HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 04-99 CZ 04-02 and PP 04-20 NW Portola Ave and Catalina Way 44277 Portola Ave CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal by Portola Properties/Chris McFadden to
a decision of the Planning Commission denying a change of zone
from single family residential (R-1) to Office Professional (O.P.) and
a precise plan of design, and an appeal to a decision of the ARC
denying architectural approval for a 14,115 square foot two-story
office building on property located at the northwest corner of Portola
Avenue and Catalina Way known as 44-277 Portola Avenue.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPELLANT: Portola Properties
Chris McFadden
72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 204
CASE NOS: C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20
DATE: September 23, 2004
CONTENTS:
Recommendation
Executive Summary
Background
Draft Resolution No. 04-99
Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 7, 2004
Planning Commission Minutes involving Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20
Planning nnin Commission Resolution No. 2292
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 04-99 denying the appeal to
Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20.
That the City Council, by minute motion, reaffirm the decision by the
Architectural Review Commission denying architectural approval.
Resolution No. 04-99
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20
Page 2
September 23, 2004
Executive Summary:
This request should be considered concurrent with Case No. ZOA 04-02, which if
approved would limit O.P. developments to single story maximum 18 feet in height
on Portola between Fred Waring and De Anza.
The appellant/applicant seeks approval of a change of zone for three lots at the
northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Catalina Way from R-1 to O.P. (office
professional) and approval of a precise plan of design fora two-story 14,115 square
foot office building on the 36,796 square foot site.
The Planning Commission denied the applications 5-0 because it determined that
any office development in this area needs to be single story(see discussion in Case
No. ZOA 04-02).
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission considered this request and the proposed code
amendment to limit the height in the O.P. zone on this portion of Portola.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the O.P. code amendment which
would limit office developments in this area to the same standards that would apply
to residential developments. Specifically that means single story with a basic height
limit of 15 feet with a maximum of 18 feet when architecturally merited.
Accordingly, Planning Commission on a 5-0 vote denied this change of zone and
precise plan request because the project is two-stories (22 feet - 25 feet in height).
Architectural Review Commission Action
The ARC considered this project on two occasions. Staff advised ARC of the City
Council and staff intent to limit O.P. buildings in this area to single story. The
applicant amended his original 25-foot high proposal to 22 feet in an attempt to
obtain ARC approval. ARC determined that neither the 22 or 25-foot structure was
appropriate in this location.
The applicant filed timely appeals to both decisions.
Background:
The three lots at the northwest corner of Catalina Way and Portola Avenue are
currently occupied by two single family dwellings (one 2-story structure on the corner
Resolution No. 04-99
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20
Page 3
September 23, 2004
and the second is a single story dwelling on the lot to the north). The westerly lot is
vacant except for a swimming pool.
General Plan Designation:
Office Professional / Medium Density Residential
Site Zoning:
R-1 with request to O.P.
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: R-2 / one and two story Units
South: R-1 / single family dwelling (single story)
East: PR-5 / condos (single story)
West: R-1 / single family dwellings (single story)
Change of Zone Request:
The applicant seeks a change of zone from R-1 to O.P. The site is designated office
professional / medium density residential in the general plan, so the requested change
of zone is consistent with the general plan.
Precise Plan Description:
The applicant proposes to raze the two dwellings, merge the lots and construct a two
story 14,115 square foot office building with parking for 57 vehicles.
The building is located at the southeast corner of the site with a setback of 35 feet
from Portola and 20 feet from Catalina (measured from curbs). Parking will be located
along the west and north areas of the property with the main ingress/egress to/from
Catalina. There is a direct egress only to Portola at the north end of the building.
In an attempt to gain ARC approval, the applicant submitted a second building proposal
with reduced building height of 22 feet, but still two stories. We will review both
proposals in the chart below.
Resolution No. 04-99
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20
Page 4
September 23, 2004
CODE PROVISIONS TABLE
PROVIDED PROVIDED
O.P. STANDARDS PROPOSED O.P. PRIMARY SECONDARY
PRIMARY/SECONDARY STANDARDS PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
SETBACKS FROM
PROPERTY LINE:
Front and Street min. 12' / avg 15' n/c 15' /14' & 20' 15'/14' & 20'
Sides (N) 65 ft / 49 ft * n/c 73' 73'
Rear (W) 52 ft / 20 ft * n/c 71 '6" 71 '6"
SETBACKS, CURB TO
BUILDING HEIGHT RATIO:
Portola 1 :1 - 24 / 21 ' n/c 35' 35'
Catalina 1 :1 - 22 / 19' n/c 20' 20'
Corner 2:1 - 42 / 36' n/c 38' 38'
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT 25 feet 15-18 feet 25 feet 22 feet
MAX. STORIES 2 1 2 2
PARKING - General Office 4 spaces/1,000 sq.ft. =57 n/c 57 57
*In the O.P. zone setbacks to single family dwellings are determined by the height of the office building. For each foot of office
height above 18 feet, the basic 20-foot setback is increased by 6.43 feet.
Resolution No. 04-99
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20
Page 5
September 23, 2004
ARCHITECTURE:
The applicant submitted two proposals to ARC; a full two-story, 25-foot design
and a modified 22-foot high design where the two-story building was depressed
into the ground by three feet.
Ultimately ARC while agreeing that the building design was attractive,
determined that a two-story building was not residential in scale considering
that homes to the south, east and west are single story with heights ranging
from nine feet to 14 feet.
ARC denied the application and referred the matter to City Council for
consideration with Case No. ZOA 04-02.
Neighborhood Input:
The applicant held an informational meeting with nearby neighbors. We have
received letters of objection and the neighbors spoke in opposition at ARC and
Planning Commission.
The neighbors expressed opposition to the office use in general, specifically the
additional traffic which would come to their neighborhood and opposition to the
two-story building. Other complaints included the proposed location of the trash
enclosure and parking lots too close to single family dwellings (see attached
letters and ARC minutes).
Analysis:
The project as submitted, with some minor modifications, would comply with
the existing O.P. standards.
The project at two stories and 25 feet or 22 feet of height is not consistent
with the proposed code amendment which would limit O.P. buildings on this
section of Portola to single story, 15 to 18 feet in height.
As was discussed in the report on Case No. ZOA 04-02, the City Council during
its General Plan discussions was clear that it wanted staff to process the
amendment to limit the size of O.P. buildings on this section of Portola.
esolution No. 04-99
Staff Report
Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20
Page 6
September 23, 2004
At best the current proposal is premature (i.e., the City Council could decide not
to enact the proposed code amendment). At worst it does not comply with the
new code.
Given the direction of City Council during general plan discussions, Planning
Commission and staff have no choice but to recommend denial of the precise
plan as proposed. Without an acceptable precise plan, staff cannot recommend
approval of the change of zone request.
Submitted by: Department Head:
f- its
Steve Smith Pit Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Approval. Approval:
omer Croy Carlos L. Ortega
ACM for Deve ment Services City Manager
CITY COUNCIL CATION:
* 1) Adopted Resolution No. 04-99, denying APPROVED DENIED
the appeal; RECEIVED OTHER
2) By Minute Motion, reaffirmed the
decision by the Architectural MEETING_ DATE Q • -04
Review Commission, which denied AYES: , tI1(� ,(1 �J -erC( �(m Q R'
architectural approval. 5-0 NOES: IV, y �� �S
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: _
(Wpdocs\tm\sApp04-20.cc) VERIFIED BY• Y11 1
Original on File wg/City Clerk's Office
N C7
-151
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
��, ►�� .,.r APPLICATION TO APPEAL co �;_
rri
a�
� y DECISION OF THE i L-64 )N(r1� �1 �0N _400
°tea : N 0
(Name of Determining Body) N D n
�oAc 040b (ICL-2-D
m
Case No. V.Z.-o f., — 2-• Date of Decision: 11
Name of Appellant Nt /`& - Phone t`\ ' °["t-
Address lq.CCIS F E LxrA 1`1-s , 1 SUri
Description of
Application or Matter Considered: f t JA a i1
cN oco =r+ N )cl--c- kvA. /V t ,r
eason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessa ):
1\1E. j 400e\ r t Dr 711 O S. Jf
~�Y gL D
n to o AT-op llarrt
p FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 66
Date Appeal Filed: 9. 0 -0-- Fee Received: S �//
Treasurer's Receipt No. a �03 Received by: i
Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official:
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
COPY TO P&/2//Y-)
Haklassen\WPdata\WPDOCS\FORMS\applto appeal.wpd DATE
Rev 6/29/02
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 7, 2004
CASE NOS: C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20
REQUEST: Approval of a change of zone from single family residential (R-1 )
to office professional (O.P.) and a precise plan of design to allow
construction of a 14,115 square foot two-story office building on
property located at the northwest corner of Portola Avenue and
p Y
Catalina Way known as 44-277 Portola Avenue.
NOTE: This request should be considered concurrent with Case No. ZOA
04-02 which if approved would limit 0.P. developments on non-
arterial streets (i.e., Portola) to single story 18 feet in height.
APPLICANT: Portola Properties
Chris McFadden
72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 204
Palm Desert, CA 92260
EXPANDED STATEMENT OF REQUEST:
The applicant seeks approval of a change of zone for three lots at the northwest
corner of Portola Avenue and Catalina Way from R-1 to O.P. (office
professional) and approval of a precise plan of design for a two story, 14,115
square foot office building on the 36,796 square foot site.
II. BACKGROUND:
The three lots at the northwest corner of Catalina Way and Portola Avenue are
currently occupied by two single family dwellings (one 2-story structure on the
corner and the second is a single story dwelling on the lot to the north). The
westerly lot is vacant except for a swimming pool.
A. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Office Professional / Medium Density Residential
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-02 AND PP 04-20
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
B. SITE ZONING:
R-1 with request to O.P.
C. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: R-2 / one and two story Units
South: R-1 / single family dwelling (single story)
East: PR-5 / condos (single story)
West: R-1 / single family dwellings (single story)
III. CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST:
The applicant seeks a change of zone from R-1 to O.P. The site is designated
office professional / medium density residential in the general plan, so the
requested change of zone is consistent with the general plan.
IV. PRECISE PLAN DESCRIPTION:
The applicant proposes to raze the two dwellings, merge the lots and construct
a two story 14,1 1 5 square foot office building with parking for 57 vehicles.
The building is located at the southeast corner of the site with a setback of 35
feet from Portola and 20 feet from Catalina (measured from curbs). Parking will
be located along the west and north areas of the property with the main
ingress/egress to/from Catalina. There is a direct egress only to Portola at the
north end of the building.
In an attempt to gain ARC approval, the applicant submitted a second building
proposal with reduced building height of 22 feet, but still two stories. We will
review both proposals in the chart below.
2
nn
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-02 AND PP 04-20
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
CODE PROVISIONS TABLE
PROVIDED PROVIDED
O.P. STANDARDS PROPOSED O.P. PRIMARY SECONDARY
PRIMARY/SECONDARY STANDARDS PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
SETBACKS FROM
PROPERTY LINE:
Front and Street min. 12' / avg 15' n/c 15' /14' & 20' 15'/14' & 20'
Sides (N) 65 ft / 49 ft * n/c 73' 73'
Rear (W) 52 ft / 20 ft * n/c 71 '6" 71 '6"
SETBACKS, CURB TO
BUILDING HEIGHT RATIO:
Portola 1 :1 - 24 / 21 ' n/c 35' 35'
Catalina 1 :1 - 22 / 19' n/c 20' 20'
Corner 2:1 - 42 / 36' n/c 38' 38'
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT 25 feet 18 feet 25 feet 22 feet
MAX. BUILDING LENGTH N/A 100 feet 135 feet 135 feet
MAX. STORIES 2 1 2 2
PARKING - General Office 4 spaces/1 ,000 sq.ft. =57 n/c 57 57
*In the O.P. zone setbacks to single family dwellings are determined by he height of the office building. For each foot of office
height above 18 feet, the basic 20-foot setback is increased by 6.43 feet.
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-02 AND PP 04-20
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
ARCHITECTURE:
The applicant submitted two proposals to ARC; a full two-story, 25-foot design
and a modified 22-foot high design where the two-story building was depressed
into the ground by three feet.
Ultimately ARC while agreeing that the building design was attractive,
determined that a two-story building was not residential in scale considering
that homes to the south, east and west are single story with heights ranging
from nine feet to 14 feet.
ARC denied the application and referred the matter to City Council for
consideration with Case No. ZOA 04-02. The applicant filed a timely appeal to
the ARC action.
V. NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT:
The applicant held an informational meetingwith nearbyneighbors. We have
PP 9
received letters of objection and the neighbors spoke in opposition at ARC.
The neighbors expressed opposition to the office use in general, specifically the
additional traffic which would come to their neighborhood and opposition to the
two-story building. Other complaints included the proposed location of the trash
enclosure and parking lots too close to single family dwellings (see attached
letters and ARC minutes).
VI. ANALYSIS:
The project as submitted, with some minor modifications, would comply with
the existing O.P. standards.
The project at two stories and 25 feet or 22 feet of height is not consistent
with the proposed code amendment which would limit O.P. buildings on this
section of Portola to single story, 18 feet in height and maximum 100 feet in
length (proposed building is 135 feet).
As was discussed in the report on Case No. ZOA 04-02, the City Council during
its General Plan discussions was clear that it wanted staff to process the
amendment to limit the size of O.P. buildings on this section of Portola.
