Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 01-79 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1979 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) B. EMINENT DOMAIN REQUEST (Continued) MRS . KATHERINE L. DAY 436 Bellflower, No . 306, Long Beach, Ca . 90814 Regarding Lot #156 A representative of Eli Birer Realtors , Palm Desert, who had just sold Lot #314 as mentioned in Mr . Kilgore ' s letter addressed Council stating his opposition. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Brush seconded to ) waive further reading and adopt Resolution No . 79-66 , finding and determining that public interest and necessity require acquisition of property and authorizing an action in Eminent Domain. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Brush emphasized that no one was , at this time, setting any price on any of these lots . The courts would decide the price; the City was not trying to steal anything. C . C ION 0 AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT L TIVE TO TH DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COMP05ITION. CASE NO. ZOA - 9. lams advised that this requested amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would provide for the addition of two architects to the Design Review Board to provide improved technical member attendance. The Planning Commission had approved the amendment by their Resolution No . 494 and had additionally added a section requiring mandatory attendance. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open, and invited input in FAVOR of the amendment . None was offered. He invited input in OPPOSITION to the amendment, and none was offered. He declared the .Public Hearing closed. 1 Councilman Brush questioned the number of architects in J town, and Mr . Williams responded there were approximately a dozen. Councilman Brush stated he had several reserva- tions about this ordinance and would prefer to see it continued for further discussion. Mayor Mullins pointed out that it had been discussed in Study Session several times with the feeling that the addition of more architects would enhance the ability of the DRB. He also pointed out that it was difficult for these individuals to always be in attendance, and their input was of great value to the Board. The addition would ensure an architect ' s presence. Councilman Brush stated that he felt it was like the story about politicians — elect attorneys because they make better laws . Councilman Wilson stated that this had been reviewed several times to his satisfaction in Study Session and moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No . 210 to second reading . Motion carried on a 4-1 vote with Councilman Brush voting NO. VIII . RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 79-67 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE 1978/79 BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTIMATED INCREASED COSTS OF THE SAN PASQUAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Mr. Bouman requested and Council agreed to consider this resolution along with Item "A" under Old Business as they were directly related. Mr. Bouman reported that Staff had called for and received bids for the San Pasqual Improvement Project with the low bidder being Massey Sand and Rock Company at $91 , 934 . 50 . The 1978/79 Budget provides for $47 , 707 in the Community Development Fund and $40, 000 in the 2106 Gas Tax Fund June 28 . 1979 Page 4 VII.' PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. BUDGET HEARING (Continued) Councilman Newbrander stated her opposition to the increased amount for police protection in that she did not feel the City was getting its money' s worth now. Councilman Wilson stated that Council had gone over these individual items at great length, and he felt comfortable with the budget as it was proposed . Pe felt that each had his own dispute with certain areas , but the items of Com- munity Services were a bargain in his opinion. Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No . 79-65 , adopting a Budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1979, through June 30 , 1980 . Motion carried on a 4-1 vote with Councilman Brush voting NO for the reasons he stated. B. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION ON NECESSITY OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION. Mr . Ortega explained that this went back to consideration of the C . O.D. Specific Plan and involved not only physical implementation but right-of-way required for widening of streets . He stated that the Planning Commission had drawn up the plan and adopted it , and subsequently, the City Council had done the same as well as authorizing Staff to immediately begin to acquire properties spelled out in the Plan. The proceedings dealt with in this hearing were for property needed for the widening of Monterey. Many of the required lots have been purchased; however, some have not . He concluded by stating that it was necessary for Council to determine the necessity of acquiring these lots for public interest. By adoption of the proposed resolution, Council would start the process whereby the public interest can be served by obtaining these lots through legal procedure. Price would be determined at another time. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open and invited input in FAVOR of the request. None was offered. He invited input in OPPOSITION to the request , and the following was offered: MR. WILLIAM BOLLMAN, Indio , California, addressed Council stating that he had owned the lots for 18 years . He felt that the City should buy a portion of his two lots and rezone them for multi-residential so that apartments could be built in an area that badly needed them. He also ques- tioned why the City would be willing to purchase all 4 of his lots as expressed in a letter to him from Mr . Ortega when only two were needed. Mr. Ortega responded that several alternatives had been discussed with Mr. Bollman, including the purchase of not four, but five lots . This was done because Mr. Bollman felt he would be suffering a hardship in breaking up the parcel , and the City was trying to accommodate him. Mr . Bollman asked why this particular side of Monterey was being used when both sides could be utilized and less land taken from each lot. Mr . Bouman responded that much inves- tigation had gone into the engineering of the widening pro- posed, and it was for good sound reason that only one side could be utilized. MR. BINGHAM, Trust Department, Bank of American, addressed Council on behalf of a trust which was co-owner of the property Mr . Bollman had discussed. Mr. Ortega noted two additional letters of opposition received , attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" . KILGORE ENTERPRISES CUSTOM FEEDERS 10462 Tennessee Avenue, Los Angeles , Ca. 90064 Regarding Lots #313 and #314 June 28 , 1979 Page 3 CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Text relative to the Design Review Composition (Section 25.070.020) . III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO. : ZOA 01-79 V. DATE: June 28, 1979 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion C. Draft Ordinance No. 210. D. Planning Commission Meeting minutes involving case ZOA 01-79. E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 494. F. Planning Comnission Staff Report dated May 29, 1979. G. Design Review Board Minutes for meeting of March 20, 1979. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Amendment of Municipal Code Section 25.70.020, by adoption of Ordinance No. 210. Justification is based upon the following: 1. The .addition of two architects to the Design Review Board may provide improved technical member attendance, leading to an i -Design view process. 2. An improved Design Review Board process will provide for an improved eneral a arance of all proposed developments which wi preserve or enhance the physical environment and'dharacter of`t�e city. B. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 494 without comment. During the Planning Commission Meeting of April 18, 1979, when the amendment was initiated, the Commission discussed the role and defin- ition of the architect on the Design Review Board. Additionally, pro- visions for mandatory attendance were deemed desirable Iby the Commiss on. ORDINANCE NO. 210 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 25.11.020 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO DESIGN REVIEW. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION 1: That a portion of Section 25.70.020 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code is hereby amended, as shown on the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit 'A' . SECTION 2: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, Cali- fornia, is hereby directed to publish this Ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and cir- culated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this day of 1979, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: EDY&RD D. MULLINS, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 210 25.70.020 Membership, meetings, attendance, duties and respon- sibilities. A. The Design Review Board shall consist of seven members. All members shall be citizens appointed by the mayor and approved by the City Council. B. The citizen members (if available) shall be four architects, one civil engineer, one landscape architect, and one lay person know- ledgeable in the design field. Citizen members shall be appointed based on their civic responsibility, ability to give objective, effect- ive, constructive and unprejudiced criticism, ability to give direc- tion and suggest alternatives and their use of diplomacy and tact in expressing their judgment. C. All members of the Design Review Board shall serve for an un- specified time or for a specified period as established by the City Council. If a member is unable to serve for three consecutive regular meetings, the chairman or acting chairman shall declare the office of such member vacant. The secretary shall immediately thereafter inform the mayor. D. The Director of Environmental Services shall appoint a member of the Department of Environmental Services to serve as secretary to the Board. E. The Design Review Board shall hold a minimum of two public meetings a month and additional meetings as directed by the Board. An applicant, upon