Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 02-01 COLORS FILE 2 2002 At CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of 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. MEETING DATE 12-11-03 SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager © CONTINUED TO APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert PASSED TO 2N0 READING 1-s-oa* CASE NO: ZOA 02-01 *Passed Ordinance No. 1015 DATE: December 11, 2003 to second reading, with staff directed to notify businesses of this Municipal Code Amendment CONTENTS: through the Business License Renewal process and notify Staff Recommendation residents through the Bright Background and Discussion Side. 55=0 ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance No. 1015A City Council Minutes of May 23 and August 22, 2002 City Council Staff Report dated May 23, 2002 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1015A to second reading, approving the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications, to the General Provisions Chapter. Background and Discussion: In March 2002 the Architectural Review Commission and staff initiated an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance because of recent concerns with buildings and fences that had been repainted or retextured. 1 r' Staff Report Case No. ZOA 02-01 Page 2 December 11, 2003 The amendment would have clarified that approval was necessary through the Architectural Review process for any significant change of an approved color or texture on an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence or other improvements to real property. That amendment was recommended for approval by ARC and by Planning Commission. May 23, 2003 City Council passed Ordinance No. 1015 to second reading, but directed that second reading be held in abeyance until an article on the proposed ordinance could be published in the BrightSide newsletter. This was done and the ordinance was placed on the August 22, 2003 agenda for second reading. There was no public testimony. , Councilman Spiegel felt there should be a color pallet. Councilman Ferguson expressed concern with a color pallet (see minutes attached). Council on a 4-0 vote, Mayor Benson absent, continued the matter in order for staff to develop a more acceptable approach. Over the past several months several controversial color changes have occurred which are being addressed after the fact by staff and ARC. The new color combinations at Bashes Clubhouse, Captain Cook's, Bananas and Del Rio's on El Paseo were all performed without City review or approval (see photos enclosed). Without a strong, clear ordinance to point to, obtaining cooperation of the businesses has proven to be time consuming and difficult. Staff has considered other approaches but feels this original ordinance amendment is the most appropriate for the city. Having a color pallet is not the solution because it cannot address the appropriateness of various colors, combinations and proportion. Planning staff, ARC and Planning Commission have been making color decisions for every new project since incorporation. This amendment would protect those decisions. i 'J i Staff Report Case No. ZOA 02-01 Page 3 December 11, 2003 It is our philosophy to allow an applicant to use their personal preference and creativity to propose project colors. It should not be limited by an arbitrary pallet. Even with a pallet applicants would still heed to have their color choices reviewed and approved. The amendment has been revised from the original presented in 2002 by deleting the words "from the original approval" in order to clarify that all significant exterior modifications require prior review and approval. In addition, the amendment also includes an additional paragraph defining "significantly changed" as a change in hue, shade and intensity. Per direction of the City Attorney, this revised amendment was renoticed and has been placed on the agenda as a public hearing item with the recommendation that the revised ordinance be passed to second reading. Submitted by: Department Head: Steve Smith pf'iil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Approval Approval: Homer Croy Carlos L. Ort ACM for D opment Services City Manager (WpdocsMm\sr ca02-0I.cc2) : 11V Of P6LM 9 1 73-5!o FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL 760 346-061I FAX: 760 341-7-98 ,nf.Q,I -d eeert.... CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval of any significant change of an approved color in regards to painting, repainting, texturing, retexturing an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk November 28, 2003 City of Palm Desert, California IIV 01 P E L M OESE i 73-510 FREO WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578 TEL: 760 346—o61I FAX 760 341-7098 info@palm-dane.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval of any significant change of an approved color in regards to painting, repainting, texturing, retexturing an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk November 28, 2003 City of Palm Desert, California Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance men ment 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. cA5e Zoi9 D.—D Staff Report Case No. ZOA 02-01 Page 3 December 11, 2003 It is our philosophy to allow an applicant to use their personal preference and creativity to propose project colors. It should not be limited by an arbitrary pallet. Even with a pallet applicants would still need to have their color choices reviewed and approved. The amendment has been revised from the original presented in 2002 by deleting the words "from the original approval" in order to clarify that all significant exterior modifications require prior review and approval. In addition, the amendment also includes an additional paragraph defining "significantly changed" as a change in hue, shade and intensity. Per direction of the City Attorney, this revised amendment was renoticed and has been placed on the agenda as a public hearing item with the recommendation that the revised ordinance be passed to second reading. Submitted by: Department Head: Steve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Approval Approval: Homer Croy Carlos L. Ortega ACM for D opment Services City Manager (Wpdocs\tmlw oa02-01.cc21' CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of 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. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 02-01 DATE: December 11, 2003 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Background and Discussion ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance No. 1015A City Council Minutes of May 23 and August 22, 2002 City Council Staff Report dated May 23, 2002 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1015A to second reading, approving the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications, to the General Provisions Chapter. Background and Discussion: In March 2002 the Architectural Review Commission and staff initiated an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance because of recent concerns with buildings and fences that had been repainted or retextured. Staff Report Case No. ZOA 02-01 Page 2 December 11, 2003 The amendment would have clarified that approval was necessary through the Architectural Review process for any significant change of an approved color or texture on an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence or other improvements to real property. That amendment was recommended for approval by ARC and by Planning Commission. May 23, 2003 City Council passed Ordinance No. 1015 to second reading, but directed that second reading be held in abeyance until an article on the proposed ordinance could be published in the BrightSide newsletter. This was done and the ordinance was placed on the August 22, 2003 agenda for second reading. There was no public testimony. Councilman Spiegel felt there should be a color pallet. Councilman Ferguson expressed concern with a color pallet (see minutes attached). Council on a 4-0 vote, Mayor Benson absent, continued the matter in order for staff to develop a more acceptable approach. Over the past several months several controversial color changes have occurred which are being addressed after the fact by staff and ARC. The new color combinations at Bashes Clubhouse, Captain Cook's, Bananas and Del Rio's on El Paseo were all performed without City review or approval (see photos enclosed). Without a strong, clear ordinance to point to, obtaining cooperation of the businesses has proven to be time consuming and difficult. Staff has considered other approaches but feels this original ordinance amendment is the most appropriate for the city. Having a color pallet is not the solution because it cannot address the appropriateness of various colors, combinations and proportion. Planning staff, ARC and Planning Commission have been making color decisions for every new project since incorporation. This amendment would protect those decisions. Staff Report Case No. ZOA 02-01 Page 3 December 11, 2003 It is our philosophy to allow an applicant to use their personal preference and creativity to propose project colors. It should not be limited by an arbitrary pallet. Even with a pallet applicants would still need to have their color choices reviewed and approved. The amendment has been revised from the original presented in 2002 by deleting the words "from the original approval" in order to clarify that all significant exterior modifications require prior review and approval. In addition, the amendment also includes an additional paragraph defining "significantly changed" as a change in hue, shade and intensity. Per direction of the City Attorney, this revised amendment was renoticed and has been placed on the agenda as a public hearing item with the recommendation that the revised ordinance be passed to second reading. Submitted by: Department Head: AA- Stever P it Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Approval: Approval: Homer Croy Carlos L. Ortega ACM for Development Services City Manager (Wpdocsll�ca02-01=2) ORDINANCE NO. 1015A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 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 11th 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 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 day of 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1015A 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 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 2002 NOTE:The following item was listed on an Agenda Addendum posted 72 hours prior to the meeting. E. RESOLUTION NO. 02- 105-A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY THE GRANT DEED FROM ABD PALM DESERT 118, LLC, CONVEYING APPROXIMATELY 34 ACRES OF LAND FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING A PUBLIC PARK (FREEDOM PARK). Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 02-105. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Mayor Pro-Tern Benson ABSENT. XIII. ORDINANCES For Introduction: A. REINTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1017-AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 2.20, 2.34, 2.60, 2.64, 2.68, AND 2.72 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE (AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 99, 390, 553, 861, 875, 899, 900, AND 935), RELATIVE TO COMMITTEE/COMMISSION MEMBER REQUIREMENTS. ' Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1017 to second reading. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Mayor Pro-Tem Benson ABSENT. For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 1015 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 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 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Councilman Spiegel asked if there should be a color palette of acceptable tones that could be given to people who want to make significant changes to approved colors for buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, etc. If they want something different, it could be appealed. 14 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 2002 Mr. Smith responded that this Ordinance was introduced in June, and the Council instructed staff at that time to have the information put into the City's newsletter, which was done. Since the introduction of the Ordinance, staff had been asking that people come in and show what colors they will be using. This procedure had been going fairly smoothly, and if staff gets a color which it is not prepared to approve, it will be referred to Architectural Review. However, there is no actual color palette available. Councilman Crites asked if it was also policy that if the original color was acceptable, as long as the new color was a close rendition of that color, the new color was acceptable as well. Mr. Smith agreed. Upon question by Mayor Kelly regarding the need for this ordinance, Mr. Smith responded that it was needed because there was no means of saying a person needed to obtain approval prior to drastically changing the color of his/her home, structure, etc. (i.e. changing the color of a house to fuchsia in a neighborhood of beige residences). He reiterated said if the color change was significant, it would be referred to the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Smith commented that currently, even single family homes were receiving color approval in the first instance. For those that hadn't received initial approval, he said the City would eventually reach that point. Responding to question, he said since the issue appeared in the newsletter five or six weeks ago, no colors had been referred to Architectural Review;all the proposed colors had been reasonable. Councilman Spiegel reiterated his concern that without an approved palette, it was left up to the subjective determination of a staff member. Councilman Ferguson expressed concern with having a color palette because there are thousands of colors which fit within certain ranges of hues. He said he would ratherjust have an ordinance which prohibits people from painting their homes in a way that is out of character with the environment, whether that means the neighbors' homes or the hillsides or something else. Councilman Spiegel expressed concern with the policy which basically leaves the decision for approval of the revised color to whoever happens to be at the desk when the individual applies for approval. - Councilman Ferguson moved to continue this matter in order for staff to develop a more acceptable approach. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Mayor Pro-Tem Benson ABSENT. 15 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 23, 2002 Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Ferguson ABSENT. XII. CONTINUED BUSINESS None XIII. OLD BUSINESS None XIV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 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 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report, noting that there was currently no specific language in the City's Zoning Ordinance relative to changing of approved colors or textures on existing buildings. He said the proposed language was, to deal with significant changes and obvious transgressions. He said no permit would be needed if an individual wished to repaint his or her house the same color or a similar color. The only time there was a concern was when there was a radical change. Upon question by Mayor Kelly as to how people would knowwhetheror not a permitwas needed, Mr. Drell responded that he felt this was information that should be included in the City's newsletter, if the Council decided to adopt the ordinance. Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Drell responded that staff was not suggesting a color palette. Basically, if the color of a home was being significantly changed from whatever it was, approval would be required. Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this request. No testimony was offered, and he declared the public hearing closed. Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Drell responded that he felt there should be an article in the City's newsletter letting residents know that if they are contemplating a significant color change, they will need to call the City and have it reviewed. 14 = MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 23, 2002 Upon question by Mayor Kelly, Mr. Drell stated that if the Council wished, action on this matter could be continued until such time as the newsletter is sent to residents with this article. Councilman Crites suggested that second reading of this ordinance could be held until after publication of an article on the proposed regulation in the City's newsletter. Mayor Kelly reopened the public hearing in order to allow for testimony once the matter comes back to the Council for second reading. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1015 to second reading, said second reading to occur following publication of an article on the proposed regulation in the July issue of the City's Bright Side newsletter, with special attention being paid to providing opportunity for the receipt of public testimony when the matter is next considered. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Ferguson ABSENT. XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. Report on the Bighorn Pumping Station at Haystack/Chia., Mr. Ortega provided a report on the matter that`was brought to the Council's attention at its May 9 meeting by Linda Garbarini. The Informational Report was received by the Council. B. CITY ATTORNEY 1) Request for Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: 1) Property: APNs 625-062-015/016 Negotiating Parties: Agency: Justin McCarthy/Lauri Aylaian/ City of Palm Desert Property Owner: Jerome Beauvais Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment Conference with Legal Counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b): Number of potential cases: 3 15 IT11V 0E Ph M pESE ° 1 73-510 FREO WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIEORNIA 92,6c-2578 TEL: 760 346-0611 FAR: 760 341-7098 info@palm�desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval of any significant change of an approved color in regards to painting, repainting, texturing, retexturing an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other - improvements to real property. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public heating described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk November 28, 2003 City of Palm Desert, California p CIIY OF P11LM OEM RI 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE _ PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-06i i FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider-a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval of any significant change of an approved color in regards to painting, repainting, texturing, retexturing an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, December 11 , 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk November 28, 2003 City of Palm Desert, California ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 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 IMPROVE S TO REA PROPERTY. CASE N . ZOA 02-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 23rd of May, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 25.56 adding Section 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2124 recommended approval of Case No. ZOA 02-01; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with 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 is 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 exist to justify approval of the General Plan 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 that the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. ORDINANCE NO. loss 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 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1015 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 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. a C JAX CITY OF PALM DESERT ordinance No. 1015 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council IL REQUEST: Consideration of approval of 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. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I -- IV. CASE NO: ZOA 02-01 V. DATE: May23, 2002 VI. CONTENTS: * Waived furhter reading and passed Ordinance No. 1015 A. Staff Recommendation to second reading , said second to occur following publication of an article on the proposed regulation B. Discussion in the July issue of the City's BrightSide newsletter, C. Analysis with special attention being paid to providing opportunity for the receipt of public testimony VII. ATTACHMENTS: when the matter is next considered. A. Draft Ordinance No. 1015 B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2124 C. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 16, 2002. D. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1015 to second reading, approving.the Zoning Ordinance amendment to add Section 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications, to the General Provisions Chapter. B. DISCUSSION: 1. BACKGROUND: In March the Architectural Review Commission and staff initiated an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance because of recent concerns with buildings and fences that have been repainted or retextured. STAFF REPORT Ordinance No. 1015 ZOA 02-01 May 23, 2002 As part of the City's architectural process the Architectural Review Commission approves colors and textures for all buildings, with the exception of custom single-family homes. Staff approves colors and textures for custom single-family homes and new walls or fences. The current language of the zoning ordinance is ambiguous and does not prevent a property owner from repainting or retexturing a building, wall, or fence to different color or texture from what was approved. Staff researched the zoning ordinances of other cities and found that the Beverly Hills Municipal Code requires that any painting, texturing, repainting, retexturing of any exterior portion or area of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property be processed through the city's architectural review. Staff and the Architectural Review Commission are recommending that we adopt a similar code. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION: The code amendment was presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 16, 2002, and was recommended to City Council for approval on a 5-0 vote. C. ANALYSIS: Currently, the Architectural Review Commission approves colors for new commercial/industrial buildings and tract homes. Staff approves colors for custom single-family homes. The new ordinance, if adopted, will require approval from the Director of Community Development, or Architectural Review Commission by appeal, for any significant change of an approved color or texture of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or other improvements to real property. The proposed ordinance, if adopted, will be added to Chapter 25.56.510, General Provisions and will read as follows: 25.561.510 Exterior Modifications The colors or textures of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property that are visible from public-of-way shall not be significantly changed from the original approval unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development, or Architectural Review Commission by appeal. This shall be a no fee process. 