4
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-02 AND PP 04-20
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
At best the current proposal is premature (i.e., the City Council could decide not
to enact the proposal amendment). At worst it does not comply with the new
code.
Given the direction of City Council during the general plan discussions, staff has
no choice but to recommend denial of the precise plan as proposed. Without an
acceptable precise plan we cannot recommend approval of the change of zone
request.
VII. RECOMMENDATION:
That Case No. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20 be denied.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
C. Comments from city departments and other agencies
D. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by: Review and Approved by:
Steve Smith Phi Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Review d Conc
Homer Croy
ACM for De pment Services
/tm
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO OFFICE
PROFESSIONAL (O.P.) AND A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN
FOR A 14,115 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY OFFICE
BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND CATALINA WAY
KNOWN AS 44-277 PORTOLA AVENUE.
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-02 AND PP 04-20
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
of PORTOLA PROPERTIES/CHRIS McFADDEN, for approval of the above described
project; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its actions, as described below:
CHANGE OF ZONE:
1. The City is concurrently processing an amendment to the O.P. standards.
The building as proposed is not consistent with the O.P. standards proposed
in the code amendment.
2. The change of zone is premature at this time.
PRECISE PLAN:
1 . Without approval of the change of zone, the proposed office complex is not
consistent with the zoning. Accordingly, the precise plan must be denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby deny Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and
PP 04-20.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of September, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning ,�
Attention: Steve Smith `�"`' t ` 04
(:COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer CITY OF PALM DESERT
SUBJECT: PP 4-20 Portola Properties
DATE: July 2, 2004
The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced project.
(1) Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and
Ordinance No.653,shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. The project shall be
designed to retain nuisance water associated with the project. Any drainage facility
construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by
a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works
prior to start of construction.
(2) Signalization fees,in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos.79-17 and 79-55,
shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project.
(3) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment
of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
(4) A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall
be submitted to,and approved by,the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of
a grading permit.
(5) All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
(6) Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works, and shall be
completed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project.
(7) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of
any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans are to be approved by the
Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite
improvements prior to permit issuance.
(8) Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on-site shall be drought tolerant
in nature and maintenance shall be performed by the property owner.
(9) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive
Dust Control and Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.
Developer shall contact the Riverside County Flood Control District for informational
materials.
(10) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44,complete grading plans/site
improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for
checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. Preliminary landscape plans shall
be submitted concurrently with grading plans.
(11) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in
accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
(12) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code,shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards and the city's
Circulation Network. Those improvements shall include,but not be limited to the following:
► Dedication of an additional 6'of right of way on Portola Avenue,50'from centerline.
► Construction of a right turn only lane on Portola Avenue at Catalina Way.
► Installation of an 8' wide concrete curbside sidewalk on Portola Avenue and 6'
curbside sidewalk on Catalina Way.
► Construction of, or cash payment in lieu of construction, of a landscaped center
median on Portola Ave. ($50 I.f. x 200 I.f. = $10,000)
Rights-of-way and/or easements necessary for the installation of the above referenced
improvements shall be conveyed to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated
with this project.
(13) Applicant shall record an offer for a reciprocal access easement to the property to the
northeast.
(14) A parcel or parcel map waiver shall be recorded prior to issuance of a grading permit.
•
AVJ\ ff
Mark Greenwood, P.E.
G:\PubWorks\Conditions of Approval\PPLANS\pp 4-20 portola properties-cfadder.wpd
�pLIFORNI� RIVERSIDE COL ,Y
pE.. PflOTF.r\
r,REST, FIRE DEPARTMIIN T
D
(FIRE F oitS1M coo,,.,` In cooperation with the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
MI210 West San Jacinto Avenue • Perris, California 92570 • (909) 940-6900 • FAX (909) 940-6910
HAI
DEPARTMENT
e
Tom Tisdale
�
Fire Chief Pi
Cove Fire Marshal's Office
Proudly serving the 73710 Fred Waring Drive#222
unincorporated Palm Desert CA 92260
areas of Riverside (760)346-1870
County and the
cities of: �p�- dBanningToy ``7J - - — �� -IN-
DATE:
•
//
Beaumont
r
Calimesa REF: p U Z U b Z
•
Canyon Lake
If circled, conditions apply to proiect
Coachella
•
Desert Hot Springs 4P With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire
Indian Wells protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal
Indio Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection
•• Standards:
Lake Elsinore
z The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
La Quinta remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
• A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual
Moreno Valley pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed
Palm Desert on the iob site.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a
Perris
+ gpm flow of:
Rancho Mirage 3. 1500 gpm for single family dwellings
+ 4. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings
San Jacinto
s 0 3000 gym for commercial buildings
Temecula The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super
Hydrant (s) 4"x 2 %"x 2 %", located not less than 25' nor more than:
6. 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via
Board of Supervisors vehicular travelway
7. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via
Bob Buster
District , vehicular travelway
150' from any portion of a commercial building
John Tavaglione measured via
District 2 vehicular travelway
Jim Venable ®• Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include
District 3 verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow.
Roy Wilson 10. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the
District 4 existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow.
Tom Mullen
District 5
4110
Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all
buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire
Marshal shall approved the locations of all post indicator valves and
fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be
less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved
ehydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler
systems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per
CBC Chapter 9.
do Install a fire alarm system as required bythe UBC
C Chapter 3.
14. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one
2A10BC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking
distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial
kitchens.
15. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96
in all public and private cooking operations except single-family
residential usage.
16. Install a dust collecting system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an
operation that produces airborne particles.
KDAll building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending
to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story.
The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and
13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on
both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide
with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be
provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial
developments.
18. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of
gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a
"Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle
access. Minimum gate width shall be 16"with a minimum vertical
clearance of 13'6".
19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access,
sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire
Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be
accepted.
20. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main
access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an
adjoining development.
21. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to
facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and
occu.anc •e.
All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by
the city.
All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm
4)
plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval
rior to construction.
fipConditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances,
laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve
months.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to
the Fire Marshal's Office at(760)346-1870 in Palm Desert.
Location: 73710 Fred Waring Drive#222, Palm Desert CA 92260
Other:
Aigtz,---1,i3" —
Sincerely,
David A. Avila
Fire Marshal
PALM I ;ERT POLICE DEPART NT
•
Served by the
Riverside County Sheriffs Department
Y Bob Doyle, Sheriff-Coroner
73520 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert,CA 92260
(760)836-1600 Fax(760)836-1616
June 25, 2004
City of Palm Desert
Planning Department
73510 Fred Waring Dr. R ,4.'6 r-'t ,II -r,
Palm Desert, CA 92260 � 4, Li
1-° ` ,.
ATTN: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
RE: PP 04-20/C/Z 04-02 ,RAW'j'� DEVz ;,;L"�T DEPAxs,�TE •i7
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Dear Mr. Smith,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed construction of the 14,115 sq. ft. Office
Building, located at 42-277 Portola Avenue (APNs 627-131-041, 042 and 043). The following issues of
concern related to public safety and law enforcement are presented:
1. Current Planned Design:
A. Exterior Building Security: The exterior doors should be of steel construction and secured
with a heavy-duty type lock to provide protection against forced entry. The outside area of the
door around the bolt mechanism should also have a steal plate affixed to it that slightly
overhangs the frame of the door to prevent prying.
B. Exterior Lighting Plan: All exterior lighting fixtures should be mounted to a height that
would reduce any tampering or damage. It is recommend that metal halide type lighting be
used for the reasons of accurate color rendition and increased visibility. Each exterior door
along the sides and rear of the building should have a light above them that would illuminate
the area.
C. Alarm System: A security alarm system should be installed with sensors covering all exterior
doors/windows on the ground floor, along with interior motion detectors. The subscriber
should provide the servicing alarm vendor with a contact person, and/or responder in the event
of alarm activation. The responder is normally a property manager with keys to all areas of the
building that could meet with deputies in the event the alarm activates when the business is
closed. I also recommend a Knox Box be mounted near the front doors with a key to the
building. In the event the business is closed and an alarm activation occurs without a
responder available; deputies could enter the building and search for intruders.
Page 2
E. Business Numbering or Monument: The property address should be prominently displayed
and visible from Portola Avenue. The numbers affixed to the building or monument
should be of contrasting color from the building façade and illuminated at night. This will
assist in emergency responses by the fire department or the Palm Desert Police Department.
2. Construction Site:
A. Exterior Fence: Prior to construction of any structure, a material storage area should be
established along the perimeter of the property and enclosed by a six (6) foot chain link fence
with locking gates to minimize theft of materials and/or equipment. "No Trespassing" signs
should be mounted on the fencing toward Portola Ave. and Catalina Way.
B. Equipment, Staffing, and Supervision: It is recommended that a list of serial and/or license
numbers of equipment stored at the location be maintained both at the site and at any off-site
main office. The public and non-essential employees should have restricted access to the
construction areas. Current emergency contact information for the project and construction
supervisor should be kept on file with the Palm Desert Police Department. A list of
construction employee's names who are permitted to be on the construction site in the evening
hours should be kept with the construction supervisor in the event deputies check the site and
locate unauthorized personnel or trespassers at night.
C. Lighting and Storage: The developer and/or builder's name, address, and phone number
should be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Visibility into the construction site
should not be intentionally hampered by equipment or storage of construction materials. Any
stored construction material should be stored near as possible to the center of the site and
should be kept at a minimum height to allow view into the site from the roadway.
The construction site should be well lit during hours of darkness to prevent intruders and all
entrances and exits should be clearly marked and locked when not in use.
Should the Planning Department Manager, developer, or construction staff have any questions regarding
the above law enforcement and public safety concerns, they may contact Deputy Robert Bishop at (760)
836-1671,between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday.Respectfully Submitted,
eputy Robert Bis op
ID #2759
Palm Desert Police Depaitinent
s ti
°i; _ I
......
CITY OF PALM DESERT 004
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES T "NT
I Fin
1,
• b��� �// k � INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
•
To: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
�5
From: Deborah Schwartz, Public Art Coordinator
Date: 06/23/04
Subject: Case No. PP 04-20 / C/Z 04-02
The Art In Public Places Department recommends that the public art fee for case
number PP 04-20 / C/Z 04-02, Portola Properties / Chris McFadden on the
northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Catalina Way be used for an onsite
public art project. We estimate that the total fee is approximately $5,650 and feel
that this amount will allow for a small public art project.
'N1 AT E R ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENC
41,
STR COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058•COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 •FAX(760) 398-3711
DIRECTORS. OFFICERS:
JOHN W.McFADDEN,PRESIDENT STEVEN B.ROBBINS,
PETER NELSON,VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS MARK BEUHLER,
RUSSELL KITAHARA ASST.GENERAL MANAGER
PATRICIA A.LARSON July 1, 2004 JULIA FERNANDEZ,SECRETARY
DAN PARKS,ASST.TO GENERAL MANAGER
S s Y11 REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS
` 11.4 .. File: 0163.1
UE �
0421.1
0721.1
'° 11 Cid T DEPART F NT
nrs
Department of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Gentlemen:
Subject: Precise Plan No. 04-20
This area is protected from regional stormwater flows by the Whitewater River Stormwater
Channel and may be considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances.
This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at
this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Stormwater runoff from this area may be diverted to the Whitewater River Stormwater
Channel. Nuisance flows or other nonstormwater generated runoff may not be discharged
into the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel.
Since the stormwater issues of this development are local drainage, the District does not need
to review drainage design further.
The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with
the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain
fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of the District for
sanitation service.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
Department of Community Development
City of Palm Desert -2- July 1, 2004
Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for
review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management.
If you have any questions, please contact Dan Charlton, Stormwater Engineer,
extension 2316.
Yours very truly,
Patti Schwartz
Assistant Director of Engineering
cc: Jeff Johnson
Riverside County Department of Public Health
82-675 Highway 111, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209
Indio, California 92201
Majeed Farshad
Riverside County Department of Transportation
82-675 Highway 11 1, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209
Indio, California 92201
DC:md\eng\sw\july\pp 04-20
050620-1
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AUGUST 24, 2004 ' a 7' t..o
rl
MINUTES � 7 .z �
SUBJECT Tr
C. Miscellaneous REVISION
1. CASE NO.: PP 04-20, C/Z 04-02
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred
Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for
comments on revisions to a new office building.
LOCATION: 42-277 Portola
ZONE: R-1
Mr. Smith stated that at the last meeting the commissioners requested
that the applicant come up with something that would be more
residential in scale. Revised plans were submitted and distributed to
the commissioners for their review.
Micah Combs, representative for Chris McFadden, was present to
answer questions. He commented that the revised plans reflect a 15%
height reduction.
Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there was a square footage change or
any other change. Mr. Combs commented that the roof changed a little
bit. Mr. Drell stated that the eave lines are at 18'. Commissioner Van
Vliet asked if the overall height of the building was reduced by 3' or just
certain sections. Mr. Combs stated that certain sections of the building
were reduced by 3', but the rest remains the same height as the
previous proposal. Mr. Smith stated that the top of the ridge on the
previous proposal was 25' and now it's shown at 22'.