the filing of an application, shall be advised of the date and place of his hearing before the Board. Four members must be present to hold a meeting. A majority vote of the members present is sufficient to take action on a submittal. F. The duties of the Design Review Board shall be to review and approve or cause to be modified all proposed developments re- quiring qualified aesthetic and architectural judgment to the end that the general appearance of all proposed developments shall pre- serve or enhance the physical environment and character of the city. (Ord. 9951 (part) , 1975: Exhibit A §25.39-2.02) . l Minutes Page Four Palm Desert Planning Commission May 29 , 1979 V D.. (cont. ) The applicant was not present, so Chairman Snyder declared the P lic Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR o OPPOSITION to the request. There being none, he declared the Public H aring closed, and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Berkey noted that as this is simply a duplication of what is a ready there, this request seems adequate and proper, and made a motion to approve, which was seconded by Commissioner Kryder. Case No. DP 07 9 and related Design Review Case No. 174 MF were approved by adop ing Planning Commission Resolution No. 492 as presented; carrie unanimously (4-0) . E. Case No. P 06-79 - McLAIN DEVELOPMENT CO. , Applicant Request fo approval of a preliminary residential Development lan and related Design Review case to allow 256 dwelling nits also containing an open space area on approximate y 80 acres within the PR-4 and O.S . zone, located at the outheast corner of Portola Avenue and Country Club Dri e. Mr. Williams presented the proposal, relating many background details, which included major roject improvements; area calculations; density; open space; recreation amenities; dwelling unit descriptions; parking analysis; site access; i ternal circulation; unit arrangement; and proposed park dedication. He lso noted that the Design Review Board had reviewed the project and ound the concept quite acceptable; they particularly found the archite tural details to be well executed. He then stated that Staff would reco end approval of this proposal. The Commissioners concurred tha this was a very unique project, and that the concerns with regard to ci culation would be mitigated by one of the Special Conditions of Appr val. The applicant' s representative ackn wledged that he and the project architect, landscape architect and ngineer were there to answer any questions the Commissioners had. There eing none, Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, aski g if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this propos 1. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked fo the pleasure of the;, Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconde by Commissioner Kryder, Case No. DP 06-79 and related Design Revia Case No. 175 MF were approved by a No. 492 as presented; carried unanimously (4-0) . F. Held over from May 16 , 1979; Case No. ZOA 01-79 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text relative to the composition of the City Design Review Board. Mr. Williams presented the request, noting the following change in the draft resolution: the word "regular" should be added in Section C between the words "consecutive" and "meetings" . He also mentioned that this matter was initiated and set for Public Hearing by Planning Commission Resolution No. 479 , adopted April 18 , 1979. Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this proposal. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, Planning Commission Resolution No. - 494 was adopted, with the amendment as noted above, thereby recommending approval of Case No. ZOA 01-79 to the City Council; carried unanimously (4-0) . Minutes Page Two Palm Desert Planning Commission April 18 , 1979 VII A. (cont . ) Mr. Williams noted that the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area S ecific Plan was approved by the City Council at their last meeting. It is now necessary to move forward with the revisions to the zonin as" recommended in the Specific Plan both in the area of zone distr - cts established on the property encompassed in the study and also su -ested revisions to the text to more accommodate the area that was unde consideration . Staff ha provided a resolution for the Planning Commission ' s consideration whi h would initiate a Public Hearing on June 20, 1979, at which time both the text changes and the zone changes for the area would be consi ered. Commissioner F eshman noted a discrepancy of dates between the Agenda and the Resolute n; it was agreed that June 20 is the correct date for the Public Hea 'ng instead of June 30, as written in the Agenda. Commissioner Berke suggested that gross acres and net acres should be identified as suc in the text and headings both. He also mentioned, regarding the sta dards for 5-acre lots, that minimum side yards of 100 feet seem e cessive to him. Commissioner Fleshman co curred with this, stating that he felt it should be 50 ft . Commissioner Berkey noted at , on Page 62 regarding maximum building height of 30 ft , he felt it should be a flexible building height , in accordance with the stat ent on Page 65 regarding Structural Design and Landscaping, w erein it states that "lot size, height and setbacks shall be flexible in in order to achieve the purposes of this section" . Mr. Willia s stated that staff would change it to show 18 ft , and can be fur her discussed at the Public Hearing on this subject . Commissioner Berkey also suggested a change in wording on Page 62 regarding development standards fo one acre lots or less, but not less than 40, 000 sq ft , it should read 'at least 40, 000 sq ft . " Commissioner Fleshman also mentioned hat the Commission might consider requiring roads in subject area to b colored, in order to assist camouflaging of them. Mr. Williams ag ed that this possibility should be considered and investigated. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, secon ed by Commissioner Berkey, the Commission adopted Planning Commissi Resolution NO. 478, whereby initiating a Public Hearing for Zoning Or inance Map and Te • carrie unanimously (4-0) . Said Hearing was scheduled for the meeting of June 1979. )Consideration of initiation of an amendment to the 111111 City Zoning Ordinance text , relative to the composition of the Design Review Board. Mr. Williams reviewed the proposed amendment , noting that the Design Review Board also reviewed this at their last meeting. The suggestion from the Board was that two voting members be added to the Board, but that one be an architect and the other be from a different technical area. Preliminary comments from the City Council were to increase the membership of architects. Staff now seeks the Commission ' s thoughts on the subject , and for the Commission to initiate an- Ordinance Amendment by Planning Commission Resolution. Said Amendment to be considered on May 16 . Commissioner Kryder asked if the architect ' s comments are based on the mechanics of the architecture or the aesthetics, or both. 'inutes Page Three Palm Desert Planning immission April 18, 1979 VIII . B. (cont . ) Mr. Williams answered that the architect ' s comments can be based on both, but looks to what the architect is trying to achieve, if the project is compatible and complete. Commissioner Kryder then asked why an architect would necessarily ( be better than a lay person , if the comments are related to aesthetics. f` Mr. Williams stated that an architect can perceive more quickly and clearly. Conunissioner Berkey asked if, in the definition of "architect" , does that include designers. Mr. Williams answered that the City Council has suggested the use of the term "architect" loosely. Chairman Snyder noted that the staff has attempted to create a Design Review Board that would be most skilled and capable. Commissioner Fleshman wondered if there should be something added to encourage attendance, and suggested including the same situation as exists for the Planning Commission, wherein the members are allowed only two unexcused absences. If they have more, they would have to have someone replace them. Mr. Williams agreed to include a section similar to that of the Planning Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, Planning Commission Resolution No. 479 was adopted, to initiate a Public Hearing for Zoning Ordinance text amendments relative to the Design Review Board. Said Hearing was scheduled for May 16. Carried unanimously (4-0) . IX. DE GN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Consi ration of cases acted upon by the Design Review Board at thei meeting of April 10, 1979. Mr. Willia reviewed the cases (Nos. 170 MF; 167 MF; 114 MF) with the Commission. . .The Commission ' scussed -the size of Lewis Homes ' • (Case. 170 MF) development sign and it s suggested that the matter be taken back to the Design Review Boar for possible change. Commissioner Snyder stated that the Plan "ng Commission will .approve whatever conclusion is reached between the Board and Lewis Homes. Mr. Williams suggested an addition to the r olution, stating that "regarding Case No. 170 MF, the developmen sign should be reconsidered by the Design Review Board" . . On a motion by Commissioner rkey, 'seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the actions of the Design Rev ew Board at their meeting of L April 10, 1979, were approved by Plann g Commission Resolution No. 480, with the addition suggested; carried una imously (4-0) . X. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Recommendation of the CVAG -Executi Committee to establish a Fringe-Toed Lizard habi t reserve PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 494 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, RELATIVE TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE CITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, in Municipal Code Section 25. 70. 