2 STAFF REPORT Ordinance No. 1015 ZOA 02-01 May 23, 2002 A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The request is a Class 5 categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: TONY BA TO IL DREL PLANNING TECHNICIAN DIRECTOR O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Review and Concur: Review and Concur: RI HARD J. K RS CARLOS L. OR GA ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2124 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 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, C9lifomia, 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 Cynthia Finerty, Chairperson r ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL Secretary Palm Desert PI nning Commission z 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 that are visible from public right-of-way shall not be significantly changed from the original approval unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission by appeal. This shall be a no fee process. 3 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 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 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 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 16, 2002 CASE NO: ZOA 02-01 REQUEST: Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval for any painting, repainting,texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs,walls,fences, or improvements to real property. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert City I. BACKGROUND: The Architectural Review Commission and staff initiated this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance because of recent concerns with commercial buildings that have been repainted or retextured. As part of the city's architectural process the Architecture Review Commission approves color and texture for all buildings,with the exception of custom single-family homes. Staff approves colors and textures for custom single-family homes and new fences. The current language of the zoning ordinance is ambiguous and does not prevent a property ownerfrom repainting or retexturing a building or fence that is different from it's approved colors and/or texture. Staff researched other cities zoning ordinances and found that Beverly Hills Municipal Code requires any painting, texturing, repainting or retexturing of any exterior portion or area of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property requires architectural review. Staff and the Architectural Review Commission are recommending that our Zoning Ordinance adopt a similar code. STAFF REPORT ZOA 02-01 APRIL 16, 2002 II. ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance, if adopted, will support what the architectural review commission and staffs decisions in regards to any color changes to buildings, structures, signs, walls, and fences. Currently the Architectural Review Commission approves colors for new commercial/industrial buildings and tract homes. The proposed ordinance, if adopted, will require approval from the director of community development, or architectural review commission by appeal, for any painting, repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property. The proposed ordinance, if adopted, will be added the Chapter 25.56, General Provisions and will read as: 25.56.510 Exterior Modifications No exterior portion or area of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property shall be painted, repainted, textured, or retextured unless the plans, colors, textures for such work have been reviewed and approved by the director of community development, or architectural review commission by appeal. A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The application is a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval from the director of community development, or by the architectural review commission by appeal,for painting, repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 APRIL 16, 2002 V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Exhibit A Prepared by Tony Bagato Planning Technician Reviewed and Approved by Phil Drell Director of Community Development 3 CIIY Of P 0 [ M 0ES _ ,� 1 73-510 FR£D WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9216.-2578 TEL: 76o 3,6-o6, , FAX: 760 34I-7099 - in(oGyJm.dvaen o.g CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.ZOA 02-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval for any painting, repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission (or city council)at, or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary April 4, 2002 Palm Desert Planning Commission IIIV OF P111M DES : . i ,3-5ro FRED UURIHG DRNE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-062c FAX: 76o 341-7098 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.ZOA 02-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval of any significant change of an approved color in regards to painting, repainting, texturing, retexturing an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property. i SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 23, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission (or city council)at,or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun SHIELA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk May 9, 2002, 2002 Palm Desert City Council a 1' 11 �v1 1 IIJ t PALM DESERT July 2002 Jft a yubliration of the City of Palm Desert r 2002 Cool Cash Join in the patriotic salute at for Fourth Palm Deserts annual Fourth of July Hot Deals celebration on Thursday,July 4,at Ilse What's Civic Center Park Festivities begin at 7:15 p.m. Inside D Inside! if July when teenage singing sensation Paige f, Williams performs the National ■ a� brationsAnthem and sings the patriotic tune, Look inside this issue of BrightSide for �� E!tg K 4, `United America." Following, the your share of Cool Cash. Palm Desert Cool.Crash Dollars �� Side Street Strutters Jazz Band take to the amphitheater stage and bring part retail merchants are giving away"Cool + of our colorful American musical heritage alive Cash for Hot Deals"throughout July as • r with a half a century of jazz,classic big band,and part of the annual summer shopping swing sounds of the 1930s and 40s. _ promotion. Every household in Palm Building Ordinance No ordinary Dixieland Band, the Strutters I Desert receives $20 in Cool Cash Amendment repertoire encompasses the jazz style from early j redeemable at more than 120 n " Dixieland and blues sounds of Louis Armstrong, . -1 participating Palm Desert merchants. 