Commissioner Lopez commented that he always thought that the
building looked great but doesn't feel that it belongs in this particular
neighborhood. There are just a couple little problems with the
landscaping, but the building doesn't belong in this part of the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Hanson stated that she thought that it was an attractive
building, but to catagorize it as residentially scaled is not accurate for
this particular neighborhood. I don't think that the solution of just
sinking it 3' changes the fact that it makes it more residential or not.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 6
fri%
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ' 1! '""� ti +°� i eT
AUGUST 24, 2004 u._- � h
MINUTES
Mr. Combs asked for clarification on what Commissioner Hanson is
recommending. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's not
recommending anything but she saying that given this particular
solution, it's not residentially scaled from the standpoint of our last
meeting when we talked about it needing to be one story. I don't think
that dropping the building by 3' meets that requirement. I like the
building, but not for that lot with the parameters that the commission
was given in order to approve it.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he recalled from the last meeting, the
commission was specifically asked if this was of a residential scale.
This was the question. The answer at that time was "no" and I don't
really see that it looks any different.
Commissioner Van Vliet asked if anyone in the audience would like to
speak. Jeanne Martin, resident, was present and stated that her
property is just to the west of this project and her backyard would face
their parking lot. This building is not appropriate for a residential area.
Mr. Drell stated that there are people who build one-story office
buildings, but it's a matter of how much the applicant is paying for the
land. Now he's going to have to go back to the property owner and re-
negotiate the price so that it makes sense financially. Ms. Martin
commented that the property has closed escrow.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Oppenheim to refer the request to the City Council with a
recommendation for denial because the proposal doesn't meet the
requirement for residential scale, as identified in the general plan.
Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
STEVE SMITH
PLANNING MANAGER
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 7
•. •
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AUGUST 10, 2004
MINUTES
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic for preliminary approval subject to altering the wall on the Cook
Street elevation. Motion carried 7-0.
2. CASE NO.: PP 04-20, C/Z 04-02
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred
Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a
14,115 square foot office building.
LOCATION: 44-277 Portola
ZONE: R-1
Mr. Smith stated that staff will be going forward with a code amendment
to limit office buildings on non-arterial streets to single story. Staff feels
that this will be the only way to create a residential scale project.
Consequently, the commission is in a position to indicate that as a
general office building this might be acceptable but given that it's now
going to be in an area where the City is limiting buildings to one story
and 18' in height, obviously this proposal does not comply with that.
Mr. Drell stated that the ARC's action will be a recommendation to the
City Council.
Commissioner Vuksic asked if the arterial streets are Cook Street and
Monterey. Mr. Drell stated that the streets that are going to six lanes
are considered arterial streets. This section of Portola is not going to
be six lanes.
Commissioner Gregory asked what the commission is supposed to do if
the building is indicated at two stories. Mr. Drell stated that they're
being asked to comment on the building as a recommendation to the
City Council. Commissioner Gregory stated that he felt that the ARC
did that at their last meeting by commenting that it's an attractive
building, but it has some neighborhood problems. Mr. Drell stated that
after the last meeting they thought that it was going to be taken
immediately to the City Council during their study session. Upon
consulting with the City Manager, it was made clear that the Council
has already given their direction and the proposal should be taken
through the normal process of Planning Commission and then to the
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 7
•
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEvv COMMISSION
AUGUST 10, 2004
MINUTES
City Council with the proposed ordinance amendment. The setback
standards in the zone are already essentially residential setback
standards. The only thing to alter to make it residential would be the
height. Even a pitched roof house that's two story has an eave line
that's close to 18'. When you're talking about a two-story office
building, the eave line is typically at 25'. The comments by the
commission will move this along to the Council and they'll make their
decision based on their input. If the commission thinks that residential
scale office buildings can be developed at two stories, then they can
disagree. According to the general plan, the City is looking at office
buildings like you see on Monterey south of Fred Waring.
Commissioner Hanson asked if they're supposed to say that they like
the building, but it's going to have to be modified to a one-story building
in order to meet the new ordinance. Mr. Drell stated that they could say
that it should meet the new ordinance or say that this is a residential-
scale building. Does it meet the goal of "residential scale"?
Commissioner Vap Vliet commented that it depends of the definition of
"residential scale". Mr. Smith commented that in the minutes of the City
Council, they indicated single story as one of the things to consider.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that you can't have an office building of a
significant size be of residential scale. Mr. Drell stated that it doesn't
have to be of significant size. Maybe it's not going to be a significant
size. It would have to be smaller.
Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if economically it would
work to shrink it. Mr. McFadden stated that it depends on how much it
would have to shrink. The use would have to be more intense and go
to medical use to justify the rate of return. He has nine extra parking
spaces.
Commissioner Gregory commented that an example of a building that
would be similar is Dennis Dudek's building on Deep Canyon and
Alessandro. It has a gabled roof as well as some hipped areas on the
roof and has a residential quality to it.
Commissioner Hanson commented that she really likes the proposed
office building, but to call it residential scale is difficult. If you're looking
at homes nearby that are 15' in height then how high is the office
building. Mr. McFadden stated that it's 25' to the ridge and 18' to the
eave. If you go around that neighborhood, the majority of the newer
homes are two story. There's a multi-family project immediately across
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 8
• 11110
/ ARCHITECTURAL REVIE. . COMMISSION
/' AUGUST 10, 2004
MINUTES
/ the street that's two story. The residences immediately to the north of
this project are two-story townhouses. In this residential neighborhood,
we're designing something that's indigenous to the neighborhood and
this would be appropriate in scale.
Commissioner Gregory commented that he has a feeling that everyone
likes the building. If the ARC says that it's residential in scale and he
proceeds from here, he might have trouble getting approved at the next
level. If he can make some serious "tweeks" to make it what more what
people would regard as more residential, then it might make it easier.
Mr. McFadden stated that in regards to the neighbors, that's a sensitive
issue. Honestly, what's coming up the street to the south of this
(eventually this is all going to be commercial) really comes down to a lot
of people who bought in this area because it was economically
affordable at the time. They've seen an extreme peak in value. We
paid fair market value for our property and it may be at the top of that
bubble and they may see a decline. If Portola is widened even more
than it is, as some of these adjacent residences get opened up to
Portola and you ,see what's there... Really you have to walk this
neighborhood and look at this neighborhood like I have. When I was
told not to even consider doing any two story I walked around the
neighborhood and saw what was there... I don't always go in the
direction to ignore people. I see the development of Portola going in a
certain direction and I'd like to contribute to that.
Commissioner Gregory stated that he was wondering if he could do
some things to give the illusion towards compromise. Mr. McFadden
stated that his site plan is in the ninth revision. I've gone through the
process and have lost a ton of square footage already with ultimate
right-of-way increase after increase after increase. It's not that we're
immovable. We're very flexible.
Mr. Drell stated that to make the argument that this is residential scale
is something that you recognize when you see it. The Council has a
hard time visualizing hypothetical ideas. There are alternative degrees
of two-stories. The question for the commission is whether or not the
proposed office building is residential scale.
Commissioner Lopez commented that the building is great, but there
hasn't been enough attention put toward the landscaping. The
neighbors are really concerned about the parking. Maybe something
that creates more of a barrier would help the neighbors. Growing up in
this area and walking down this street as a kid, I don't envision this
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin'AR040810.MIN 9
0 •
/ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEvv COMMISSION
AUGUST 10, 2004
MINUTES
office there. The building is great but if I was still living there, I wouldn't
be happy about it. Mr. McFadden stated that there's more open
frontage on Portola than there currently is now. It's not as cluttered of a
site than it currently is.
Commissioner Gregory stated that if the applicant is concerned about
maintaining square footage, if he's open to the possibility of dropping
some of the building, then why not? What I see here is a great two-
story office building, but I don't see it as residential.
Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was imagining the two-story
townhouses in the area so it could possibly be of residential scale, but
the pieces and proportions of this building look really nice. It's hard to
imagine chopping it up so it looks like townhouses and trying to make it
into something that it's not. I have a very hard time visualizing where to
go.
Mr. Drell suggested possibly having greater setbacks. The language
could have more restrictive standards in terms of setbacks and height.
This project really is at the limit of what the setback is. Mr. McFadden
commented that he'd like to talk about the setbacks. It's going to be 8-
10 years before the curb line is moved so they'll have eight more feet of
landscaping than what's required until that time. I know what's it's like
to be in a facility that's under parked. I'm coming in with nine extra
parking spaces. I can move the building about five feet and that's with
no planting on the west side of the building on the other side of the
sidewalk so you can get into the building. Then I'll have to start
eliminating parking. I'll probably come back with some sort of a building
that just meets the parking requirements and a higher intense use. I'm
concerned that I'm not going to be over parked, which is one of my
goals in this office building is to make sure that there's ample parking.
Commissioner Gregory commented that he was wondering if they could
use some of the guidelines that we use to review residences which
exceed the maximum height. We look for fascia lines to be lowered,
the use of hipped roof elements, and sensitivity to the neighbors. Give
the neighbors a feeling that you understand their concerns and maybe
you can "have your cake and eat it to". Just bring some of the elements
down somewhat. Mr. McFadden stated that the residents are hanging
on to any issue that is tangible for them. I've been to each of these
neighbors homes. I've had a public hearing at Valley Christian
Assembly. I've tried to be the good neighbor. Some of them bring up
issues that I are not an issue. Ms. Martin's concern about the view isn't
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR04081o.MIN 10
• i
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AUGUST 10, 2004
i
MINUTES
relevant because my building is not even behind her. Her backyard has
absolutely no view out of the backyard because of the way she's added
on and because of the trees, but she will bring up the issue that her
view is being destroyed.
Commissioner Lambell asked the applicant if he could bring the
commission some thumbnail sketches showing lowering it down into the
ground and berming up something to hide some of the building. The
most interesting part is the second story. If you take away the second
story it's a regular office building. The character is on the second floor,
not on the first floor. Mr. McFadden stated that by doing that you would
minimize some of the rammed earth details.
Commissioner Hanson stated that the reality of where we're going in
the desert, because we're growing so fast, is the fact that land is so
expensive and we're going to have to start going up. I think that good
architecture going up is great. Bad architecture going up is bad. I'm
not against going up. I think that both myself and Commissioner Vuksic
feel that the height limits are sort of arbitrary anyway. Commissioner
Vuksic commented that he didn't think that they were arbitrary, but that
they're based on what is the minimum that you can actually manage to
build a building. Commissioner Hanson stated that the current
ordinance doesn't allow for architecture or interest. That has become a
negative.
Mr. McFadden stated that he needs a zone change. If I can't get a
zone change, then I have to back out of this deal faster. I'm here for
the next six months, potentially. I really want to go forward and get to
the next step with the condition that I have to come back to the ARC. I
would love that. I don't have a problem with adjusting the building, but
without a zone change this project is dead. Commissioner Van Vliet
asked if the applicant needs the approval of the commission to get a
zone change. Mr. Drell stated that the presumption is that the
commission is going to be making comments that are going to be heard
by the Council. This is scheduled for the Planning Commission on
September 7, 2004. The applicant could be continuing to work with the
ARC.
Commissioner Lambell stated that the Council and Planning
Commission are going to want to see what the building is going to look
like. The current proposal is going to be a hard sell. Mr. McFadden
stated that it may not necessarily be a hard sell. If this is a residential
scale building with the caveat that after they're done with the zone
change I could come back to the ARC. Mr. Drell stated that there's no
question that he'll come back to the ARC.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 1 1
S
/ ARCHITECTURAL REVIL. . COMMISSION
/ AUGUST 10, 2004
MINUTES
Commissioner Vuksic commented that if what the Council is after is a
residential scale, are they going to be affected by that and less likely to
approve a zone change? Mr. Drell stated that the zone change will be
sold by the building. To deny the building they have to come up with
reasons why they don't like it. To deny the zone change you don't have
to have a reason because the general plan designation still provides for
residential use. It's a dual designation. Commissioner Vuksic stated
that the applicant is presenting a building that's going to be a harder sell
to get the zone change. Mr. McFadden stated that he hasn't done the
study to see if he can diminish this building down. It might be a good
idea to go into the ground but I have to look at the site work. I can
produce that fairly quickly. I would like to have this commission's
blessing that the standards need to be adjusted, but that the height is in
conformance with commercial development adjacent to a residential
area. It's worked elsewhere in the City, why can't it work here?
Commissioner Hanson stated that I can't speak for anybody else,
however, I think that the heights that are currently indicated are more
like 21', not 18'. I think it's going to take lowering certain aspects of it in
order to bring it more into a residential scale.
Commissioner Van Vliet commented that another issue is that this is a
14,000 square foot building, which is different from most of the other
residential buildings that we're thinking of that are probably between
3,000-4,000 square feet. The proposed building is a big mass. If it
were three or four separate buildings, it would look different. I think that
it would be very difficult to get that size of a building into a residential
scale.
Commissioner Gregory commented that there could possibly be more
movement between higher and lower sections so it may not have to be
separate while giving it some articulation. This might add a little more
of a residential feeling. Mr. McFadden stated that they should look at
the full build-out because they've got one of the neighbors that they're
getting the zone change for. That house should come down shortly
thereafter and be developed into another single office space that'll use
our parking egress. We're going to share our egress as well as
everybody south of us will be getting shared egress across the sites.
When this area is built out, there are going to be parcels that are going
to require smaller buildings and a few parcels will have larger buildings.
Commissioner Gregory stated that he has the feeling that the applicant
is willing to make some adjustments to the building and suggested that
this be done before the next meeting so the ARC can review it. Mr.
McFadden commented that he'll be on vacation during the next meeting
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agrnin\AR040810.MIN 12
• •
/ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AUGUST 10, 2004
MINUTES
on August 24. Commissioner Hanson commented that sketches are
fine.
Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hanson to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with
sketches of alternative designs which would be more residential in
character. Motion carried 7-0.