020, establishes the composition of the Design Review Board; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert to consider any advisory changes in the composition of the Design Review Board, for purposes of forwarding its recommendation to the City Council ; and WHEREAS , due to a lack of quorum, the noticed Public Hearings scheduled for Flay 16, 1979, were automatically carried over to the next scheduled meeting, which was May 29, at which time said Hearings were held, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text relative to the composition of the City Design Review Board. WHEREAS, as a result of study by City staff, the City Council, and the members of the Design Review Board, a Planning Commission recommendation has been formulated regarding Board membership and attendance, which requires amendment of the City Zoning Ordinance text to implement , pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25 . 82 . 020. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert , as follows: A Zoning Ordinance text amendment, as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit 'A' , is hereby recommended to the City Council, to amend Municipal Code Section 25.70. 020, specifying a revised composition of the Design Review Board, and other matters related thereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this day of May, 1979, by the following vote, to wit : AYES : BERKEY, KRYDER, MILLER, SNYDER NOES : NONE ABSENT: FLESHMAN ABSTAIN: NONE WALTER SNYDER, Chairman ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary /ss PLANNING COMMISSIC EXHIBIT 'A' RESOLUTION NO. 49 25 . 70 . 020 Membership, meetings , attendance , duties and responsibilities. A. The design review board shall consist of seven members. All members shall be citizens appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. B. The citizen members (if available) shall be four architects, one civil engineer, one landscape architect, and one lay person knowledgeable in the design field. Citizen members shall be appointed based on their civic responsibility, ability to give objective, effective, constructive and unprejudiced criticism, ability to give direction and suggest alternatives and their use of diplomacy and tact in expressing their judgment. C. All members of the design review board shall serve for an unspecified time or for a specified period as established by the city council. If a member is unable to serve for three consecutive regular meetings , the chairman or acting chairman shall declare the office of such member vacant. The secretary shall immediately thereafter inform the mayor. D. The director of environmental services shall appoint a member of the department of environmental services to serve as secretary to the board. E. The design review board shall hold a minimum of two public meetings a month and additional meetings as directed by the board. An applicant, upon the filing of an application, shall be advised of the date and place of his hearing before the board. Four members must be present to hold a meeting. A majority vote of the members present is sufficient to take action on a submittal. F. The duties of the design review board shall be to review and approve or cause to be modified all proposed developments requiring qualified aesthetic and architectural judgment to the end that the general appearance of all proposed developments shall preserve or enhance the physical environment and character of the city. (Ord. 99 61 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25. 39-2.02) . CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report on: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text relative to the Design Review Board composition Applicant: City of Palm Desert Date: May 29, 1979 I. REQUEST UNDER CONSIDERATION: Amendment of Municipal Code Section 25.70.020, relative to the composition of the Design Review Board. The matter was initiated and set for Public Hearing by Planning Commission Resolution No. 479, adopted April 18, 1979. II. BACKGROUND (UPDATE): The City's Design Review Board, which is advisory to the City Planning Commission, is presently composed of seven members. Said members are: two architects; one individual experienced in landscape architecture; engineer if available; citizen at large knowledgeable in the area of construction; City Building official ; and the Director of Environmental Services. In terms of voting, the City staff members may not vote unless they are needed for a quorum. Said composition has been in existence since about 1975. Over the last year, there have been very few meetings where both architects were in attendance. During those instances where only one architect is in attendance, the Board places an inordinate reliance on that individual 's opinion as to the acceptability of the architecture of projects. Said situations appear to put that individual in a very uncomfortable position, and as a result, it is staff's opinion that the individual has a tendency not to fully express their views on a technical standpoint. Further, there have been instances where neither of the architects have been able to attend the meetings. During said meetings, the City is without architectural expertise for review of projects. In order to improve the architectural input to the Design Review process and in order to eliminate situations whereby only one architect is in attendance, it is suggested that consideration be given to a Zoning Ordinance amendment, changing the composition of the Design Review Board to replace the two City staff members with two additional architects. If this. change was implemented, it would result in seven voting members, which may provide improved technical member attendance at meetings, leading to a better Design Review process. This revision, in Staff's judgement, is appropriate in that the Planning Commission acts as the 'lay' input to the Design Review process. Therefore, the Design Review Board itself should not be overly oriented towards non- technical individuals, which is now the case. The City Council has discussed this matter, and is in support of the Suggested Revision (attached) . The Design Review Board members also had an opportunity to consider the Board's composition and offered a slightly different recommendation. In the Board' s opinion it would be adequate to add one additional architect and one Board member in another technical discipline. Attached to the draft Resolution is a suggested Zoning Ordinance text amendment. An alternate to the composition indicated in paragraph W . would specify ". . .three architects; one technical member in a field other than architecture, . . . " Also, included in the present suggested amendment is language directed to meeting attendance and when the office of a member is declared vacant. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: - Recommend to the City Council amendment of Municipal Code Section 25.70.020. , by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. _ e 1 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1 . Case P 03-79, JAMES KAUL, Applicant. Request for Planning Commission roval of a 36 unit condominium development on approximately -z cres located on the south side of Country Club Drive between Monte and Portola Avenues. Staff presented the plans t he Board and noted what it felt to be the design considerations ne 'ng further study. These included the entrance detail and ar for wind/blowsand protection. In addition to this, Board members reco nded some type of internal loop to provide for a turn-around 'thin the project. V. Consideration of Revision of the Composition of the Design Review Board. The Board had received copies of the March 16, 1979 memorandum from Paul Williams, Director of Environmental Services, to Martin J. Bouman, City Manager, regarding considerations for Design Review Board composition and a copy of the suggested revision. Mr. Williams discussed the subject with the Board members. First responding was Board member Jackson, who stated the feeling that the Board should be more balanced with selection of members other than architects. Mr. Williams explained that the purpose of the Board was to perform a technical analysis of plans and that the lay body in this case was the Planning Commission. Board member Urrutia also explained on this point that by only having two architects on the f Board that if one were not present for meetings, the sole burden of technical judgments rested with one Board member, which was a difficult position. Subsequent discussion among the Board members included the possibility of having an additional architect and some other design discipline or engineering discipline. The Board was asked to give their formal opinion of this revision. Motion was made by Jackson, seconded by Urrutia, to state the Design Review Board members ' opinion that the size of the Board should be increased to seven members, eliminating the present Staff positions, and adding one Board member in the category of architect and adding one other technical discipline. Carried 4-0 (Johnson, Jackson, Urrutia, Leung) . VI. ADJOURNMENT CChairman Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Murrel Crump, Principal Planner /ss t s�GN re-c—Vtaw e:)� Mll.LLrre5s 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (T14) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE May 30, 1979 APPLICANT City of Palm Desert CASE NO. : ZOA 01-79 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of May 29, 1979 CONTINUED TO DENIED X APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 494 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. X PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF June 28. 1979 FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PAL:-[ DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION cc: 3PviS�4� / C.V.C.W.D. F31e/ I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 494 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, RELATIVE TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE CITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD . WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, in Municipal Code Section 25. 70. 020, establishes the composition of the Design Review Board; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert to consider any advisory changes in the composition of the Design Review Board, for purposes of forwarding its recommendation to the City Council ; and WHEREAS, due to a lack of quorum, the noticed Public Hearings scheduled for May 16, 1979, were automatically carried over to the next scheduled meeting, which was May 29, at which time said Hearings were field, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text relative to the composition of the City Design Review Board. WHEREAS, as a result of study by City staff, the City Council, and the members of the Design Review Board, a Planning Commission recommendation has been formulated regarding Board membership and attendance, which requires amendment of the City Zoning Ordinance text to implement , pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25 . 