 30% (130,680 sq ft) 2nd Floor 25% (108,900 sq ft) 3rd Floor 20% ( 87,120 sq ft) 326,700 sq ft 1,307 418,176 sq ft ----- (-25%) OR Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 1st Floor 25% (108,900 sq ft) 2nd Floor 20% ( 87,120 sq ft) 3rd Floor 15% L5,340 sq ft) 261,360 sq ft 784 250,880 sq ft 97,600 (22.4%) 2 � IIy O M DES � � I F 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o611 FAX: 760 341-7098 in FoC palm-desercorg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.: ZOA 97-7 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 to rescind the current provisions of Chapter 25.36 PI (Planned Industrial District) and replace same with POPP (Planned Office/Professional Park District). ` `".A"AID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 1, 2000, before the Palm Desert Planning -- -Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall, 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 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 PHIL DRELL, Secretary January 18, 2000 Palm Desert Planning Commission I 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 L. CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 97-7 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 to rescind the current provisions.of Chapter 25.36 PI (Planned Industrial District) and replace same with POPP (Planned Office/Professional Park District). SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 6, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary March 16, 1999 Palm Desert Planning Commission PROOF OF PUBLICATION County Clerk 's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P) RECEIVED '98 FEB 6 AM 8 27 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Riverside , ----------------------------------------- I am a citizen of the United States Proof of Publication of and a resident of the County afore- said ; I am over the age of eighteen LEGAL NOTICE ' years , and not a party to or inter- ested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the CITY 'IF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE PALM DESERT POST NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENCASE NO-: that a public hearing will ssion 1. Daan considerbe held raan amendment 10 the to zoning Ordnanceon?thePal,Deser,Planning Comm to s, a newspaper of general circulation, cod the current provisions,Of Chapter 25.36 PI printed and published weekly in the (Planned lndustdal Distdct)'and replace same with Cityof Palm Desert Cathedral City, POFP (Planned OficePofesspnal Pak District), Y, SAID Public hearing will be held on Tuesday,February and Rancho Mirage , County of I7,tgga.before inaftmDesenPoanningCommission Riverside, and which newspaper has city Hal%s510 F�Yung mDr�r palmy rtDesert been adjudged a newspaper of general fOrnla.atwhich time and placeCall all Interestetl ssion Invited to attend and be heard.Written commeents mn circulation by the Superior Court of coming all Items covered by this PI hearing notice the County of Riverside, State of Wall be me proposed to date of tha hearing.Information California , under the date of mlonIsavailabeforrev�i theapameatire�m: October 5 , 1964, Case Number 83658 , ndevelOPmematmeabrneaddressbetweenthe hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.Monday through FrI_ that the notice , nt which the me.fl you challenge the proposed actions in court you annexed is a printed copy y be limited to raising only those,.Issues Or someone else raised at me public hearing described In rsonotice, (set in type not smaller than nonpareil ) , o in written correspondence deliveretlroa ais notice has been published in each regular and commission at. m.prior o, dre public hearing. entire issue of said newspaper and not in HILI Palm Des P EL planning Sac son any supplement thereof on the following (Pub. D.P. January 29, im) dates , to-wit: - JANUARY 29, 1998 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Desert , California this 29TH DAY OF JANU RY 1998 --- -- - --------- -- ---- -- Si a ure I 10-ACRE SITE ONE STORY Coveraoe Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 30% (130,680 sq ft) 522 167,000 sq ft 137,800 sq ft(31.6%) 35% (152,400 sq ft) 610 195,200 sq ft 87,940 sq ft(20.2%) TWO STORY Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 30% (130,680 sq ft) 1,044 334,080 sq ft ---- (-10%) 25% (108,900 sq ft) 871 278,720 sq ft 47,980 sq ft (11%) 20% (87,120 sq ft) 697 223,040 sq ft 125,440 sq ft(28.8%) THREE STORY Coveraoe Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 25% (10,890 sq ft) 1,037 418,176 sq ft ------- (-20%) 20% (87,120 sq ft) 1,045 334,464 sq ft 14,016 sq ft (3%) 15% (65,340 sq ft) 784 250,880 sq ft 119,300 sq ft (27%) TIERED: THREE STORY Coveraoe Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 1 st Floor 30% (130,680 sq ft) 2nd Floor 25% (108,900 sq ft) 3rd Floor 20%( 87,120 sq ft) 326,700 sq ft 1,307 418,176 sq ft ------ (-25%) OR Coverage Parking Spaces Parking Area Open Space 1st Floor 25% (108,900 sq ft) 2nd Floor 20% ( 87,120 sq ft) 3rd Floor 15% ( 65,340 sq ft) 261,360 sq ft 784 250,880 sq ft 97,600 (22.4%) PROPOSAL Site = 21 acres = 914,760 sq ft -- want total of 160,000 sq ft One Floor= 17.5% coverage Plus 640 Parking Spaces = 204,800 sq ft = 22.4% Open Space = 60% clty of Palm Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(760)346-0611 •FAX(760)341-7098•http://www.paim-desert.org January 23, 1998 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.: ZOA 97-7 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 to rescind the current provisions of Chapter 25.36 PI (Planned Industrial District) and replace same with POPP (Planned Office/Professional Park District). SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 17, 1998, before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 qe�, Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are v.o. invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to 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 Post PHILIP DRELL, Secretary January 29, 1998 Palm Desert Planning Commission