3. CASE NO.: PP 04-18
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERIC KLEINER, 2171 India Street, #
Q, San Diego, CA 92101
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of revised plans for a 2,100 square foot office building and an 11,500
square foot warehouse. Intertile, Natural Stone Surfaces.
LOCATION: 74-842 42nd Avenue
ZONE: SI
Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant, Eric Kleiner, has returned with
revised drawings for the commission to review.
•
Mr. Kleiner stated that he was trying to make sure that the design
elements that were proposed at the previous meeting could become
reality and the building worked out pretty well. It started to come
together very nicely where I felt very comfortable with it. The clients
were actually excited about the new developments with the translucent
roof in between the two buildings and also the steel arch and stone
display item. The garage doors are 18' high, which are mandatory for
their business, and I brought in steel sections that are about 17' and
put a cross piece across and small steel horizontal trellis element with a
small I-beam on the top which is going to support the cable to support
the stone elements. There are also smaller articulated trellis elements
that are basically designed around the same shape but they're using
some of the old wood, which will be planed and cut to match the shape.
They've taken the same slope with a 10' plate height going up to about
16' and added translucent glazing to the 10' breezeway. The horizontal
corrugated steel wraps around the entire building, as well as on the
smaller building. They eliminated the rooftop canopy idea. There will
be six evaporative coolers mounted inside on the ridge and they'll vent
to 3' square roof ventilators. They altered their plan to work with their
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040810.MIN 13
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JULY 13, 2004
MINUTES
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez for preliminary approval subject to changes on drawing
submitted by the commission, which includes reducing the amount of
stonework on the 42' Avenue elevation. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with
Commissioner Vuksic absent.
3. CASE NO.: PP 04-20, CIZ 04-02
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred
Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a
14,115 square foot office building.
LOCATION: 42-277 Portola
ZONE: R-1
Mr. Smith stated that the property is currently zoned residential. In the
General Plan update, the Council dual designated the site to medium
density residential and office professional. Part of the office
professional direction was for staff to come up with more residential-
friendly architecture. Mr. Drell stated that they wanted to differentiate
offices between Fred Waring and Portola, which is still essentially a
residential area through this part of the City. They would like some sort
of standards that have more residential scale and character than what
you'd see on Fred Waring. Now that we have an application for a
building on Portola this would be the appropriate opportunity to define
and actually process along with this project some sort of an amendment
to the OP zone provide alternate standards for the smaller streets.
Does this project meet that expectation? Ultimately, the City Council
will make that judgement but we're going to try to offer some
suggestions in the form of an ordinance amendment to begin nailing
that concept down.
Mr. Smith stated that the site plan reflects the widened street right of
way in that Public Works wants an extra six feet. What the site plan
does not depict is the 12' right turn deceleration lane from southbound
Portola onto Catalina. This has been sketched in on the colored
version.
Mr. Smith commented that some residents were present wishing to
speak. The applicant has held neighborhood meetings. It was
G.Planning\Donna Quaiverwpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 9
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JULY 13, 2004
MINUTES
suggested that the commission hear from the applicant first and then
hear from the neighbors before giving any direction.
Chris McFadden, applicant, stated that in the interest of time I don't
mind pausing and responding to the objections from the neighbors.
There have been numerous favorable reviews from neighbors. Those
who are in favor of projects seldom show up to speak to that.
Commissioner Hanson commented that the building looks great.
Commissioner Gregory stated concern regarding the loss of
landscaping for the eventual street widening. Mr. Smith stated that it
may impact the setbacks. Mr. McFadden stated that he's met with
Public Works numerous times and this is the first time he's heard of the
12' deceleration lane. I have no objection to it but would've illustrated it
accordingly. Mr. Smith stated that he just found out this morning. Mr.
Drell asked if the deceleration lane would be put off until the road
widening or would it be put in now. Mr. Smith commented that it was
his understanding that it's a condition of the project. The curb will be
12' closer to the building than is currently shown.
Commissioner Lopez asked where the next closest commercial building
is located. Mr. Drell stated that eventually there will be more and more
office buildings on Portola.
Mr. McFadden commented that he wouldn't mind going all the way to
the City Council and then coming back to the Architectural Review
Commission to go over the details on the building. This is zoning
versus architecture. I'm presenting a project that has merit, but subject
to the entitlement the project has no merit. Mr. Drell stated that the City
Council has made a preliminary land use decision by designating the
property as OP. That is not a discussion of this body. The direction
was to come up with an alternate standard for OP that's a little bit more
residential in character. This body can provide input into that issue.
This building basically has been designed to meet the same standards
as those on Fred Waring. This is a pretty aggressive commercial
building. One would not describe it as more residential in scale than
what we're seeing on Fred Waring.
Ming Lo, resident, stated that the City doesn't want traffic coming in and
out of Portola. There's a projection of approximately 30 cars per hour
coming in and out of that size of a building. This is a projection and I
don't understand it. This office building has 59 parking places. If
they're putting in a deceleration lane on Portola to turn onto Catalina,
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver wpdocs Agmin\AR040713.MIN 10
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JULY 13, 2004
MINUTES
then Catalina is still a residential street. A deceleration lane is inviting
commercial traffic to come in on what's still considered a residential
street. The people next to me have a very nice house and have a good
gardener. I don't think that they plan on selling it. The driveway to the
building will be directly across the street from their driveway and mine.
We're the most affected by the situation. I don't have any plans of
selling this property. It's a rental but I have a lot of sentimental feelings
towards it. I pay a gardener. I like the property and I'm not planning on
selling it for office buildings. My feeling is that if this is going to be
commercial, I've seen some buildings around town (i.e. Always Open
MRI, dentist offices, etc...) that are nice and low key, which would be
acceptable in the neighborhood. Putting a turning lane which turns onto
a residential street doesn't make sense. There's a school at one end of
Portola and a school at the other end of Portola. There are a lot of
children going back and forth. There's a crosswalk lady on the corner.
It's not Fred Waring. It's not Monterey. It's a beautiful rendering but it's
way too much for this neighborhood. I've talked to other people who
live in the neighborhood who aren't here and haven't found anyone
who's anxious to sell their property and turn them into office buildings.
All the buildings behind him will never be commercial. It's a residential
area. It's a neighborhood that we're used to. This is far too much.
This building would look nice on Fred Waring or Monterey.
Commissioner Gregory made it clear to the audience the this
commission is not concerned with zoning. This will be addressed at the
Planning Commission. The ARC looks at architecture and how it looks.
Ramona Fletcher, resident, stated that she sat in on a general plan
meeting. Mr. Drell was there so he knows the multiple reasons for
leaving this area residential. Mr. Drell commented that this was not the
decision. Ms. Fletcher stated that it is on the plan to be residential. Mr.
Drell stated that the plan approved by the City Council was for office
professional and medium density residential. Ms. Fletcher stated that
she's been through this year after year after year with multiple
meetings. It was finally decided on the general plan and other things
that this would remain residential. Number two, there were supposed to
be notifications. We have a four foot easement that's been granted for
utilities. Our patios are right next to the easement. Our dining room
doors are within 15'-20' from Mr. McFadden's property line. No one
every notified us that this was going on, except for Mr. McFadden and
he didn't notify us, he notified the people who were along the western
edge. Mr. Drell stated that this is not a public hearing so we never
notify this meeting. When Mr. McFadden's project goes to the Planning
Commission, which will be a public hearing, that's when the neighbors
will get notices. The ARC is making a decision purely on architectural
design. The land use decision and the broader decisions are going to
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 11
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JULY 13, 2004
MINUTES
happen at the Planning Commission and the City Council. This is the
way the process is set up. We're not making a decision on those
fundamental issues that you're concerned about. That will happen at a
later date. Ms. Fletcher asked if scale was an issue. Mr. Drell stated
that scale is something that can be discussed at this meeting. Ms.
Fletcher stated that there will be trash cans sitting within 8' of her patio
and 12' from her dining room doors.
Commissioner Gregory explained that the way the system is set up
projects come to the ARC first whether or not they're going to be
approved by the Planning Commission or the City Council. The ARC
looks at how the building looks, how it makes them feel or if it is
residential in character. The applicant has already suggested that
instead of taking this through a detailed process through the ARC, why
not just leap-frog to Planning Commission to see if he has a project or
not. This makes sense. The ARC looks at the project from an
aesthetic perspective and that's it.
Paul Bowie, resident, stated that he owns the property at 44-401
Portola. Based on what this meeting is about today and based on the
comments that have been made, the beauty and the aesthetics and the
appropriateness of this building is simply out of place. This does not fit
the neighborhood or the community. This would be a commercial
island in a residential area of historical nature. Maybe the City Council
will want to have something like this, but this belongs someplace else in
a commercial corridor such as Fred Waring or someplace else. If there
is to be business on Portola Avenue, this proposal is completely beyond
magnitude and inappropriate. The community area around Portola is
single-family residential and single story. Mr. McFadden stated that this
is not correct. Mr. Bowie stated that it's not apartment building zoning,
nor do they have apartment buildings in the area. This is totally wrong.
This proposal looks like a huge apartment building. It doesn't belong
there.
Commissioner Gregory commented that he felt that the commission
thought that the building looks nice, but it's not residential in character.
This should be moved forward right to the Planning Commission. Mr.
Drell commented that it should be taken straight to the City Council
since that's where the residential scale standard program originated.
Maybe the City Council will have a study session on this general
concept.
Mr. McFadden stated that the project has to have some economic
viability so the property value has deteriorated from the amount of
buildable area. I don't mind going to a combination of two story and
single story, however, now I'm limited to OP. Everybody is worried
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN I
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
J U LY 13, 2004
MINUTES
about getting an MRI office or a dentist office, but that's not the case.
This is an OP zone. As the square footage comes down, I've got to get
my rents up and where am I going to go to justify that? I could go to
medical because I have ample parking to accommodate medical use.
This all needs to be worked through.
Mr. Drell stated that the Council likes to see changes associated with
zone changes. Due to the complication of the direction that we've
gotten to the general plan, it would probably be a good idea for us to
get direction from them in response to this project of what they meant
when they said "residential in character'. Ms. Fletcher asked if the
neighbors would be notified of the Council meeting. Mr. Drell stated
that they could do a standard public hearing notification of the study
session.
Mr. Bowie stated that his comments probably go beyond what this
meeting is all about today, but Mr. McFadden, I object to your attitude.
You belong out there in a commercial corridor. This is a residential
area.
Commissioner Lopez commented on a portion of the parking lot that
looked like it was a place where people might hang out. Have any site
line studies been done showing how this proposal might effect the
neighbors as far as views? Mr. McFadden stated that he's been to the
homes in the area and studied the site.
Mr. Drell stated that this isn't the first office building that's been built
next to a residential area. We've been doing it all over the place. In
general, the result has been favorably received by the adjacent
residences. The result has been a much quieter residential
neighborhood. In fact, the biggest complaint on Fred Waring is when
the houses were removed, suddenly the noise being generated by
traffic without a building in front of you turned out to be the significant
problem.
Ms. Fletcher asked if there would be any covered parking. Mr.
McFadden stated that there will be covered parking along the back
side. Ms. Fletcher asked if there would be a 6' wall. Mr. McFadden
commented that if the neighbors request a 7' wall across the back, then
the commission would consider granting that.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Oppenheim to continue the request and referred it to the City Council
for review as part of the zone change request. Motion carried 6-0-0-1
with Commissioner Vuksic absent.
G Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040713.MIN 13
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA a -04
r` �� ►c� = APPLICATION TO APPEAL G' (:)r^MIRO 14 I
a or.t DECISION OF THE -> '�.7 7d`''
(Name of Determining Body) -
n
Case No. 0 4\-7-c , L/Z O4, OZ Date of Decision: -2 4 —o4 o v m
Name of Appellant (--} 1S kv'r Phone Et( c3'
9- \4
Address `l 2- 9�� C)$.11•cCa De . Wit= .
Description of
Application or Matter Considered: ��;�
Its �� �
CF-4 .VICDV-t•TB((--
Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessary):
MylCo
Z -S `T C )p L- ��1Lalt�1� EjC 45/(N s� .
•
•
i natur g e of Appellant)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Date Appeal Filed: �� :J �'� � o2< aY
CYJ Fee Received: /V/ig
Treasurer's Receipt No. A(//-�- Received by: Ct/I>j
Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official:
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
COPY TO /Q /7/7
H:\rklassen\WPdata\WPDOCS\FORMS\appl to appeal.wpd _ /'
DATE V Rev 6/29/02
E RANCHO, ) �� _ 41Y � ICI
--tQ lel
Q
1 ___--27_, i i . ,:27., jMARIGOLD [ i111
t , - , 1 1 1 - - - u ,
FRED=WARING_D-_R,
SUBJECT
>„ 111 J
I PROPERTIES
� '�,,, SANTA ROSA WAY FR �` ' �Qg
CC
n,��,
3 Z Q ► Q � ",
3 _ p � �� z 3 OSA [
!__
%
� of `'L_ICT I M)
SMA •
i 2 4ej-4-Lj 0-.--n-- ./ all lit unn
___,,,,,,,__,.,1,_,_, , , I a
( --* .1:1
, ,E iis' '1'—1 L'-
CATALINA WAY �Q,, , GATAIINA-WAY
■■
Q Q big
�a
II '
WIN � ��EL CRTEZWAY --,O Air Awaits 4 i.____
.41iwAwz- A. ,
D E ANZA WAY
J.
k,• .J r\cv,
- 'i �O .QQ-L `SAN >� !