82 . 020. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert , as follows: A Zoning Ordinance text amendment , as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit 'A' , is hereby recommended to the City Council, to amend Municipal Code Section 25.70. 020, ( specifying a revised composition of the Design Review Board, and other matters related thereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this day of May , 1979, by the following vote, to wit : AYES: BERKEY, KRYDER, MILLER, SNYDER NOES : NONE ABSENT: FLESHMAN ABSTAIN: NONE WALTER SNYDER, Chairman ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary /ss . t PLANNING COMMISSIC EXHIBIT 'A' RESOLUTION NO. 49/1 25 . 70 . 020 Membership, meetings , attendance, duties and responsibilities. A. The design review board shall consist of seven members. All members shall be citizens appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. B. The citizen members (if available) shall be four architects, one civil engineer, one landscape architect, and one lay person knowledgeable in the design field. Citizen members shall be appointed based on their civic responsibility, ability to give objective, effective, constructive and unprejudiced criticism, ability to give direction and suggest alternatives and their use of diplomacy and tact in expressing their judgment. C. All members of the design review board shall serve for an unspecified time or for a specified period as established by the city council. If a member is unable to serve for three consecutive regular meetings, the chairman or acting chairman shall declare the office of such member vacant. The secretary shall immediately thereafter inform the mayor. D. The director of environmental services shall appoint a member of the department of environmental services to serve as secretary to the board. E. The design review board shall hold a minimum of two public meetings a month and additional meetings as directed by the board. An applicant, upon the filing of an application, shall be advised of the date and place of his hearing before the board. Four members must be present to hold a meeting. A majority vote of the members present is sufficient to take action on a submittal. F. The duties of the design review board shall be to review and approve or cause to be modified all proposed developments requiring qualified aesthetic and architectural judgment to the end that the general appearance of all proposed developments shall preserve or enhance the physical environment and character of the city. ( (Ord. 99 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25. 39-2 . 02) . l MINUTES �k�p PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI G TUESDAY - MAY 29 , 1979 7 : 00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Chairman Snyder in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Berkey III . ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Berkey Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Miller Chairman Snyder Excused Absence: Commissioner Fleshman Others Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Present: Murrel Crump - Principal Planner Stan Sawa - Associate Planner Susan Schwartz - Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Minutes of meeting of May 3 , 1979 On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, the Minutes of May 3, 1979 , were approved as written; carried unanimously. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Held over from May 16, 1979; Continued Case No. DP 03-79 - JAMES E. KAUL, Applicant Request for approval of a Residential Development Plan to allow 36 condominium units on approximately 7 . 5 acres within the PR-5 zone on the south side of Country Club Drive, between Monterey and Portola Avenues. Mr. Crump presented the case, noting that this item was continued from the May 3, 1979 Planning Commission meeting for redesign of four items , the most significant of which was the entrance design (with the larger question of site access) , and wind/blowsand protection. A revised site plan has been submitted. The project design issues have been adequately defined to pass the Preliminary Development Plan on to the Design Review stage for further refinement, and Staff would recommend approval of this case. There were no questions from the Commissioners at this time, so Chairman Snyder asked if the application wished to make a presentation. DOUG . PURVIS, Architect for the project, wished to note they are in concurrence with conditions of approval, and available for any questions. Chairman Snyder then declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed. v I Minutes ` Page Two A Palm Desert Planning Commission May 29 , 1979 IV. A. (cont. ) Commissioner Berkey noted his concern over the ingress and egress to the project, stating that it would be very undesirable to have entrances every few hundred feet on Country Club Drive. However, Special Condition No. 1 offers a further chance to mitigate this problem in the Design Review process. After discussion among the Commission members , a consensus was reached that the subject of access should be further studied in the Design Review process . On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Case No. DP 03-79 was approved by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 489 as presented; carried unanimously (4-0) . B. Continued Case No. DP 05-79 - ROBERT H. RICCIARDI , AIA FOR GERALD J. CHAZEN, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan for a planned commercial development on approximately 7 . 9 acres within the P.C. (3) , S.P. zone at the westerly side of the Palms to Pines shopping area, between E1 Paseo and Highway 111. Mr. Williams presented the case, noting that this case was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of May 3 , 1979 , due to concerns regarding the market loadinq area and driveways on E1 Paseo and other on-site design concerns . The applicant was instructed to restudy the proposed plan. The applicant has submitted revised plans which address the concerns raised at the last meeting. However, Staff review of the loading area plans indicate that the loading area as designed will not function properly, and three alternatives are suggested. He then related these alternatives to the Commission. In summary, revisions to the loading area would reduce the impact of the market on the residential area. Staff would recommend continuing the case for said revision; however, if the Commission feels that the applicant' s submittal is acceptable with conditions , a draft resolution has been prepared for consideration. Mr. Williams also noted that two letters have been received from residents of the Sandpiper development located south of E1 Paseo and west of Highway 74 stating their concern over the impacts that the proposed supermarket will have on their development; the major concerns are loading operations including hours and noise , truck traffic on E1 Paseo, and resulting impact. Chairman Snyder mentioned that the Planning Commission has discussed various ways to assure that the project is acceptable to all concerned, to the extent possible; noting that the Commission must take into consideration a Commercial zone abutting a Residential zone. He believes that Staff ' s recommendation to continue this case for restudy has merit; an attempt should be made to alleviate the problems of the market. He then asked if the applicant was advised of this recommendation. Mr. Williams noted that the applicant had been, and did wish for a decision at this time. Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. ROBERT H. RICCIARDI, Architect for the project, stated that he has reviewed the alternatives suggested, and feels that the submitted plan is superior to all three, and related some of the reasons for this . - Chairman Snyder then opened the Public Hearing, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this proposal. A number of Sandpiper residents were present, and did not wish to necessarily speak in opposition to the proposal, but had questions and comments they wished to raise. Some of the speakers include: MR. ED BENSON, 1106 Sandpiper MR. RALPH EVANS , 1315 Sandpiper MR. JACK LANE, 1205 Sandpiper MR. HERBERT S$EPHARD, 1302 Sandpiper Minutes Page Three Palm Desert Planning Commission May 29 , 1979 IV. B. (cont. ) The subjects discussed include locating the market on the Highway 111 side of the development; the possibility of prohibiting truck traffic of certain tonnage off El Paseo; limiting the hours of truck traffic on E1 Paseo; encouraging truck traffic to use access off of Highway 111; and a slight re-alignment of the market building to help increase the buffering between El Paseo and market. As a result of this discussion, the following Special Conditions were added: No. 14 -- Truck unloading (deliveries) shall be limited to 8 : 00 a.m. to 9 : 00 p.m. daily. No. 15 -- The east-west alignment of the market shall be moved northerly so that a minimum buffer of 30 ft. land- scaping shall be maintained. The design of the loading dock was a central item of discussion. In the course of this discussion, Mr. Ricciardi agreed to recess the dock 16 ft. below grade. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, Case No. DP 05-79 was approved by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 490 , with the two Special Conditions added as noted above; carried unanimously (4-0) . C. Case No. PM 14710 - COLUMBIA SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide approximately 3. 538 acres into five (5) parcels within the P.C. (3) , S .P. zone located on the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Highway 74 . Mr. Crump reviewed the request, noting that the subject Tentative Parcel Map seeks to define an area around each of the five approved commercial buildings for ownership/leasehold purposes. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements will insure the site functions as a single development. Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. ROBERT H. RICCIARDI, Architect for the project, wished to note that he was available for any questions. It was agreed among the Commissioners that this was a fairly common request for legal purposes, and no further questions were raised. Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this request. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed, and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. on a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Miller, Case No. PM 14710 was approved by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 491 as presented; carried unanimously (4-0) . D. Case No. DP 07-79 - TRANSCOPIC DEVELOPMENT CO. , Applicant Request for approval of a preliminary Development Plan and related Design Review case to allow construction of nine (9) condominiums on approximately 2. 2 acres located on the north side of 44th Avenue and west of Cook Street, within the PR-6, S.P. zone. Mr. Crump presented this request, noting the Planning Commission approval of the applicant' s previous adjacent project, Case No. 06-78; and this request is basically the same architectural design. I w 1 Minutes \ Page Four Palm Desert Planning Commission May 29 , 1979 VI . D. (cont. ) The applicant was not present, so Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed, and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Berkey noted that as this is simply a duplication of what is already there, this request seems adequate and proper, and made a motion to approve, which was seconded by Commissioner Kryder. Case No. DP 07-79 and related Design Review Case No. 174 MF were approved by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 492 as presented; carried unanimously (4-0) . E. Case No. DP 06-79 - McLAIN DEVELOPMENT CO. , Applicant Request for approval of a preliminary residential Development Plan and related Design Review case to allow 256 dwelling units also containing an open space area on approximately 80 acres within the PR-4 and O.S . zone, located at the southeast corner of Portola Avenue and Country Club Drive. Mr. Williams presented the proposal, relating many background details, which included major project improvements; area calculations; density; open space; recreation amenities; dwelling unit descriptions; parking analysis; site access; internal circulation; unit arrangement; and proposed park dedication. He also noted that the Design Review Board had reviewed the project and found the concept quite acceptable; they particularly found the architectural details to be well executed. He then stated that Staff would recommend approval of this proposal. The Commissioners concurred that this was a very unique project, and that the concerns with regard to circulation would be mitigated by one of the Special Conditions of Approval. The applicant' s representative acknowledged that he and the project architect, landscape architect and engineer were there to answer any questions the Commissioners had. There being none, Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this proposal. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, Case No. DP 06-79 and related Design Review Case No. 175 MF were approved by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 492 as presented; carried unanimously (4-0) . F. Held over from May 16 , 1979; Case No. ZOA 01-79 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text relative to the composition of the City Design Review Board. Mr. Williams presented the request, noting the following change in the draft resolution: the word "regular" should be added in Section C between the words "consecutive" and "meetings" . He also mentioned that this matter was initiated and set for Public Hearing by Planning Commission Resolution No. 479 , adopted April 18 , 1979 . Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this proposal. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, Planning Commission Resolution No. 494 was adopted, with the amendment as noted above, thereby recommending approval of Case No. ZOA 01-79 to the City Council; carried unanimously (4-0) . Minutes Page Five Palm Desert Planning Commission May 29 , 1979 VII. OLD BUSINESS - None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration of Proposed City Capital Improvement Program -- Five Year Plan Mr. Williams reviewed this request, referring to the memo from Mr. Bouman, and stating that Staff feels this is a reasonable program and the level of improvements are necessary. He asked for any questions or suggestions for change from the Commission. Chairman Snyder mentioned that this is the first time a five- year program has been proposed. It seems to be very well thought out by Staff , and he complimented those involved in creating such a document. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, Planning Commission Resolution No. 495 was adopted, with the deletion of sub-section 3 , as there were no further suggestions or changes from the Commission; carried unanimously (4-0) . IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Consideration of cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of May 22 , 1979 Mr. Williams noted a letter from John F. Outcault, Architect, for applicant Donald Lawrenz (Case No. 114 C) which requested clarification from the Commission of a parking requirement involving a second floor center pedestrian arcade; whether it should or should not be declared "gross floor area" , thus requiring off-street parking. He noted that the Commission could act upon this by Minute Motion. Chairman Snyder questioned is the hallway indeed a part of the building or does it provide access to the building. If the Commission does determine this is two buildings and that the hallway is merely access, there would be adequate parking spaces. Commissioner Kryder noted that it should not be considered as floor space, and would make a motion to that effect. Commissioner Berkey agreed and seconded the motion; and Planning Commission Resolution No. 406 was adopted as presented; carried unanimously (4-0) . The actio of the Planning Commission in adopting of the Resolution confirmed, in this specific instance, that the center pedestrian arcade was not be be counted as floor area for purposes of required parking. X. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Coachella Valley Association of Governments Announcement -- Master Environmental Assessment Seminar Mr. Williams noted that this subject was covered in Study Session, and that he would notify CVAG of the attendance figures. XI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XI . COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. Planning Commissioners The Planning Commissioners welcomed their new fellow Commissioner, Mr. Charles E. Miller, who was appointed by the City Council to the Commission at their May 24 , 1979 meeting. Mr. Miller was sworn in prior to the Study Session of tonight' s meeting by the City Clerk, Mrs. Sheila Gilligan. Minutes ` Page Six Palm Desert Planning Commission May 29, 1979 XIII. ADJOURNMENT - 9 : 45 p.m. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: WALTER SNYDER, Chairman /ss Minutes Page Four Palm Desert Planning Commission May 29 , 1979 V D. (cont. ) The applicant was not present, so Chairman Snyder declared the P lic Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR o OPPOSITION to the request. There being none, he declared the Public H aring closed, and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Co ssioner Berkey noted that as this is simply a duplication of what is a ready there, • this request seems adequate and proper, and made a motion to approve, which was seconded by Commissioner Kryder. Case No. DP 07 9 and related Design Review Case No. 174 MF were approved by adop ing Planning Commission Resolution No. 492 as presented; carrie unanimously (4-0) . E. Case No. P 06-79 - McLAIN DEVELOPMENT CO. , Applicant Request fo approval of a preliminary residential Development Ian and related Design Review case to allow 256 dwelling nits also containing an open space area on approximate y 80 acres within the PR-4 and O.S. zone, located at the outheast corner of Portola Avenue and Country Club Dri e. Mr. Williams presented the proposal, relating many background details, which included major oject improvements; area calculations; density; open space; recreation amenities; dwelling unit descriptions; parking analysis; site access; i ternal circulation; unit arrangement; and proposed park dedication. He lso noted that the Design Review Board had reviewed the project and ound the concept quite acceptable; they particularly found the archite tural details to be well executed. He then stated that Staff would reco end approval of this proposal. The Commissioners concurred tha this was a very unique project, and that the concerns with regard to ci culation would be mitigated by one of the Special Conditions of Appr val. The applicant's representative ackn wledged that he and the project architect, landscape architect and ngineer were there to answer any questions the Commissioners had. There eing none, Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, aski g if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this propos 1. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked fo the pleasure of the - - Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, second e by Commissioner Kryder, Case No. DP 06-79 and related Design Revie Case No. 175 MF were approved by a No. 492 as presented; carried unanimously (4-0) . F. Held over from May 16 , 1979; Case No. ZOA 01-79 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text relative to the composition of the City Design Review Board. Mr. Williams presented the request, noting the following change in the draft resolution: the word "regular" should be added in Section C between the words "consecutive" and "meetings" . He also mentioned that this matter was initiated and set for Public Hearing by Planning Commission Resolution No. 479 , adopted April 18 , 1979 . Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this proposal. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, Planning Commission Resolution No. 494 was adopted, with the amendment as noted above, thereby recommending approval of Case No. ZOA 01-79 to the City Council; carried unanimously (4-0) . 