Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 02-01 COLORS FILE 1 2002 1: l MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 Mr. Jorgensen said he appreciated .it. Commissioner Campbell compared the proposed project with the American Car Wash and the proposal with 12 cars, but said that if this is organized the way it appears on paper, it will work. Mr. Jorgensen thought the American Car Wash only had nine spaces. Then they take them over into the adjoining parking area. Commissioner Campbell thought it was very impressive. Mr. Jorgensen thanked her. Action: None. C. Discussion of Case No. ZOA 02-01 Exhibit "A" wording on Planning Commission Resolution No. 2124. Mr. Drell indicated that although the commission approved this, before sending it onto City Council staff wanted the commission to review the language. He simplified the language a little bit to, "The colors or textures of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property that are visible from public right-of-way shall not be significantly changed unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission by appeal. This shall be a no fee process." He thought it was fairly clear. He asked if this met with commission's direction. If it did, then it would be sent to City Council. Commissioner Campbell asked if this language would cover what they discussed before about just repainting with the same color, which would be the same as maintenance. Mr. Drell said yes. The other good thing about talking about "significantly changed," this would apply to all buildings in the city regardless of when they were built or how they were approved. If they are changing it significantly, then it will be regardless .of whether or not it was approved in the county 50 years ago, it would apply. 21 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 Commissioner Tschopp said that was a question he had about the wording "shall not be significantly changed." If they have a building they weren't happy with right now and the owner decides to continue that look, they would not be dragged in by this revision. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a way to add in something that would state that it could not be significantly changed from the originally approved colors or something to that effect that would bring in people who have, since they have been approved, changed the colors and/or structure, etc. Mr. Drell said they could add "significantly changed from the original approval." Assuming the original approval is one we liked. Commissioner Tschopp said he was thinking about a couple of buildings. Mr. Drell noted that was what they were going back and forth with. On some of the older buildings, they wouldn't know what the original approval was, but in those cases they could fall back on "significantly changed" from what they were. As an example, he indicated that the green building at the southeast corner of Fred Waring and Monterey had an approved color which a lot of people didn't like either. What they hoped was that this ordinance would make people sufficiently nervous to ask before doing a repainting. He said it was now up to the commission. He could only think of one or two buildings that have been a problem. He didn't know if they wanted to-trigger a whole process to address one or two buildings. Commissioner Jonathan said that he assumed that if the commission passes an ordinance now or at some time in the future, it couldn't be implemented retroactively. If there is a building that was repainted three years ago with a different color than originally approved, he assumed by passing an ordinance today they couldn't go to that property owner and tell them they are not in compliance. Mr. Drell said we wouldn't do that, but he thought Commissioner Tschopp's position was if they came in to repaint it 20 years from now, we would say they had to go back to the original color. The way this is written, they wouldn't do that. By virtue of the fact that someone painted and the city didn't stop them, that is the new approved color if there was no ordinance to force someone to do something differently. Commissioner Jonathan said it wouldn't hurt then to say "from the original approval" after the word "changed." It was an added option if they ever wanted to invoke it. Mr. Drell said it would if they were able to figure out what the original approval was. Commissioner Jonathan said that if they couldn't, they were no worse 22 :rw MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 off. Commissioner Jonathan recommended adding in after significantly changed "from the original approval." Commissioner Tschopp said he liked the intent of this, but it would be a lot of work. Commissioner Campbell said staff would be busy. Chairperson Finerty stated that if the City cares what color someone is painting their building when they build it, then they certainly would care what color they use to repaint. So there was clearly a need to have this ordinance. They might not have the wording perfect, but they would work through it as circumstances present themselves. Mr. Drell asked if they wanted him to make that change. Commissioner Jonathan said it wouldn't hurt and could only help if they wanted to use it. He said he would be in favor of the wording presented with the addition of the wording "from the original approval" inserted after the word changed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion inserting "from the original approval" after the word changed. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (April 17, 2002) Commissioner Campbell said they were introduced to the new curator, Mr. John Nagus whom everyone knew, for the exhibition on El Paseo. They also met the new art director for the City. Everything else was informational. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (May 2, 2002) Chairperson Finerty said the discussion was basically about land use with regard to the Palma Village area and the Highway 111 corridor and 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 were working with the existing topography. Based on the calculations of what has taken place, they figured there would be a two-foot height difference. He wasn't aware that the property to the south was required to raise its heights. Commissioner Jonathan said that it wasn't yet, so that was his concern. Mr. Bagato agreed that no application has been received for it. Mr. Drell said that they could add the wording "as determined by the City Engineer" so at the time that happens the City Engineer could make that call. Commissioner Jonathan said that other than that the project looked fine to him and he moved for approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tschopp. Chairperson Finerty asked for any additional comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she has looked at some of the homes there and commented that they are beautiful. She thought the developers were doing a very good job with the homes along Shepherd. Chairperson Finerty asked for clarification that Commissioner Jonathan's motion included an added Condition No. 19 under Public Works to be determined by the City Engineer. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2123 approving TT 30503, subject to conditions as amended adding Condition No. 19 under Department of Public Works. Motion carried 5-0. C., Case No. ZOA 02-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval of any painting, repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs, . walls, fences or improvements to real property. 15 .l MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 Mr. Bagato explained that as part of the city's architectural process, the Architectural Review Commission currently approves colors and textures for any new commercial buildings and tract homes, with the exception of custom single family homes. He noted that the current language of our Zoning Ordinance is ambiguous and doesn't prevent a property owner from repainting or retexturing a building, wall or fence after it has been finaled by the Building Department. So the proposed ordinance, if adopted, would support the Architectural Review Commission's decisions as well as staff's with regard to any painting/repainting, texturing/retexturing of buildings, walls, fences, signs and basically any improvements to real property with regard to coloring and texturing. The proposed ordinance would require approval by the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission through an appeal process. The proposed ordinance would be added to our Chapter 25.56 of the General Provisions as outlined in Exhibit "A." Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval from the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission by appeal for any painting/repainting, texturing/retexturing of any buildings, fences, walls, signs or any improvements to real property. Commissioner.Campbell asked if someone has a white building and they want to repaint it white, if they would have to have permission to repaint it white. She could understand if someone wanted to change the color, but if they wanted to repaint with the same color, she wanted to know if that would require permission. Mr. Bagato said that they would be required to have our approval, but normally if someone paints or repaints their building the same color, the city wouldn't receive a complaint. Mr. Drell thought that was a good suggestion. They might want to add or modify the language that would say a change from the approved color. Then if someone was just repainting the same color that was just maintenance. Obviously we have no concern for maintaining the same color. He concurred that they were only concerned with new colors. He noted that at ARC there was a lot of discussion about enforcement of this and whether or not people would really know to do this. Technically we require a permit to build a wood fence and he thought a lot of people on weekends probably built fences without a permit. Typically when people do the sort of thing that never draw attention, they never draw attention. Here we are talking about activities that by their nature will 16 ,J MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 draw attention. In 20 years that has probably only happened two or three times total. So it wasn't a horrendous problem it was just that when it happens people ask how we could let it happen. This would give the city some teeth for when it does happen. Commissioner Campbell said that when something changes colors, it really stands out, but after a while you get used to it. 'Mr. Drell concurred. He said that like all these sorts of codes, the City, like the police, typically doesn't enforce every infraction they see, they only go after the ones they think are worthwhile. What prompted this was the building at the southeast corner of Fred Waring and Monterey, so this was a way to deal with it. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Drell said that historically there are very few problems of this nature. He,thought the last thing we wanted was overkill and create a process that would result in 1 ,000 .applications per year, so it was important in the language that is used to modify the ordinance that they have wording that indicates if the change is significant. That way he thought they weren't creating a rule or a law that we enforce by exception. He .thought there was a danger in doing that. So at least there was judgement involved there. For example, a homeowner that goes from beige to brown could say that they didn't think it was a significant difference. But if someone complains and the City feels that it is, it has those teeth. He said he would advocate language that includes a qualifier that says not only does it require that there be a difference, but that it be a significant difference from the original approval. Mr. Drell said they could continue this and come back with more precise language before passing it on. Chairperson Finerty noted that they didn't know what everyone's definition of significant is. As an example, the building at Fred Waring and Monterey that was painted green, in her mind that was significant. Others might not think it was. Commissioner Jonathan said the point he was making was that if the City thought it was significant, then they could make that determination. Chairperson Finerty noted that it could come from a complaint. Commissioner Jonathan thought there was a danger of having an ordinance if it was never enforced it and there were thousands of paint jobs done every year and no one had ever gotten a permit; therefore defacto it was invalid. So he wasn't sure there was a 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 better approach to this. The last thing he wanted to do was for the City to have a string of applicants everyday saying they just wanted to paint their house. That was all they were trying to accomplish here. Commissioner Lopez asked if it applied to residential homes. Mr. Drell said it does. This was another issue that ARC debated back and forth. Something for them to think about was if their neighbor suddenly painted their house pink and it was approved as brown. If they came to us when they painted their house and suggested pink, we would say no, change it to brown. If the city determines the color originally, he asked if it made sense that they wouldn't care the day after it was finaled. Chairperson Finerty said they need to care because the Albertson's Center painted the center purple and olive green. Mr. Drell said that staff approved that. Chairperson Finerty noted that it was an example of a significant change. Mr. Drell concurred that it was a significant change. He said.that they came to the city. He indicated that most large developments do come to. the city. When people would ask him he said he would like to see it., He� said it was a tough question when they start micro managing people's behavior. They run the risk of taking on a lot of work. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a possibility to insert or use language that approaches it from the other perspective. Instead of requiring an application that gives the City authority in its judgement to make a determination that the repainting varies significantly from the original approval and therefore might be denied. It would give an applicant the option of coming in and being preapproved. Mr. Hargreaves said there was no way to be able to craft language that was going to be clear and unambiguous when talking about these kinds of aesthetics. They were sensitive to this issue being over broad, but if they tried to narrow it they just created more arguments when they try to enforce it. He really thought the way they had it "in a manner significantly modifying the original color" would probably achieve their objectives as well as anything they would be able to come up with. It would give them the opportunity to go after the egregious examples like the one down the street. There might be a problem with people coming in more than we want them to, but after a while he thought that people would get the idea that it probably isn't necessary. In situations like this, he said there is selective enforcement. Everyone could make that 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 argument, but they couldn't really win on it. If they have a case where there is a significant modification, they can't defend by selective enforcement. Mr. Drell said that chances are they were only going to go after the rather obvious examples. Getting into the terminology of color, they were talking about shades, tones and hues. Hues were different colors. Shades were variations within the same color. So they probably didn't care as much about different shades, it was the different hues that were approved which typically generate a problem. If people go from brown to purple. If people go from light brown to dark brown or dark brown to darker brown, it might be something they didn't like, but was probably something they could live with. It's the jump to different hues which probably generate the controversy. Chances are they would probably only be actively enforcing or making an issue of those rather gross changes which they probably wouldn't have a hard time determining that they are significant. Chairperson .Finerty opened the public hearing and seeing no one present to speak closed the public hearing. She asked for commission comments. . .. Commissioner,Campbell asked if they wanted to bring it back with the proper language. Mr. Drell said it wasn't an emergency item and was up to the commission. Commissioner Campbell noted that by next week they could have a lot of different colored buildings. Commissioner Jonathan noted that staff had the language to include "if it varies significantly." He asked if the ordinance could be worded such that approval must be obtained only if the repainting varies significantly. Mr. Hargreaves said he thought that was the way they intended it to be. Commissioner Jonathan said it wasn't the way it was worded. Mr. Hargreaves said they were talking about adding the language after retexture that would say "in a manner significantly modifying the original colors." So they couldn't do it in a manner significantly modifying the original colors without prior approval. Commissioner Jonathan said that if an owner didn't feel he was varying significantly, then he didn't need to come in. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan said he would be in favor of that. He didn't know if the commission wanted to see that language again, but he thought that was a good solution. Chairperson Finerty asked if that was a motion. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He said he would leave it up to staff to do the wording in his motion. He wanted to see it though. Commissioner Lopez stated that he would second that motion. Commissioner Tschopp thought that the intent was very good. The wording was a challenge, but he thought they should try it and modify it if it became too burdensome on staff. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2124, recommending to City Council approval-of Case No. ZOA 02-01 as amended to include the language "in a manner significantly modifying the original colors." Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Review of Shepherd Lane Street Improvement Progress Mr. Bagato explained that last October there was some discussion about different scenarios the City could take with regard to Shepherd Lane if development was piecemeal. The commission continued it to April to see how much more development had taken place within that six months. The summary was to continue along with Alternative 3 which was to continue to require applicants to provide full improvements along the street and connections with roadways as the projects came along. Since October, they had approved the first tentative tract today, TT 30503. They hadn't received anything from the Jewish Federation, which was one of the big projects for the other entrance along Shepherd. He thought what Mr. Alvarez recommended last October Alternative 3 which would have the City construct a 28 foot wide paved connection between the south and north and then have the developers finish up with the 20 r IIIV 01 P n I M OESERI - 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061 I FAX: 760 34I-7098 info@palm-desert.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: April 18, 2002 City of Palm Desert Re: ZOA 02-01' The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of April 16, 2002: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZOA 02-01 BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024 WITH AMENDMENT TO THE WORDING IN EXHIBIT "A." MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Philip Drell, Se etary Palm Desert Planing Commission Am cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal s PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2124 i A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS i CHAPTER OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING APPROVAL OF ANY EXTERIOR PAINTING, REPAINTING, TEXTURING, RETEXTURING TO A BUILDING, WALL, FENCE, SIGN, OR REAL PROPERTY. CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of April, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for the above mentioned; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; 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 approval of the General Plan Amendment: 1. The proposed ordinance to require approval for any painting, repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property, is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and will protect the community health, safety, and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does herby recommend approval to the City Council of ZOA 02-01 Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2124 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of April, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, JONATHAN, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, FINERTY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Cyn�ha�Fine'���Ch �� airperson ATTEST: II PHILIP DRELL Secretary Palm Desert PI nning Commission 2 }h �E PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2124 EXIHIBT "A" CHAPTER 25.56 GENERAL PORVISIONS 25.56.510 Exterior Modifications The colors or textures of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property shall not be significantly changed unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission by appeal. This shall be a no fee process. 3 �7 ORDINANCE NO. 1015A 1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IUUI PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD SECTION 25.56.510 TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS REQUIRING APPROVAL FOR ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OF AN APPROVED COLOR OR TEXTURE ON AN EXISTING BUILDING, STRUCTURE, SIGN, WALL, FENCE, OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO REAL PROPERTY. CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 11 th day of December, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amending the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.56 adding Section 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. 2124, has recommended approval of the proposed amendment which is significantly similar to the amendment before the City Council; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is considered a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. ORDINANCE NO. 1015A li 2. That the City Council approves a zoning ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Sections 25.56 adding Section 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 8th day of January 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, FERGUSON, KELLY, SPIEGEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: CRITES ABSTAIN: NONE tirc Robert A. Spiegel Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 lORDINANCE NO. 1015A I EXHIBIT "A" CHAPTER 25.56 GENERAL PROVISIONS 25.56.510 Exterior Modifications The colors of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence or other improvements to real property that are visible from public right-of-way shall not be significantly changed unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission upon appeal. This shall be a no fee process. For the purposes of this section "significantly changed" means a change in hue, shade or intensity of color. 3