; '', 1 r 1 1
_,‹; I
'.?7
,(.7" , )V , 1MAR1A1ARINO I0,
City of Palm Desert LOCATOR MAP
w+e
s
r ,.---- APNs 627-131-041 thru -043 o soo
4
' Date: 8-16-2004
. ; ,� Feet
CHRISTOPHER ....-.,,
a r c h i t e c t
Mc PADDED
May 27, 2004
Dear Future Neighbor,
My name is Christopher McFadden. I am an architect and I have been actively seeking property for 5
years to acquire and build my own office. I have recently purchased 3 parcels at the NW corner of
Catalina and Portola and am looking forward to planting some roots.
Please find enclosed a copy of the Site Plan, Exterior Elevations and Artist Rendering of the proposed
project. One of the primary "balancing acts" I have as an Architect/ Owner is finding a good fit, both as a
neighbor and economically. In that regard I wish to submit this concept to you for review and
consideration prior to submittal to the City of Palm Desert for the formal approval process.
As the City of Palm Desert has grown and traffic has increased on the major thoroughfares, residential
projects directly facing these busy roads are quickly losing their economical and practical use. These
residential properties typically become less maintained and less economically viable compared to their
inboard counterparts.
The City of Palm Desert has implemented a couple of diffe,rent types of development procedures to
eliminate the downward spiral of these areas and enhance the sense of community. The models
implemented in the adjacent neighborhoods have been to acquire the roadside parcels through the
Redevelopment Agency, widen the roads, and add landscaping and tall sound abatement walls at the rear
of the inboard residences. This concept utilized along Fred Waring Drive has benefits and consequences.
The City purchases the offending parcels at Fair Market Value and/ or eminent domain. The finished
project increases the tax burden for perpetuity and the effectiveness of the sound abatement walls are
now known to be less effective than the second model of redevelopment. The aesthetic appeal of the
"backside" of these walls is also questionable.
The second model of redevelopment is to re-zone these parcels to a professional office use and allow
private developers to come in and negotiate with the homeowners on an individual basis (or group as
needed), to acquire the parcel(s). The new owners are then "conditioned" by the City to build facilities
further away from the residences, which shelter the in-board residences significantly better from traffic
volumes than the previous model. The edge landscaping and perimeter walls are also done much more
compatibly with the residential use than the sound abatement walls.
72-22 E FHA Waring, 204, ['elm Darri, Cll. r,2261) i eleplirine:(760) 24643016 Fe :(760)
1ghbor memo
Page two...
I am of course encouraged to pursue the second model of development described above. Due to the
complexity of issues, descriptions and concerns, I would like to meet with you Thursday, June 17, at 7:00
p.m. at the Valley Christian Assembly Church located at the SW corner of Portola and Fred Waring Drive.
Please feel free to contact me via letters, E-mail (cmcfadden@mmarc.com), or phone call any time prior to
this meeting. I would like to know your thoughts or if you can (or cannot attend). The purpose of this
informal get together is so you can put the name with the face, we can get to know each other and in
general be a good neighbor.
Regards,
al
C topper Mc 1•n
CMldi
72-f?,25 Fred uttering, uiie 204, Palm i] ri, Ct! 077(j Telenlinnc:(710) !f- 014 Fe;::(760)
� ITY Of PAD1 DES I
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
,�1 /t ' PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
gfir. TEL: 76o 346-06i I
1 �•"` FAX: 760 341-7098
........ m(o@palm•des rrt.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by Portola Properties/Chris McFadden for approval of a
change of zone from single family residential (R-1) to Office Professional (O.P.) and a precise
plan of design to allow construction of a 14,115 square foot, two-story office building on
property located at the northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Catalina Way known as 44-
277 Portola Avenue.
`_1—J \ I J kit .I A
MARIGOLD_DR
.
l f f '_ M L J Ilismais
_FM-WARING_DR_ 11
I I
�_ i l 1 I I SUBJECT
� PROPERTIES
SANTA ROSA WAY-' --' >-` ` ' I r
X-15: [Tirol
i,_ ,6,000,,Nociczs
Q SA CIR
iPi-1 ( Z OL1�/E aQ P O
i. Z CT ( SANS ��
t 'ELa
jv"'i Z=p +w�l-
:� v-Z— unip.
i
`i°C- �z / > i ` E.
61,
Mt
CATALINA WAY CATALINA-WAY
Iiiiii MIN VI
Emu ilm § ic II II C/N .. at
ill .15
all Ils
Ali NMI Mill un q ill
LEI�A�.'�-- 6,_EL CORTEZ WAY,, E
�� �—`DE ANZA WAY
�� 2.1r I A rI1fri-nffti „ c,
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
August 26, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission
Paul and Barbara W.Bowie
71-774 Chuckawalla Way
Palm Desert,CA 92260
June 25,2004
CASE#PP04-20
Change of Zone 04-02
Portola Properties j
Planning Commission RE C E I • E D
City of Palm Desert . '' 2004
73-510 Fred Waring Drive _
Palm Desert,CA 92260
rIOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Dear Commission Members: ^ "\ OF"aLR1 DESERT
This letter is a formal objection to the Christopher McFadden project proposed for the northwest corner of Portola
Avenue and Catalina. We are the owners of the property located at 44-401 Portola Avenue.
Although the recent widening of Portola Avenue to four lanes does permit more even traffic flow than was
previously possible, the "McFadden Project" would represent a zone change which would create a substantial
commercial island bounded by land of historical residential usage. This zone change would be illogical.
The proposed size of the Project is disproportionate to the other small commercial uses already in place such as the
Portola Dental office on Portola north of Highway 111 as well as those small businesses on Monterey Avenue east
of Westfield SHOPPINGTOWN where several former residences have been successfully converted to commercial
use.
By the developer's own statement on June 17, 2004, the Project would create approximately 280 vehicle trips per
day into,out of,and near the Project. All traffic would funnel off of Portola Avenue and onto Catalina for entry into
the Project's vehicular parking area. The obvious result will be traffic congestion in proximity to the
Portola/Catalina intersection and on a residential street (Catalina). Permitting the Project to be implemented would
place a greater burden on Portola,strengthening the case for those who envision Portola as a six-lane route.The City
of Palm Desert must embrace a plan of equilibrium regarding traffic density. Plans to widen Portola Avenue to six
lanes must be abandoned.Backed into a cove bound by mountains,the City is geographically bound to a traffic flow
limit. It does not have the flexibility to accommodate equal flow north, south, east and west. Simply widening
north-south streets between Interstate 10 and Highway 111 does not satisfy logical development, equilibrium or
stability.
In his public presentation on June 17, the developer told the group in attendance that the area near his proposed
Project will benefit from its implementation. This may be conjecture. The opposite could well occur. The interface
of a large commercial project surrounded by residential dwellings could result in lower land values, resale
difficulties and the beginning of community malaise.
All successful communities rely on skilled planning with equilibrium in land use elements. The recent intent of the
City to permit landowners to make selection for the future regarding their neighborhoods on and near Portola
Avenue must be supported and protected. A project of the magnitude of "McFadden Project", surrounded by
residential use, would be a"block-buster"; the first step in the destruction and demise of a large residential section
of the City.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Bowie
Barbara W.Bowie
September 1, 2004 CASE #PP04-20
T Change of Zone 04-02
Paul &Barbara W. Bowie RECEIVED Portola Properties
71-774 Chuckawalla Way
Palm Desert, CA 92260 ' 2004
Planning Commission OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We are the owners of the residential property located at 44-401 Portola Avenue. This letter is a
formal objection to the above referenced CASE#PP04-02. The proposed project is inappropriate
to the established residential community in which it would be located in several respects:
• Present surrounding residential community is in a condition of maturity, stability and
efficiency of design. Introduction of a commercial development, as proposed, is
inconsistent with current land use. Weaving and blending of the proposed building
into the present community cannot be achieved due to its height and square footage.
• Number of vehicle trips per day(approximately 280) is certain to create congestion in
and at the intersection of Portola Avenue and Catalina Way; Catalina Way being
designated as a residential street.
• Current four lanes of Portola Avenue between Fred Waring and Highway 111 appear
to represent a "build-out" condition for traffic flow. Future widening of the street
would most probably necessitate the taking of additional property from residences
facing the west side of Portola Avenue. Such action is considered to be untenable.
Portola Avenue traffic matters have been separately forwarded to the Council,
Engineer Greenwood and Planner Drell.
• Total amount of future business-use along the east side of Portola Avenue between
Fred Waring and Highway 111 appears to be impossible due to the depth of any
potential lots. Business-use on the west side appears limited by the existence of
occupied residences which, by their appearance, are stable.
• Joining several lots in the proposed CASE appears to be a developer-created
opportunity considering the anomaly of some of the contiguous parcels. Joining of
the lots has greater consistency of land use for residential rather than commercial
purposes.
The proposed Project is suitable for placement in a designated Business Park which channels
client-traffic into a designated and known zone of business activity.
Beginning in February of this year, the undersigned set about to implement certain principal
improvements to their aforementioned property. These included:
• Making possible the ability of a vehicle to leave the property without backing onto
Portola Avenue, thus removing a potential traffic hazard.
• Replacing a street-facing chain link fence and driveway gate with a slump stone wall.
CASE#PP04-20
Change of Zone 04-02
Portola Properties
Page 2
• Installation of a rolling electric gate to replace the chain link gate. (This upgrade removed
the need for a vehicle to stop with possible partial exposure onto Portola Avenue prior to
opening the chain link manual gate).
• Removal of the sidewalk USPS mail box.
• Ornamental landscaping in front of slump stone wall for visual appeal.
These improvements were completed with a substantial fmancial investment and all required
permits have been signed as complete. This work represents concerns for safety, retention of
property value, architectural appeal, community beatification, and respect for the future of this
residential community.
The request for a zone change to Commercial Use and the submitted development proposal both
warrant denial by the Planning Commission.
Resp ctfully sub ed, i.
ea,y62:
-s
Paul Bowie Barbara W. Bowie
Mr. and Mrs. George M. Ezmirlian
363 West Spazier Avenue
Burbank, CA 91506-3323
July 10, 2004
c -o
Mayor,City Council and :E
Architectural Commission
City Hall-Civic Center u�
73510 Fred Waring Drive -o u,
Palm Desert, CA. 92660 -+o
n >
Dear Sir or Madam rr,
RE: Christopher McFadden Portola Project
We are homeowners of property that backs up to the Christopher McFadden Portola Project, our second home,
and located at 73965 Olive Court, Palm Desert. All mail pertaining to this address must be sent to the address in
the top right hand corner of this letter, as we do not accept or receive any mail at the Palm Desert address. It is
one of the homes in the Portola Place development of twenty-one homes. We are most happy with our home,
and enjoy being there whenever possible. Recently our neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Gary Fletcher,told us about the
Christopher McFadden Portola Project, giving us a copy of the proposed plans and changes this past week, as
we couldn't attend the meeting Mr. McFadden held on Thursday, June 17, 2004, 7:00 p.m. at the Valley
Christian Assembly Church, SW corner of Portola and Fred Waring Drive. We understand only a very few
homeowners were notified about this meeting,and we wonder why we were not notified.
We are opposed to this project. Let us explain the reasons. First of all the zoning, at present is R3, This project
requires a zoning change, Although this project may be an improvement to the area, this project will create
more traffic, more noise, and more problems. We feel the property should be redeveloped into condominiums.
The location of the trash receptacle, according to the proposal would be right behind our property, less than ten
feet; and that is something we are totally opposed to, because of the extra noise of early morning trash trucks,
and the rotting refuse, and the possibility of vermin or undesirable critters.
The building of this project will cause our property to depreciate, rather than appreciate in value. Who would
rectify the depreciation in future years? Is the City of Palm Desert prepared to do that? Is Christopher
McFadden prepared to do that? Why haven't the property owners, or residents within 500 feet notified in
writing, by the Architectural Commission or by Christopher McFadden? Why must we always get word from a
neighbor or read in the papers about projects such as this one? I certainly hope we will be notified in writing of
other projects or changes that will reflect on our properties in the future. Mrs. Gary Fletcher will be representing
us at any meeting that we are not notified in sufficient time, giving us the opportunity to attend any meeting.
Sincerely
Marjorie J. Ezmirlian and George M. E Tian • ` . ` , .
1-ci Li
CC: Christopher McFadden, Architectural Commission and M/M Gary Fletcher ;: 206
{ic '!4' D!5:R
ow- 74c pc:
1,iy/° A'/
Mr. and Mrs. George M. Ezmirlian
363 West Spazier Avenue
Burbank, CA 91506-3323
July 10, 2004
RECEIVED
Mayor, City Council and Q 3 2004
Architectural Commission
City Hall-Civic Center OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
73510 Fred Waring Drive CITY OF PALM DESERT
Palm Desert, CA. 92660
Dear Sir or Madam
RE: Christopher McFadden Portola Project
We are homeowners of property that backs up to the Christopher McFadden Portola Project, our second home,
and located at 73965 Olive Court, Palm Desert. All mail pertaining to this address must be sent to the address in
the top right hand corner of this letter, as we do not accept or receive any mail at the Palm Desert address. It is
one of the homes in the Portola Place development of twenty-one homes. We are most happy with our home,
and enjoy being there whenever possible. Recently our neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Gary Fletcher, told us about the
Christopher McFadden Portola Project, giving us a copy of the proposed plans and changes this past week, as
we couldn't attend the meeting Mr. McFadden held on Thursday, June 17, 2004, 7:00 p.m. at the Valley
Christian Assembly Church, SW corner of Portola and Fred Waring Drive. We understand only a very few
homeowners were notified about this meeting, and we wonder why we were not notified.