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT Z^:' 1-79 LEGAL NOTICE June 8, 1979 CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATIVE TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COMPOSITION. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to-the zoning ordinance text relative to the composition of the Design Review Board. SAID Public Hearing will be held on Thursday, June 28, 1979, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. SHIELA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post June 14, 1979 CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report on: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text relative to the Design Review Board composition Applicant: City of Palm Desert Date: May 29, 1979 I. REQUEST UNDER CONSIDERATION: Amendment of Municipal Code Section 25.70.020, relative to the composition of the Design Review Board. The matter was initiated and set for Public Hearing by Planning Commission Resolution No. 479, adopted April 18, 1979. II. BACKGROUND (UPDATE): The City's Design Review Board, which is advisory to the City Planning Commission, is presently composed of seven members. Said members are: two architects; one individual experienced in landscape architecture; engineer if available; citizen at large knowledgeable in the area of construction; City Building official ; and the Director of Environmental Services. In terms of voting, the City staff members may not vote unless they are needed for a quorum. Said composition has been in existence since about 1975. Over the last year, there have been very few meetings where both architects were in attendance. During those instances where only one architect is in attendance, the Board places an inordinate reliance on that individual 's opinion as to the acceptability of the architecture of projects. Said situations appear to put that individual in a very uncomfortable position, and as a result, it is staff's opinion that the individual has a tendency not to fully express their views on a technical standpoint. Further, there have been instances where neither of the architects have been able to attend the meetings. During said meetings, the City is without architectural expertise for review of projects. In order to improve the architectural input to the Design Review process and in order to eliminate situations whereby only one architect is in attendance, it is suggested that consideration be given to a Zoning Ordinance amendment, changing the composition of the Design Review Board to replace the two City staff members with two additional architects. If this change was implemented, it would result in seven voting members, which may provide improved technical member attendance at meetings, leading to a better Design Review process. This revision, in Staff's judgement, is appropriate in that the Planning Commission acts as the ' lay' input to the Design Review process. Therefore, the Design Review Board itself should not be overly oriented towards non- technical individuals, which is now the case. The City Council has discussed this matter, and is in support of the Suggested Revision (attached) . The Design Review Board members also had an opportunity to consider the Board' s composition and offered a slightly different recommendation. In the Board's opinion it would be adequate to add one additional architect and one Board member in another technical discipline. .nfrarhaJ t- the draft Resolution is a suggested Zoning Ordinance text amendment. An alternate to the composition indicated in paragraph W . would specify ". . .three architects, one technical member in a field other than architecture, . . ." Also, included in the present suggested amendment is language directed to meeting attendance and when the office of a member is declared vacant. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council amendment of Municipal Code Section 25.70.020. , by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010s 2015.5 CCP) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF CASE NO. ZOA 01-79 ZOA 01-79 I am a citizen of the United States and a 'resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not - a party LO or interested to the CifV OF'PALM'DESFRTLEGAL NOTICE above entitled matter. I am the C AM IDERATION FOR' AMENDMENT OF MUNICI-- principal clerk of the printer PA 0.02000RELAT SECT TO ION of PALM DESERT POSTS a newpaper Of THE COMPOSITION OFTHE CITY DESIGN RE- general circulations printed C NOVTIC EW Og.E Z OARD.1. S HEREBY GIV- and published daily in the EN that a Public Hearing will be bel, before the Palm De- city of Riversides County of sett Plannlno Commlsslon to consider a Inning Ordinance - Riversides and which newspaper Amendment to amend Municl Pal Code Section 25.70A20, has been adjudged a newspaper of specifying a revised compost- , general circulation by the Lion of the Design ReviewBoard, Initiated by THE CITY ' OF PALM DESERT as Superior Court of the County of applicant. p Riversides State of Californias held ion WednesdaaynMy 16, 1979 of 1:00 a.m,in the Council under date of October 59 1964s Chambers In the Palm�yDesert Case number 83658; that the Lane."Palm2DDesert`,kColK:l nia, at which time and�ploce,.t notices of which the annexed is auinterestedpersonsareln - a printed copy, has been published PA@@ULA WILLIAMand Se heard. PUImeDesyert r in each regular and entire issue Planning Commisaon of said newspaper and not in any PDP-5110 supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: 05/10 91979 I Certify (or declare), under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated May 109 1979 at Riversides ��California CITY OF PALM DESERT �� III 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 May 4, 1979 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CONSIDERATION FOR AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.70.020 RELATIVE TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE CITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. CASE NO. ZOA 01-79 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Municipal Code Section 25.70.020, specifying a revised composition of the Design Review Board, initiated by THE CITY OF PALM DESERT as applicant. SAID Public Hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 16, 1979 at 1 :00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place, all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.- PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission Publish: Enterprise May 6, 1979 Palm Desert Post May 10, 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 479 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING A ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT, RELATIVE TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE CITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD . WHEREAS , the City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, in Municipal Code Section 25 . 70. 020 , establishes the composition of the Design Review Board; and WHEREAS , as a result of study by City staff, the City Council, and the members of the Design Review Board, a recommendation has been formulated regarding Board membership which requires amendment of the City Zoning Ordinance Text, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25 . 82 . 020, to implement ; and WHEREAS , it is appropriate for the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert to consider at this time any advisory changes in the composition of the Design Review Board, for purposes of forwarding its recommendation to the City Council . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows : 1. A Zoning Ordinance Text amendment is hereby initiated to amend Municipal Code Section 25 . 70. 020, specifying a revised composition of the Design Review Board. 2 . That the Commission does hereby direct the Secretary to establish a Public Hearing for such purpose on May 16, 1979 , at the regular meeting of the Commission . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of April , 1979 , by the following vote , to wit : AYES : BERKEY, FLESHMAN, KRYDER, SNYDER NOES : NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN : NONE WALTER H. SNYDER, Chairman ATTEST : PAUL A. WILLIAMS , Secretary do Minutes Page Two Palm Desert Planning Commission April 18 , 1979 VII A (cont . ) Mr. Williams noted that the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area S ecific Plan was approved by the City Council at their last meeting. It is now necessary to move forward with the revisions to the zonin as recommended in the Specific Plan both in the area of zone distr cts established on the property encompassed in the study and also su ested revisions to the text to more accommodate the area that was unde consideration. Staff ha provided a resolution for the Planning Commission ' s consideration whi h would initiate a Public Hearing on June 20, 1979, at which time both the text changes and the zone changes for the area would be consi ered. Commissioner F eshman noted a discrepancy of dates between the Agenda and the Resolute n; it was agreed that June 20 is the correct date for the Public Hea 'ng instead of June 30, as written in the Agenda. Commissioner Berke suggested that gross acres and net acres should be identified as suc in the text and headings both. He also mentioned, regarding the sta dards for 5-acre lots, that minimum side yards of 100 feet seem e cessive to him. Commissioner Fleshman co curred with this, stating that he felt it should be 50 ft . Commissioner Berkey noted at , on Page 62 regarding maximum building height of 30 ft , he felt it should be a flexible building height , in accordance with the stat ent on Page 65 regarding Structural Design and Landscaping, w erein it states that "lot sizq, height and setbacks shall be flexible in in order to achieve the purposes of this section" . Mr. Willia s stated that staff would change it to show 18 ft , and can be fur her discussed at the Public Hearing on this subject . Commissioner Berkey also suggested a change in wording on Page 62 regarding development standards fo one acre lots or less, but not less .than 40, 000 sq ft , it should read 'at least 40, 000 sq ft . " Commissioner Fleshman also mentioned hat the Commission might consider requiring roads in subject area to b colored, in order to assist camouflaging of them. Mr . Williams ag ed that this possibility should be considered and investigated. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, secon ed by Commissioner Berkey, the Commission adopted Planning Commissi Resolution NO. 478, whereby initiating a Public Hearing for Zoning Or finance Map and Te . carrie unanimously (4-0) . Said He g was scheduled for the meeting of June 1979. B. Consideration of initiation of an amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance text , relative to the composition of the Design Review Board. Mr. Williams reviewed the proposed amendment , noting that the Design Review Board also reviewed this at their last meeting . The suggestion from the Board was that two voting members be added to the Board, but that one be an architect and the other be from a different technical area. Preliminary comments from the City Council were to increase the membership of architects. Staff now seeks the Commission ' s thoughts on the subject , and for the Commission to initiate an- Ordinance Amendment by Planning Commission Resolution. Said Amendment to be considered on May 16 . Commissioner Kryder asked if the architect ' s comments are based on the mechanics of the architecture or the aesthetics, or both. Minutes Page Three Palm Desert Planning commission April 18, 1979 VIII . B. (cont . ) Mr. Williams answered that the architect ' s comments can be based on both, but looks to what the architect is trying to achieve, if the project is compatible and complete. Commissioner Kryder then asked why an architect would necessarily be better than a lay person , if the comments are related to aesthetics. Mr. Williams stated that an architect can perceive more quickly and clearly. Commissioner Berkey asked if , in the definition of "architect" , does that include designers . Mr. Williams answered that the City Council has suggested the use of the term "architect" loosely. Chairman Snyder noted that the staff has attempted to create a Design Review Board that would be most skilled and capable. Commissioner Fleshman wondered if there should be something added to encourage attendance, and suggested including the same situation as exists for the Planning Commission, wherein the members are allowed only two unexcused absences. If they have more they would have to have someone replace them. Mr. Williams agreed to include a section similar to that of the Planning Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, Planning Commission Resolution No. 479 was adopted, to initiate a Public Hearing for Zoning Ordinance text amendments relative to the Design Review Board. Said Hearing was scheduled for May 16. Carried unanimously (4-0) . Ix. DE GN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Consi ration of cases acted upon by the Design Review Board at thei meeting of April 10, 1979. Mr. Willia reviewed the cases (Nos. 170 MF; 167 MF; 114 MF) with the Comri.ssion. The Commission ' scussed the size of Lewis Homes ' - (Case. 170 MF) development sign and it s suggested that the matter be taken back to the Design Review Boar for possible change. Commissioner Snyder stated that the Plan 'ng Commission will .approve whatever conclusion is reached between the Board and Lewis Homes. Mr. Williams suggested an addition to the r olution, stating that "regarding Case No. 170 MF, the developmen sign should be reconsidered by the Design Review Board" . On a motion by Commissioner rkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the actions of the Design Rev ew Board at their meeting of April 10, 1979, were approved by Plann g Commission Resolution No . 480, with the addition suggested; carried una imously (4-0) . X. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Recommendation of the CVAG .Executi Committee to establish a Fringe-Toed Lizard habi t reserve CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission REPORT ON: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Text relative to the Design Review Board composition. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert DATE: April 18, 1979 I. REQUEST UNDER CONSIDERATION: Amendment of Municipal Code Section 25.70.020, relative to the composition of the Design Review Board. II. BACKGROUND: The City's Design Review Board, which is advisory to the City Planning Commission, is presently composed of seven members. Said members are: two architects; one individual experienced in landscape architecture; engineer if available; citizen at large knowledgeable in the area of construction; City Building official ; and the Director of Environmental Services. In terms of voting, the City staff members may not vote unless they are needed for a quorum. Said composition has been in existence since about 1975. Over the last year, there have been very few meetings where both architects were in attendance. During those instances where only one architect is in attendance, the Board places an inordinate reliance on that individual 's opinion as to the acceptability of the architecture of projects. Said situations appear to put that individual in a very uncomfortable position, and as a result, it is staff's opinion that the individual has a tendency not to fully express their views on a technical standpoint. Further, there have been instances where neither of the architects have been able to attend the meetings. During said meetings, the City is without architectural expertise for review of projects. In order to improve the architectural input to the Design Review process and in order to eliminate situations whereby only one architect is in attendance, it is suggested that consideration be given to a Zoning Ordinance amendment, changing the composition of the Design Review Board to replace the two City staff members with two additional architects. If this change was implemented, it would result in seven voting members, which may provide improved technical member attendance at meetings , leading to a better Design Review process. This revision, in Staff's judgement, is appropriate in that the Planning Commission acts as the 'lay' input to the Design Review process. Therefore, the Design Review Board itself should not be overly oriented towards non- technical individuals, which is now the case. The City Council has discussed this matter, and is in support of the Suggested Revision (attached). The Design Review Board members also had an opportunity to consider the Board' s composition and offered a slightly different recommendation. In the Board's opinion it would be adequate to add one additional architect and one Board member in another technical discipline. STAFF REPORT Page two Palm Desert Planning Commission April 18, 1979 The Planning Commission is being requested to set a Public Hearing to consider this matter and make a formal recommendation to the City Council on any revisions to the Board's composition which they deem appropriate. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Initiate Public Hearing for Zoning Ordinance Text amendment on May 16, 1979, by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. ( oSUGGESTED REVISION: r d 25. 70. 020 Membership, meetings, duties and responsi- bilities. A. The design review board shall consist of seven members. All members shall be citizens appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. . B. The citizen members ( if available) shall be four architects, one civil engineer, one landscape architect and one lay person knowledgeable in the design field. Citizen members shall be appointed based on their civic responsibility, ability to give objective, effective, constructive and unprejudiced criticism, ability to give direction and suggest alternatives, and their use of diplomacy and tact in expressing their judgment . C. All members of the design review board shall serve for an unspecified time or for a specified period as estab- lished by the city council. D, The director of environmental services shall appoint a member of the department of environmental services to serve as secretary to the board.. E. The design review board shall . hold a minimum of two public meetings a month and additional meetings as directed by the board. An applicant , upon the filing of an applica- tion, shall be advised of the date and place of his hearing before the board. Four. members must be present to hold a meeting. A majority vote of the members.,.pr.esent ' is sufficient to take action on a submittal . F. The duties of the design .review board shall be to review and approve or cause to be modified all proposed developments requiring qualified aesthetic and architectural judgment to the end that the general appearance of all pro- posed developments shall preserve or enhance the physical environment ..:, and character of the city.. ('Ord. 99 ®1(part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 125. 39-2 , 02) , Review C.C. - Yes P. S. - DRB - IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1 . Case P 03-79, JAMES 'UL, Applicant. Request for Planning Commission royal of a 36 unit condominium development on approximately 2 cI located on the south side of Country Club Drive between Monte and Portola Avenues. Staff presented the plans t he Board and noted what it felt to be the design considerations ne ng further study. These included the entrance detail and ar for wind/blowsand protection. In addition to this , Board members reco nded some type of internal loop to provide for a turn-around 'thin the project. V. Consideration of Revision of the Composition of the Design Review Board. The Board had received copies of the March 16, 1979 memorandum from Paul Williams, Director of Environmental Services, to Martin J. Bouman, City Manager, regarding considerations for Design Review Board composition and a copy of the suggested revision. Mr. Williams discussed the subject with the Board members. First responding was Board member Jackson, who stated the feeling that the Board should be more balanced with selection of members other than architects. Mr. Williams explained that the purpose of the Board was to perform a technical analysis of plans and that the lay body in this case was the Planning Commission. Board member Urrutia also explained on this point that by only having two architects on the Board that if one were not present for meetings, the sole burden of technical judgments rested with one Board member, which was a difficult position. Subsequent discussion among the Board members included the possibility of having an additional architect and some other design discipline