We are opposed to this project. Let us explain the reasons. First of all the zoning, at present is R3, This project
requires a zoning change, Although this project may be an improvement to the area, this project will create
more traffic, more noise, and more problems. We feel the property should be redeveloped into condominiums.
The location of the trash receptacle, according to the proposal would be right behind our property, less than ten
feet; and that is something we are totally opposed to, because of the extra noise of earlymorning
trash trucks,
and
the rottingrefuse, and the possibility p li of vermin or undesirable critte
rs.
s.
The buildingof this project will cause our property to depreciate, rather than appreciate in value. Who would
rectify the depreciation in future years? Is the City of Palm Desert prepared to do that? Is Christopher
McFadden prepared to do that? Why haven't the property owners, or residents within 500 feet notified in
writing, by the Architectural Commission or by Christopher McFadden? Whymust we alwaysget
y word from a
neighbor or read in the papers about projects such as this one? I certainly hope we will be notified in writing of
other projects or changes that will reflect on our properties in the future. Mrs. Gary Fletcher will be representing
us at any meeting that we are not notified in sufficient time, giving us the opportunity to attend any meeting.
Sincerely
jyeAr_e_iie7H
4,1„,e_i_Zr,
Marjorie J. Ezmirlian and George M. Ezm' an
CC: Christopher McFadden, Architectural Commission and M/M Gary Fletcher
Ming C. Lowe
. 1 _' '1..i T.
' 14.E.1.)
AUG 2 0 2004
august 19th, 2004
t)'!.MeNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
'T.'OFPA04DESERT
dear city council of palm desert,
with this letter is a rough reproduction of some of the homes in my neighbor-
hood that will be affected and who feel the proposed office building on the south
corner of portola and catalina way is an extremely unsettling idea.
our neighborhood includes elementary and middle schools with crosswalk assistants
for children on both north and south ends of portola... and on catalina way, a
residential street, we have a senior center, assisted living quarters and residences.
there are no business offices in our neighborhood.
we, who are wishing to be as quiet and untrafficked as possible, will appreciate any
help from the city in preserving this historical neighborhood in palm desert.
sincerely,
ming c. lowe
ps. i have a personal grievance....the proposed parking lot for 59 cars with a projected
count of 38 cars an hour, in and out, is just 36 feet from my and my neighbor, mr. don
kennedy's, driveways on our 'residential' street of catalina way...and the proposed
height of 18 feet for this building is excessive in our thinking. it does not match the
existing low line of our neighborhood and will 'forever' change the skyline of palm
trees and blue sky, of which we are so fond.
P.O. Box 289 Palm Desert Ca. 92261 Ph. 760-349-3369 www.mingclowe.corn
0.4e J i (ice/
September 3, 2004
City Of Palm Desert RECEIVED
73-510 Fred Waring Dr. 0 3 2004
Palm Desert, 92260-2578
`:OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PLANNING COMMISSION
RE: Portola Properties/Chris McFadden
Public Hearing 09/07/2004
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20
In August of 2003 my husband and I purchased our home at 73925 Catalina Way which
is located on the corner of San Jose across the street from this project. We moved here
from Burbank where we were business owners. Our business lease did not expire until
February of this year so we did not actually move into our home until March 2004. The
notice for the community meeting that Mr. McFadden held to explain his project was sent
to our old Burbank address and by the time it was forwarded to us the meeting had
already been held.
I have had a telephone conversation with Mr. McFadden about his project and I have also
been to the planning dept. to look at the plans to familiarize myself with this project as
much as possible. There is one thing about the layout that is of great concern to me and
too many of my neighbors that have children. This is the design of the parking lot
entrance that brings street traffic from Portola that normally would not be coming onto
our residential street. Currently the only non-residential traffic is from the Senior
Citizens Center. This however is not a problem as this traffic mostly enters and exits
West of San Pascual. Also the Seniors are slow drivers and have respect for our
neighborhood.
We have had two children in the neighborhood hit by cars since we've purchased our
home. Thank God the worse injury was a broken leg and a bent up bicycle. One of the
drivers involved in these accidents was in fact a Senior who was traveling about 10
MPH. The other driver had come onto the street in error.
I am not against Mr. McFadden's project but the residents of my neighborhood would
like both the entrance and the exit to the parking lot be on Portola Ave.. The plans show
the office building on Portola with the parking lot in the back leaving room only for the
parking lots exit onto Portola, thus causing the parking lots entrance to be on Catalina
Way. I am wondering if the parking lot and the beautiful landscaping it is supposed to
have could be on Portola and the office building be behind the parking lot. This way both
the exit and the entrance could be from Portola. OR maybe Mr. McFadden could
decrease the width of his building to allow a second driveway allowing entry from
Portola OR the very common"one wide driveway" that allows both entrance and exit.
Our neighborhood has taken a giant leap for the better the last couple of years. New
families that are homeowners and business owners have moved in and their homes are
being remolded and upgraded. We have the Palma Village Neighborhood Park going in
at the other end of the neighborhood where we can walk with
8h our children....agam
keeping out the cars.
We certainly are not against the Re-Development and the growth in our community. Our
only objective here is to keep excess traffic and strangers out of our residential
neighborhood and keep it safe for the children.
Sincerely, /_
tc,(AJO-
Kammie Tavares
73925 Catalina Way
Palm Desert, CA 92260
760-346-8295
i► .
CITY OF PALM DESERT September 2, 2004
Planning Commission Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20
73-510 Fred Waring Drive OPPOSE
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
Dear Commission Members,
As concerned property owners we are totally opposed to Mr. McFadden being
granted a Zone change and placing an office building on this residential
property. Some of the opposition is based on the following:
1. Just a few years ago we appealed the recommendation to change Portola
to an office/professional zone and our appeal was found valid. After
that ruling we attended multiple meetings and presented a multitude of
reasons why this area should remain residential. And the decision to do
so was represented on Palm Desert's General Plan. All those pedestrian,
truck and car traffic, privacy, safety, etc. , etc. concerns are just as
valid today as they were a couple of years ago. . .maybe even more so!
2. Though there are many office/professional zoned properties available
throughout the city, Mr. McFadden has chosen this Zoned Residential
site because, as he stated, it wasn't as expensive. However, it will
be quite costly to the neighboring property owners! Should the city
allow this zoning change, the concerned owners property equity value
will suffer an immediate loss. Please tell us. . .who will compensate
these owners for their losses. Will the responsibilty be the city's
(for changing the zoning) or Mr. Mcfadden's (for erecting his building)
or both?
3. In response to questions, asked by Ron Gregory (Architectural Review
Commission-7/13/04) , Mr. Drell said this was a "test case". . .that a
Council member wanted Portola to be zoned 0/P. We have already been
"tested" many times! Please put an end to this biennial upheaval of
our neighborhood and the costs of our time, funds and tax dollars!
Finally, those of us who have been told that Mr. McFadden has a "friend"
in City Hall, personally believe that ALL the residents, who call the
city of Palm Desert home, have friends in City Hall.
We respectfully await your decision on this very upsetting matter. Once
again. . .PLEASE KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD A NEIGHBORHOOD!
Sincerely,
62/C-/.2.) _
Ramona and Gary Fletcher
CC: City Council 73969 Olive Court
Palm Desert, Ca. , 90226
RECj V EJ� (760) 776-1915
� D
U 3 2004
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2292
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO OFFICE
PROFESSIONAL (O.P.) AND A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN
FOR A 14,115 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY OFFICE
BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND CATALINA WAY
KNOWN AS 44-277 PORTOLA AVENUE.
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-02 AND PP 04-20
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
of PORTOLA PROPERTIES/CHRIS McFADDEN, for approval of the above described
project; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its actions, as described below:
CHANGE OF ZONE:
1 . The City is concurrently processing an amendment to the O.P. standards.
The building as proposed is not consistent with the O.P. standards proposed
in the code amendment.
2. The change of zone is premature at this time.
PRECISE PLAN:
1 . Without approval of the change of zone, the proposed office complex is not
consistent with the zoning. Accordingly, the precise plan must be denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby deny Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and
PP 04-20.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2292
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of September, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, JONATHAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
SABBY Jc\NAT AN, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DKAF SUBJECT T(.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 — RiVIS1ON
F. Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20 - PORTOLA PROPERTIES,
Applicant
Request for approval of a change of zone from single family
residential (R-1 ) to office professional (O.P.) and a precise
plan of design to allow construction of a 14,115 square
foot two-story office building on property located at the
northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Catalina Way
known as 44-277 Portola Avenue.
Mr. Smith noted that the request was twofold. The applicant was
seeking approval of a change of zone from R-1 to O.P. for three lots
located at the northwest corner of Portola and Catalina. The second part
of the request was for the approval of the two-story office professional
building in the location shown on the site plan on display. Generally the
building had been located adjacent to the intersection with parking along
the west side of the property taking its main access from Catalina. There
is a proposed egress from the parking lot at the mid point of the lot onto
Portola. That would be a right-turn only egress onto Portola.
As indicated in the previous discussion and in the staff report, the
General Plan provides for O.P. or medium density residential in this area.
The applicant prepared his request based on the current O.P. standards.
PP q
The proposal complies with all those standards. The proposal did not
comply with the recommended code amendment the Commission just
acted upon. So the chart on page 3 where staff analyzed the comparison
between the current O.P. and the proposed O.P. was a little off in that
they took out the building length criteria. But the building before the
Commission, the architecture of the building is two-stories. Initially it was
at 25 feet maximum. In an effort to obtain approval from architectural
review commission, the applicant submitted an amended plan which
showed the building at a maximum of 22 feet. Even at that, architectural
review could not support the request. They didn't feel it was residential
in character. But staff did analyze both forms of the request.
As heard during the discussion on the code amendment, there was
neighborhood input in that the applicant did hold a meeting with the
38
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TI.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 It - REVISION
neighbors back in June. Basically they heard the concerns previously. It
was traffic related and it was building mass related. Planning Commission
also received letters of opposition which were included with their
packets.
Generally, the precise plan before the Commission is not consistent with
the ordinance amendment which the Commission just recommended.
Consequently, they couldn't act on the proposal.
In the staff report staff indicated that at best the proposal is premature
until the Council were to say they think two-story and 25 feet is
acceptable here or at worst it doesn't comply with the proposed
amendment which the Commission recommended. Given the direction of
the City Council during the General Plan discussions, staff had no choice
but to recommend denial of the precise plan. Without an acceptable
precise plan, staff wasn't prepared to recommend approval of the change
of zone. Staff was recommending that Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-
20 be denied.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that the staff report indicates that the
applicant filed a timely appeal to the ARC action, which was an action of
denial and asked for the status of that appeal. Mr. Smith explained that
it was pending. Staff would refer this action along with the appeal to the
ARC action to the Council for a consolidated consideration.
Chairperson Jonathan wasn't suggesting that it was desirable, but
technically there are two applications before the commission and one is
a change of zone. He asked if it was technically possible to approve a
change of zone without approving the precise plan. Again, not that they
would be well advised to do so, but he wanted to know if that was an
option. Mr. Smith said it would be consistent with the General Plan.
Chairperson Jonathan said that if that were to happen, it would fall into
the newly amended standards as recommended. Mr. Smith said yes, if
it was adopted by Council.
There were no further questions. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public
hearing and asked for commission comments. He explained that the
39
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION . SUBJECT
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 RAFT-
procedure was to let the applicant address the commission, then give
others an opportunity to address the commission, and then the applicant
would be given the final opportunity to readdress the commission.
MR. CHRISTOPHER McFADDEN, the architect and owner of this
property, addressed the commission. He thought that
Commissioner Tschopp brought up a really good point during the
last agenda item's discussion and that was the economic viability
of all of this. He said this was really sad, that last motion. He
thought he was being denied land use that others have been
entitled to in the O.P. use in the event that does get approved.
This building that they designed was a labor of a lot of work.
He has been in this desert since 1963, coming down here with his
parents, grew up down here. He ended up apprenticing/mentoring
down here under architects and worked on some real visionary
projects in his early days down here. Mission Hills Country Club,
which was a multiple family project. It had single story, dual-
story/two story integrated throughout. A beautiful project. He
could remember working on Desert Island, a six-story multifamily
project condominium. He could remember as a young man
standing up on the sixth floor of the spancrete slabs looking out
across the freeway and envisioning that some day this desert
would be developed clear out to the Chocolate Mountains. It
wasn't like that back in the early 70's, but look at it now. They
were steadily gaining that way.
There had been a lot of vision used in this community. Palm Desert
has been at the forefront of that and he has always been proud to
be in Palm Desert. He was licensed at the age of 27 in 1987 and
opened up his office in Palm Desert in 1989. He has invested in
this community. He taught out at C.O.D. and paid back into his
industry and had many young mentors and apprentices himself.
Recently he got the opportunity to work on the Intrawest project,
which was a two-story multifamily residential project of nice
character, some of it based on the spline program that they did at
40
MINUTES
DRAFT
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT Tf
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 um REVISION
Mission Hills. It was a very successful formula. They brought that
to this project. This wasn't the first project he looked at. He has
been wanting to do this now for years, open his own office
building and have his own office inside there. This was it. They
looked at four or five other projects and due to economic viability,
that was a fact of life, they couldn't get them to pencil out. It just
didn't work. He was looking at a 10- to 12-year performa on this
project and now it is 12 to 15 depending on additional conditions,
including sinking the building for another $100,000 to $150,000
in expense to comply and get this thing a little more residential in
feel.
He stated that he has done numerous commercial office buildings
next to multifamily projects, which is what they had here. This
was not a past formula that hasn't proven successful. He could
remember doing this over on Larrea Street. This building
architecture complies with a significant portion of buildings
immediately around it, the newer buildings. Currently the economic
lifeline on these things is declining in this area. He agreed with
95% of the staff report on this. He thought they all read it and he
didn't need to reiterate all of those issues, except for its
conclusion.
He wanted to start with a "Phil Drellian" quotation that it is a
"synergistically strong community." They've heard that before. If
they pull back and look at Portola here and start with Valley
Christian Assembly on the corner, that was neither commercial nor
residential. Churches fit into neighborhoods either way they go.
Valley Christian acquired property and that corner would change
over the next ten years. They've acquired houses along there,
inboard projects along there and that was likely to change.
The project that was submitted to the Commission complies with
the eight-foot movement on Portola. They accounted for the traffic
flows along there. There are some serious problems along Portola
right now.
41
MINUTES D `' SU$)E�f TC
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION - SUBJ tO�tl
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
As he told them, this is the fifth project they've looked at. He had
his real estate agent go out and look at five or six different areas
they were looking at in the city of Palm Desert over the years and
this was years of development. He started on this project in
November of last year. They approached the homeowners on this
project. It wasn't on the market; it wasn't for sale.
They had a meeting here about the overlay that Council was so
gracious to provide for, one that hadn't been mentioned tonight
yet and that was the open space. An O.S. designation was also
put on this, along with the O.P. Council members and the City
have been looking at this a long time.
What do they do along this area? This was their vision. They were
trying to accommodate a lot of concerns along there. Right now
he had a home with an abandoned swimming pool in there. He has
abandoned vehicles along this area. The home on that corner now
he thought was a great candidate for a controlled burn. The
economic viability of all these projects along there now, he was
renting a house in there that is only at 75-80% of market value
here in the city of Palm Desert.
Portola is a dangerous road for a resident. He couldn't imagine
putting multifamily here and having families coming out onto this
street and in and out on Portola. That would create much more of
a problem. As far as he was concerned, take the O.S. and give
him back his half a million plus he has invested in the property
here. He would go away and find some place else to develop.
But he has a vision, too, as do a number of the leaders. And this
building was his vision. This building was sensitive to the
neighbors. It provided much more open space than what is
currently along that frontage right now. He allowed the property
owner immediately to the north of him to come in on this deal and
in regards to the zone change, he was including that property in
the zone change so he could follow on the coat tails of this
project. He was giving him deeded egress over to Catalina along
42
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT T(
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 n FT.� REVISION
that. They were providing for a little bit flow out to Portola for a
safer vehicular movement.
He said they used some nice materials on this. He could sink this
building three feet down. That worked for him. It is an expense,
but he was willing to do it, adjust the site conditions, he could
change some roof lines, but there were some elements in this
design (referring to the elevations on display) and it was a very
slow pitched roof to comply with some of the looks of the projects
immediately to the north of this. There was 150 feet from the
two-story townhouses and some of those gable elements were
designed to have some compatibility. There are two story projects,
the town homes up on Santa Rosa that are setback to Portola, so
it is part of the same elevation. Across the street at Portola del
Sol, there are two story inboard multifamily projects in there, too.
This was the widest component along Portola there. Portola del
Sol and Portola Village, which is to the north of this project, are
significantly set back from Portola. He walked this project for a
month before getting started on the design. This was the ninth
design. This was the one that penciled out for them long term so
that he could move in and take 3,000 square feet and have his
own office building in there.
What happens in there is these restrictions come down and the
project is restricted in size and the cost per square foot goes way
up. That's how they get a rate of return on these things. What
would happen now with this project is if it goes to single story,
the use has to become more intense and basically only medical use
is the only thing that justifies those kinds of rates in the rentals of
these things.
As they look up and down Portola and see the direction that it is
going, when they did the first meeting and got the overlay on this
thing with this as a suggestion, his real estate agent was just
pounded by two dozen different owners who were ready so sell
their residences, to the north and to the south of Fred Waring
along here. People want to get out of there. Commercial properties
43
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION • SUBJECT it
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 AFT — Ry,sipN
are being proposed to the south of this. Ford Realty has a
commercial project. This area is going to change. It might not with
him now. The other thing is what they were doing along Fred
Waring. People want sound abatement walls and landscaped
areas. He couldn't stand in the way of that. He was just one
individual.
Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. McFadden to bring his presentation to
a conclusion.
Mr. McFadden said he agreed with 95% of the staff report except
for the few details with regard to some of the relationships with
the two-story components around it and it's conclusion, especially
with the limiting of things on the square footage size and story
heights.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked him. He opened the discussion for
testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. He noted that he had a few
Request to Speak cards and asked if Ramona Fletcher wished to speak.
MRS. RAMONA FLETCHER addressed the commission. She noted
that the Commission had her letter. She wouldn't go over all that
again. What she did want to add was what she previously said
about having a residential area here where they have people 24/7.
They would eliminate a great many of the problems the multiple of
reasons they went through when they sat through all those
meetings. She wouldn't go through all of those. Some of the
people want to speak on the specifics. But she heard someone say
tonight that this is a blighted area. She didn't think this was a
blighted area. A few homes that are being let go she felt that the
City's policy itself needs to be taken into consideration. They kept
them in flux for years about Portola as to whether it would be
widened, whether it would be O.P. It seemed to her that they
were addressing some commission approximately every 18
months.
44
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
"' SUBJECT If
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 rt - REVIS10N
This is a residential neighborhood. They have the schools, they
have kids that are walking up and down these very narrow
sidewalks going to all these schools and from all these schools.
Office professional didn't belong in there. She knew Mr. McFadden
was a wonderful person. She would love to have him as a
neighbor. If he wanted to build a house there, she would be the
first one to take him cake.
But in the meantime, what she really wanted to say to the
commission is please leave them residential. The whole of Portola
from Gerald Ford all the way up and around the corner and run into
Monterey, for the majority of the places, except for Highway 1 1 1
and a little bit on Country Club, it is residential. All the new homes
are residential. They have a few places on major thoroughfares
that are commercial. Keep them there.
The General Plan that everyone worked on in 2002 was thought
out. There was nothing wrong with it. Stick with the plan they had
in 2002. Try to keep this whole street compatible to what it is for
those miles and let their kids have one street that isn't just parking
lots and office professional, markets or whatever. And for them,
too.
The City needed to make it definite and stop having them come
and spend their money, time and all their efforts all the time. It
made them afraid to even add a new tree or to paint it because
they don't know if they are going to be taken away in the next
year. It certainly didn't give them a lot of feeling of security. That
was the best thing she could say or the only thing she could really
say that it comes down to. She asked them to please think about
this and leave this area residential and let them do what they can
to keep the historic area. They have office professional buildings
all over and there are even zones for that on the 2002 General
Plan. She thanked everyone for listening to her.
MR. PAUL BOWIE addressed the commission. He noted that the
Commission received a letter that he submitted on September 1
45
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ` SUBJECT ��
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 � RCVLS10N
F !"11 AFT
and his points were made in the letter and he didn't need to repeat
them. Other than to reinforce part of the points by saying that
they have made some investment into the property they own there
at 44-401 Portola in recent time. They have made certain
monetary investments into the property to improve the property to
increase its efficiency to make it have great appeal. Those
statements were made in his letter. And they did this because they
believe in the area and in the residency and the residences there
and the people that are in the area. He just wanted to reaffirm the
wishes of himself, his wife and the other people that residential is
the flavor of that area. He thanked them.
MS. KAMMIE TAVARES, 73-925 Catalina Way, said their home is
at the corner of Catalina and San Jose, which would be cater
corner from the back of this project. She said they have lived here
since March and she canvassed the neighborhoods and had been
speaking to her neighbors about the project since they are the new
kids on the block. What she found is that it is largely a family
neighborhood. Families and lots of kids. The last two years it had
really grown to become that. People have bought these older
homes and remodeled them. The neighborhood had really become
upgraded the last couple of years and part of the problem with this
project is they don't have sidewalks in their neighborhood. With an
office building, even with just the entrance on Catalina Way and
an exit on Portola where they can only turn right, people who are
not going in that direction are going to turn around at the closest
street possible, which is Catalina, and they'll just do a U on
Catalina and probably go down toward San Pablo. They have
adults and children walking down those streets because they don't
have sidewalks.
They have a public park planned on De Anza. There was a
newspaper article that came out last week about the park where
the residents, adults and children could walk and keep the cars out
of the neighborhood. She thought the main concern about families
in the neighborhood is traffic from an office complex coming down
46
MINUTES �+�,
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION D 'J AF SUBJECT T(.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - REVISION
their street in a neighborhood where there are lots of kids and no
sidewalks. She thanked them.
MR. DOUG WALKER, the owner of 44-326 San Jose Avenue,
addressed the commission. He said that property is located at the
corner of San Jose and Catalina. It was his old home and they
were currently using it as a rental, although they were going to
have their daughter and her husband living there shortly, so they
were really concerned about the integrity of the residential
neighborhood. He mirrored what the previous person said. Among
their greatest concerns, not just this project, but if office
professional or even medium residential went in on Portola would
be an increase in traffic along Catalina. As was stated, there are
no sidewalks in that area and one thing that hadn't been
mentioned tonight, as possible mitigation, and he didn't know if
the City had considered the possibility of turning some of that area
along Portola into an area similar to what has been done with Fred
Waring where there are actually bike paths, a greenbelt, something
that would mitigate a number of issues that have been discussed
here this evening.
He said they resolved his concern about the height of the building
in their previous discussion. Since their property would be
immediately behind the proposed project, they have concern that
people in that structure being able to look down, even without
intending to, into their backyard and into the windows of the
home. Some has been mitigated, but if it turned out to be a two-
story structure, even if it was lowered there would need to be
some mitigation in terms of a walkway on any second story that
would obstruct the view of being able to look down into the
residential areas.
He commended Mr. McFadden on the job he had done if in fact
there were office professional buildings in the area. From having
a chance to meet with him, he thought he had taken a few things
into consideration to try and blend in, but their sense was that it
would be preferable not to go the route of commercial
47
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 ; , it' SUBJECT TI
T. REVISION
development because of the traffic and noise problems. And if for
p
some reason in the future this commission deemed it appropriate,
along with the Council, to recommend office professional zoning,
he hoped whenever that occurred that there would be a concurrent
discussion about landscaping, appropriate kinds of walls that have
gone up in other places in the city, sidewalks that would allow for
mitigation of the traffic and noise, and safety issues. But he hoped
they would pass along or think about the idea of possibly doing
something along Portola that has worked so well in another part
of the city. He thanked them.
MRS. ANN WALKER addressed the commission. She said she and
her husband shared a lot of the same feelings about this. They
have owned the house behind that property for 30 years. They
have been in Palm Desert since 1975. It has been single family the
whole time. There was a time when the neighborhood was kind of
a slum, but it was really turning around and turning into a neat
neighborhood.
Her three concerns with this project were one, privacy. The
Commission pretty much helped them with that by making it single
story because as Doug said, their daughter was moving in there
October 1 and she didn't want everybody looking down into their
living room and two of their bedrooms, so privacy was her number
one concern. Even though they didn't go to Mr. McFadden's June
meeting because of her husband's dad dying, they did talk to him
later at his office and he was willing to work with them as far as
making the wall higher. He had a six-foot wall and they wanted at
least seven. So he was willing to talk to them. But making it single
story helped her a lot.
Noise and traffic were the other concerns. They lived on Fairway
Drive for about 14 years until they had to move, and keeping the
zoning R-1 as Fairway Drive is did not solve the traffic and noise
problems. She wouldn't want to live on Portola and moved off of
Fairway. But privacy, traffic and noise and the way that is set up,
most of the traffic would go in right across their back yard in and
48
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 D
AFT- REVISION
SUBJECT TC
out of Catalina. If they could cut it down to one story instead of
two they would cut the traffic in half. She thanked the
commission for their recommendation on the last item.
MS. JEAN MARTIN, 44-276 San Jose Avenue, addressed the
commission. Her property is just to the west of this project facing
the parking lot. Her backyard would be up against the parking lot.
Having 58 parking spaces back there, she just couldn't imagine
emissions from automobiles going in and out of there.
She again had to address the traffic on Catalina Street. It is strictly
residential, no sidewalks. They have children and school buses.
The elderly coming from the senior center take their morning walks
and two care facilities. Those people even get out in the morning
and do their walk up and down Catalina Street.
They had two youngsters hit by automobiles in the last year in
broad daylight. So they could see that there is a problem there.
She has lived in Palm Desert since 1952 since before most of
them were born and had been in that house since 1960. She
thanked them for their time.
MS. MING LOWE, 73-985 Catalina Way, addressed the
commission. She bought that property in 1967. She said she went
around in the heat and photographed some of the houses that
would be abutting the proposed project. She didn't see any weeds
and everyone seemed to be taking pretty good care of their
homes. It is a neighborhood and there is a school on either end of
Portola. There were cross walk people helping children across
streets and that is just a really terrible way of looking at it. If they
could, they would see that all the surrounding buildings in the
neighborhood are probably about 13 to 15 feet. They are very low.