or engineering discipline. The Board was asked to give their formal opinion of this revision. Motion was made by Jackson, seconded by Urrutia, to state the Design Review Board members ' opinion that the size of the Board should be increased to seven members, eliminating the present Staff positions, and adding one Board member in the category of architect and adding one other technical discipline. Carried 4-0 (Johnson, Jackson, Urrutia, Leung) . VI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Murrel Crump, Principal Planner /ss 1 �UN f2>✓dtl,v�! Mll.4UTC� I INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Martin J. Bouman, City Manager FROM: Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: Consideration of Revision of the DATE: March 16, 1979 Composition of the Design Review Board Introduction The .City' s Design Review Board, which is advisory to the City Planning Commission, is presently composed of seven members. Said members are: two architects; one individual experienced in landscape architecture; engineer if available; citizen at large knowledgeable in the area of construction; City Building official ; and the Director of Environmental Services. In terms of voting, the City staff members may not vote unless they are needed for a quorum. Said composition has been in existence since about 1975. Over the last year , there have been very few meetings where both architects were in attendance. During those instances where only one architect is in attendance, the Board places an inordinate reliance on that individual ' s opinion as to the acceptability of the architecture of projects. . Said situations appear to put that individual in a very uncomfortable position, and as a result , it is my opinion that the individual has a tendency not to fully express their views on a technical standpoint . Further, there have been instances where neither of the architects have been able to attend the meetings. During said meetings, the City is without architectural expertise for review of projects. Recommendation In order to improve the architectural input to the Design Review process and in order to eliminate situations whereby only one architect is in attendance, I would suggest that we discuss. with the City Council the possibility of amending the zoning ordinance to change the composition of the Design Review Board to replace the two City staff members with two additional architects. If this were done, it would mean that there would be seven voting members at most of the meetings. The result , in my opinion, would be a better Design Review process. This revision, in my judgement , is appropriate in that the Planning Commission acts as the; � lay` input to the Design Review process. Therefore, the Design Review Board itself should not be overly oriented towards non-technical individuals, which is now the case. 1 If we move forward with this revision, it would be necessary that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the zoning ordinance amendment to implement said procedure. I would welcome an opportunity to personally discuss this matter with you at your convenience. p� Paul A. Williams PAW/ss 25. 70. 020 Membership, meetings, duties and responsi- bilities. A. The design review board shall consist of seven members. All members shall be citizens appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council . B. The citizen members ( if available) shall be four architects, one civil engineer, one landscape architect and one lay person knowledgeable in the design field. Citizen members shall be appointed based on their civic responsibility, ability to give objective, effective, constructive and unprejudiced criticism, ability to give direction and suggest alternatives, and their use of diplomacy and tact in expressing their judgment . C. All members of the design review board shall serve for an unspecified time or for a specified period as estab- lished by the city council. . D. The director of environmental services shall appoint a member of the department of environmental services to serve as secretary to the board. E. The design review board shall hold a minimum of two public meetings a month and additional meetings as directed by the board. An applicant , upon the filing of an applica- tion, shall be advised of the date and place of his hearing before the board. Four. members must be present to hold a meeting, A majority vote of the members.pr.eserit.'.is sufficient to take action on a submittal. r F. The duties of the design .review board shall be to review and approve or cause to be modified all proposed developments requiring qualified aesthetic and architectural judgment to the end that the general appearance of all pro- posed developments shall preserve or enhance the physical environment ...:, and character of the city, (Ord. 99 @1(part) , 1975 ; Exhibit A @25. 39-2, 02) . Review C.C. - Yes . P.S. - DRB - y� �Mr� � . Y,,1:1� . y(tS�{3�' ''�-:.a. 5!?. .�2c�eT'' rog�{y w'"b'�,�i�s�R, .`.-4i. v 4..:+�: �� �i � '. r x` ... _. 9gdihcc -nUe /zuf 5-ct�o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM t City of Palm Desert TO: Martin J. Bouman, City Manager FROM: Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: Consideration of Revision of the DATE: March 5, 1979 Composition of the Design Review Board Introduction The City' s Design Review Board, which is advisory to the City Planning Commission, is presently composed of seven members. Said members are: two architects; one individual experienced in land- scape architecture; engineer if available; citizen at large ' knowledgeable in the area of construction; City Building official ; and the Director of Environmental Services. In terms of voting, the City staff members may not vote unless they are needed for a quorum. Said composition has been in existence since about 1975. Over the last year, there have been very few meetings where both architects were in attendance. During those instances where only one architect is in attendance, the Board places an inordinate amount of reliance on that individual ' s opinion as to the acceptability of the architecture of projects. Said situations appear to put that individual in a very uncomfortable position, and as a result , it is my opinion that the individual has a tendency not to fully express their views on a technical standpoint . Further , there have been instances where neither of the architects have been able to attend the meetings. During said meetings, the City is without architectural expertise for review of projects. Recommendation In order to improve the architectural input to the Design Review process and in order to eliminate situations whereby only one architect is in attendance, I would suggest that we discuss with the City Council the possibility of amending the zoning ordinance to change the composition of the Design Review Board to replace the two City staff members with two additional architects. If this were done, it would mean that there would be five voting members at most of the meetings, with at least two architects in attendance at every meeting. Further, there may be instances where all four architects would be in attendance. If all seven members were in attendance at any one meeting, the two new members would not have a vote, but they would have the right to give design input to the process. The result , in my opinion, would be a better Design Review process and would result in the Board becoming a more technical process than it presently is. 4 This revision, in my judgement , is appropriate in that the Planning Commission acts As the ' lay' input to the Design Review process. Therefore, the Design Review Board itself should not be overly oriented towards non-technical individuals, which is now the case. If we move forward with this revision, it would be necessary that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the zoning ordinance amendment to implement said procedure. In terms of potential architects to be appointed to the expanded Board, the following would be my recommendation in order of preference: Rick Holden George Ritter Al Cook Charles Martin Bob Ricciardi Ira Johnson I would welcome an opportunity to personally discuss this matter with you at your convenience. Paul A. Williams PAW/ss SUGGESTED REVISION 25. 70. 020 Membership, meetings, duties and responsi- bilities. A. The design review board shall consist of seven members.. All members shall be citizens appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. B. The citizen members (if available) shall be four architects, one civil engineer , one. landscape architect and one lay person knowledgeable in the design field. Citizen members shall be appointed based on their civic responsibility , ability to give objective, effective, constructive and unprejudiced criticism, ability to give direction and suggest alternatives, and their use of diplomacy and tact in expressing their judgment . C. Two of the architects shall be designated by the chairman of the design review board on a monthly basis as nonvoting members of the board except to constitute a quorum. If one additional voting member is necessary, the chairman shall designate one of the architects as first alternate who may vote. If two additional voting members are necessary, the second architect alternate may also vote. D. All members of the design review board shall serve for an unspecified time or for a specified period as estab- lished by the city council . E. The director of environmental services shall appoint a member of the department of environmental services to serve as secretary to the board. F. The design review board shall hold a minimum of two public meetings a month and additional meetings as directed by the board. An applicant , upon the filing of an applica- tion, shall be advised of the date and place of his hearing before the board. Four voting members must be present to hold a meeting. A .majority vote of the members present is sufficient to take action on a submittal. G. The duties of the design review board shall be to review and approve or cause to be modified all proposed developments requiring qualified aesthetic and architectural judgment to the end that the general appearance of all pro- posed developments shall preserve or enhance the physical environment and character of . the city. (Ord. 99 S1(part ) , 1975 : Exhibit A 525. 39-2. 02) .