Her biggest concern was that her driveway and her neighbor's
driveway are 36 feet, as she said in her letter that she hoped the
commission had, from the proposed entrance to the McFadden
parking lot with the proposed 59 cars with the projected in and
49
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUB1ECi If
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 D rir• AFT- REVISION
out of 30+ cars an hour. So that was a real concern to her. She
planned on keeping her house as a residence. She didn't have
commercial plans for it. Mr. Kennedy, whose property connected
with hers to the next street, he would be two lots back from
Portola and he would never benefit from office building changes on
Portola and he has a beautiful house with a pool and gardener and
she thought they could clearly see from the pictures that his front
yard, and her property, was 36 feet from the proposed driveway.
There is a senior center down at the end. One time she saw a little
Alzheimer lady who thought she was taking the bus to work in
Pasadena standing out there, so there is an assisted living complex
down the street and she thought it was a good idea to keep it
quiet. But her big concern was this parking lot on a residential
street of Catalina with entrances and exits going on all day.
The height of 18 feet would be excessive to her thinking. She
photographed the corners and 18 feet would really change the
look of the neighborhood. She thanked them.
MR. JIM WALKER, 44-445 San Jose Avenue, said he appreciated
Mr. McFadden meeting with the neighbors and dealing with the
situation and their concerns. The one concern he had was basically
the traffic in and out on Catalina or any development that goes
along on Portola. The traffic should be one of the main concerns
they look at. He thought Mr. McFadden said originally he thought
it was an architectural firm, his own, and he thought it was a
really good operation and a nice building and his staff in there. But
he thought Mr. McFadden had the intention of dividing it up to
possibly eight different units for bringing in eight different
subleases in there. And if he wasn't mistaken, Mr. McFadden was
talking about 35 cars an hour going in and out of the building
there. That was quite a bit of traffic, especially on Catalina itself.
If there was an access point out on Portola, possibly, and
alleviating the residential on Catalina. Like everyone said, there are
no sidewalks and there is a lot of walking traffic on that road. He
50
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 1N;
c` y SUBJECT T(
Liir I - REVISION
thought that if they could look at some way of keeping it off of
Catalina that would maybe help the situation. He thanked them.
MR. ANTHONY PITEL, 44-399 Lingle Lane, stated that he had two
lots on the end of Lingle Lane. It was one cul-de-sac in from San
Jose. He has kids and he actually grew up on that street. He
bought the property from his parents. He has two little kids who
go up and down the street to school and he thought it would be
terrible to have an office building on Portola and people coming off
onto Catalina. It would be bad. He had never spoken to a city
council before. But he saw that building and it would just be huge.
He walked down that street when he was a little boy to go to
school. Any way they could put it, it was the wrong place for it to
be. He thanked the commission.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. McFadden would like to readdress the
commission.
Mr. McFadden said in response to some of the concerns expressed
by the neighbors, he understood their concerns and had met with
them and he was willing to do what was reasonable and fair to
accommodate whatever he could. As they were aware, they were
primarily concerned about the area along Portola. To bring in the
inboard neighborhood and all of these things, that is not where the
decline is as they were aware. This is a good buffer. There is a
good symbionic relationship between an office building and an
interior buffer, and a buffer to that interior residential area. It
worked both noise wise and occupancy wise. Regarding the
parking situation, he was asked for an average rate per hour. But
after he thought about it, Valley Christian Assembly, basically an
office, is used where people arrive in the morning as the residential
people leave. They pretty much stay there throughout the day with
a little bit of in and out during the course of the day with office
visits and lunch time, and then they leave at night and the parking
lot, and as residents come home they are departing.
51
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 SUBJECT Ti
REVISION
As far as the view concerns go, he had mitigated them as far as
closing off all the back areas. There was no gaze down. There was
an interior hallway on the inside so there was no one looking down
into the back of those residences. Regarding the concern for the
view components, he thought they pretty much took care of that.
There was another item with the overall size of this project. It was
pushed as far away from them and the scale of this building was
somewhat reducible. He didn't believe that it is excessive what
would fit there well in that corner. He thought it would be a good
relationship. He thanked them.
Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the
commission for comments.
Commissioner Finerty stated that she appreciated everyone coming out
tonight. She thought it was important to listen to all that they had to say.
It certainly helped to guide them and they heard loud and clear that they
all prefer having their neighborhood left residential. She did speak in favor
through the General Plan process about doing the open space along
Portola as they did along Fred Waring and that has always been her
priority. However, sometimes she was a lone vote. She urged them when
this matter goes to Council to share those concerns with them as well.
She also thanked Mr. McFadden. She thought he had a very attractive
building, she just wished he was before them with this project in another
location because she did very much like the architecture and thought he
did a good job. She also liked the fact that he worked with the residents
and she heard that they appreciated that fact as well. That was always
a good sign. But as one of the residents spoke, this just wasn't the
proper building for this area. With that, she thought that staff provided
them with the proper conclusion and that would be to deny the project.
Commissioner Tschopp concurred. He thanked everyone for their
comments. They were very helpful. He also complimented Mr. McFadden.
He thought the building was very attractive, either very visionary or
premature, or perhaps both. But he thought it would work in another
52
MINUTES SUBJECT TC
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 REV��OU
area. Given the steps they took before, it isn't compatible with the code
proposed by Commission and those arguments previous to this and then
the arguments here persuaded him to agree with staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Campbell said it was a beautiful building and she was in
favor of having office professional there closer to the center of town
instead of always moving to the freeway north. She thought they needed
office professional there when the time comes, but again, it is a beautiful
building but in that location, especially with the zoning ordinance
amendment just approved this evening, it wasn't really feasible to have
a building of that size in that location.
Commissioner Lopez concurred. He thought that the project itself was an
attractive building, but it was in the wrong spot, at least from his
perspective. He also thanked everyone for staying and taking the time to
come out and express their concerns. He hoped Mr. McFadden would
find the right location for this nice project.
Chairperson Jonathan also concurred. He saw before him a lot of nice
people and enjoyed hearing from them all and thanked them for being at
the meeting. He included Mr. McFadden in that. The good news is that
Mr. McFadden heard five commissioners say what a beautiful looking
project he had and that spoke volumes. The bad news from Mr.
McFadden's perspective is that the consensus was that it was just the
wrong location for that particular design. He said that he has grown to
believe in the wisdom of low intensity office as a border to some of our
major arteries as a transition from busy streets to residential. And it was
possible that some day they might have some other office professional
type project come before them that was of a smaller scale, less intrusive
and a softer transition from a very very busy street to residential. So he
urged them to keep their minds open to the possibility of an office
building that if properly designed, could serve their desire to keep their
neighborhood safe, which he thought was the ultimate goal. There are
examples of that type of transition, including on Fred Waring, on
Monterey and on Deep Canyon. If they drive on Deep Canyon between
Fred Waring and Highway 1 1 1 , they could see some office buildings on
the west side where they really have to pause and look to realize that
53
MINUTES f
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION r AFT .
SUBJECT II
SEPTEMBER 7 2004 RVCSION
they are office buildings because they look like homes. So something like
that could serve as an effective transition to kind of shield the residential
neighborhood from busy traffic on streets like Portola. That might or
might not come down the pike at a later time, but in terms of what was
before them, he concurred with his fellow commissioners. He thought
that first of all they didn't have a choice but to deny the application due
to the revised zoning and the application for the precise plan. But he
would also not favor a change of zone to office professional as a stand
alone issue. He would rather do that in conjunction with a precise plan
should that come before them. So he was in agreement with his fellow
commissioners and would entertain a motion for denial.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-
0.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2292, denying
Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-02. Motion carried 5-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Commissioner Campbell reported that there was no meeting.
B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE
Commissioner Finerty said the meeting was informational.
54
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AUGUST 24, 2004 g A. �`H� r -7.
MINUTES e �� - r
C. Miscellaneous g 0 EvISIL
1. CASE NO.: PP 04-20, C/Z 04-02
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred
Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for
comments on revisions to a new office building.
LOCATION: 42-277 Portola
ZONE: R-1
Mr. Smith stated that at the last meeting the commissioners requested
that the applicant come up with something that would be more
residential in scale. Revised plans were submitted and distributed to
the commissioners for their review.
Micah Combs, representative for Chris McFadden, was present to
answer questions. He commented that the revised plans reflect a 15%
height reduction.
Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there was a square footage change or
any other change. Mr. Combs commented that the roof changed a little
bit. Mr. Drell stated that the eave lines are at 18'. Commissioner Van
Vliet asked if the overall height of the building was reduced by 3' or just
certain sections. Mr. Combs stated that certain sections of the building
were reduced by 3', but the rest remains the same height as the
previous proposal. Mr. Smith stated that the top of the ridge on the
previous proposal was 25' and now it's shown at 22'.
Commissioner Lopez commented that he always thought that the
building looked great but doesn't feel that it belongs in this particular
neighborhood. There are just a couple little problems with the
landscaping, but the building doesn't belong in this part of the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Hanson stated that she thought that it was an attractive
building, but to catagorize it as residentially scaled is not accurate for
this particular neighborhood. I don't think that the solution of just
sinking it 3' changes the fact that it makes it more residential or not.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 6
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION j j r 22
AUGUST 24, 2004krka
MINUTES
Mr. Combs asked for clarification on what Commissioner Hanson is
recommending. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's not
recommending anything but she saying that given this particular
solution, it's not residentially scaled from the standpoint of our last
meeting when we talked about it needing to be one story. I don't think
that dropping the building by 3' meets that requirement. I like the
building, but not for that lot with the parameters that the commission
was given in order to approve it.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he recalled from the last meeting, the
commission was specifically asked if this was of a residential scale.
This was the question. The answer at that time was "no" and I don't
really see that it looks any different.
Commissioner Van Vliet asked if anyone in
the audience would like to
speak. Jeanne Martin, resident, was present and stated that her
property is just to the west of this project and her backyard would face
their parking lot. This building is not appropriate for a residential area.
Mr. Drell stated that there are people who build one-story office
buildings, but it's a matter of how much the applicant is paying for the
land. Now he's going to have to go back to the property owner and re-
negotiate the price so that it makes sense financially. Ms. Martin
commented that the property has closed escrow.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Oppenheim to refer the request to the City Council with a
recommendation for denial because the proposal doesn't meet the
requirement for residential scale, as identified in the general plan.
Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
STEVE SMITH
PLANNING MANAGER
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs'Agmin\AR040824.MIN 7
ram) ^0
CITY OF PALM DESERT, %.,,.,LIFORNIA r; r-l_
.
►'� ., `. APPLICATION TO APPEAL °t
Kiit.. .
y4we !..00 he i P1 -<
•Ntt-`� .a�f DECISION OF THE (�� c M( (O 7,n
(Name of Determining Body)
f'-� n�
4 �•n
Case No. lam_ o �do'D- Date of Decision: q (1(07---'
m
Name of Appellant Nt i\&. - Phone -t C ' S°L24-
Address lq.C[r5 F 1\-S f Su (�.> �1-.
Description of
Application or Matter Considered: -1--cA o''V I Lx/As ec-ra�� o iI -THE
eason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessa ):
WO
v`JA P., c 0
a i El _
1 N) -(1 WE � ; oCel(-- - IDC-_,-1101 . I. ON
fr±Y gale 1
n to . o pp Ila
p FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Io L'O
Date Appeal Filed: 9. 0 -d- Fee Received: K
Treasurer's Receipt No. 5943 Received by: 4/7
Date
of Consideration by City Council or City Official:
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
COPY TO Pk /?//'Z6)
p _o(7/
Hakiassen\W Pdata\W PDOCSIFORMS\appl to appeal.wpd DATE / _
Rev 6/29/02
ss ---a
P o r t o 1 a A v e n u e w .a.I.a w.I
.r.:-,c.
—
� I 3
I''-- I'� Office 1.�� ? �" #e
r---� Lot 281 ,.., �.. e
1, EXISTING RESILIENCE
o.� L =,. x Office cG< -1
CI fa
Lot 3: k_ • j 11 lir I ''',, ' L1 _ 1
VACANT v ARC EL __ i V 0 CwJ
..ra
v '1--,
v; ��r " ' =yr i * it `��t, * Pi
-may
SPRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 9 '.a /j((/) , ¢ ���
(\` P1.11 I
♦
SITE PLAN NO. 9
AREA TABULATIONS
Parcel 1 16,493 sq. ft.
Parcel 2 6,753 sq. ft.
Parcel 3 13,550 sq. ft.
Parcel Totals 36,796 sq. ft.
Lower Floor (Leaseable) 6,918 sq. ft.
Upper Floor (Leaseable) 5,045 sq. ft.
Total Proposed 11,963 sq. ft.
Lower Floor Footprint 7,537 sq. ft.
Upper Floor Footprint 6,578 sq. ft.
Total Proposed 14,115 sq. ft.
Max Allowable (with 15% Misc) 16,387 sq. ft.
Total Lot Area *... 36,796 sq. ft. or 0.84 acre
Building Coverage 7,537 sq. ft. or 20.4 %
Paved Areas 21,477 sq. ft. or 58.4 %
Landscaping 7,782 sq. ft. or 21.0 %
Required Parking (1 per 250) 48 Spaces
Required Handicap (51 — 75) 3 Spaces
Parking Indicated 57 Spaces
* Overall areas are calculated within property
lines based on Plat Info provided by Fiero
Engineering, September 2003.
' CONC. SIDEWALK PER CITY STDS.