'I jelly Roll Motion, and Fats Waller, the timeless For every $5 you spend, you can use classic of Porter,Carmichael and Gershwin,to theI - one Cool Cash dollar,the same as cash. Make Someone A Star, swing sounds of Benny Goodman, Duke Plus, every time you spend Cool t .manners . Ellington,Count Basic,and others. Cash, you are entered to win a variety The entertainment is part of die Citys Summer of fabulous prizes. Starting July I,look F of Fun mncert series held on Thursday evenings. for 'Palm Desert Cool Cash Accepted Following the Side Street Strutters at 9 p.m. the spectacular fireworks Here' signs at your favorite stores and PD Achieves State display will be synchronized to get some hot summer deals. Recycling Goals patriotic and American contem- y pomry music on The Mix 100.5 _ 4 ~ radio station. Additional seating is available at Inaugural College of the Desert Golf Athena Award Institute driving range. The driv- ® i o range and park are located at Fred d Waring Drive and San Pablo Avenue Cool Cash dollars also are available New Banners Line Bring picnic dinners, blankets, at the Palm Desert Visitor Information El Pasco or chairs to enjoy the fireworks. Flashlights are recommended for safery exiting Center on Highwa y 1 I 1 at Monterey the park. Drinks and snacks will be available for purchase. No alcohol, Avenue; the Palm Desert Civic Center smoking,or private firewod a are permitted in the park or driving range. on Fred Waring Drive at San Pablo Free SunLine shuttle service to[he Civic Center Park is available from Avenue; the concierge desks at the Westfield Shoppingrown Palm Desert's north parking lot starting at Gardens on El Pasco, Westfield 6:30 p.m. returning participants to their cars after the show. Shoppingtown, or any Palm Desert The City of Palm Desert presents the event with co-sponsors Waste hotel. For more information call Management of the Dcscr[,The Mix 100.5,and SunLine-fransit. For more 346-0611,ext.414. information call 346-0611,ext. 352. !� ouilding Ordinance Amendment ReQuires Approval of Colors and 4extures The Palm Desert Historical I As part of the City's architectural process, the Architectural Review Commission approves colors and Society is now collecting items I textures for all buildings with the exception of custom single-family homes. Planning Department staff for its annual Fall Yard Sale. I approves colors and textures for custom single-Family homes and new walls or fences. All items except clothing and I Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not prevent a property owner from repainting or retexturing shoes are accepted. Please tall a building,wall,or fence to a different color or texture from what was approved. 346-6588 to request a pick up or to A new ordinance, if adopted by City Council,will require that the colors and textures of an existing arrange adrop-off building,structure,sign,wall,fence,or other improvements to real property that are visible from public right- of-way,not be significantly changed from the original approval unless reviewed and approved by the Director Through September, College of the of Community Development, or Architectural Review Commission by appeal. No fees will be charged for Desert's Street Fair summer hours are from this process. 7 a.m. to noon every weekend. The Fair t The goal of the ordinance is to provide a mechanism for City review of the most obvious controvers al provides open-air shopping for the entire color choices without creating undue regulatory burden on the majority of property owners.For example,a family and includes selections of crafts, change from off-white to tan would not require approval while a change to pink, purple, or any intense gifts, a farmer's market, and refreshment booths. Admission, parking, and enter- primary or secondary color would trigger careful Cityreview. City Council is expected to vote on this amendment on Thursday,August 22. Public comments may be tainmem are free. Street Fair made in person at the Council meeting, or in writing prior to that date and sent to: Palm Desert Citypatronage supports the Alumai Council,73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert, CA 92260. Association's scholarship and financial aid programs. /nformation:340-1045. Palm Desert Salutes Customer Service Stars For the first time, College of the Desert's ' Economic Development and Community The spotlight was turned onto more than a dozen retail professionals recently when winners of the annual Education department is offering summer Make Someone A Star program were saluted at a luncheon in their honor. The program,held in conjunction school for adults. Short-term classes € with College of the Desert's Institute for Retail Studies, the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce, and continue through July. Information: _ The Desert Sun newspaper, focuses attention on retail and service industry personnel, to encourage and 776-7420. I reward higher levels of customer service in Palm Desert. Winners of the City-wide program were as follows: tIvl0ST:NOM1NATED BUSINESS ■ Snookies Footsies Owners:Charlotte Diamond and Myra Levine ., ■ Garys Island Owners:Scott and Rose West ■ Native Foods Owner/Manager:Tanya Malch and Sue Hinkle I EXCELLENT CUSTOMER SERVICE NOMINEES ■ Wayne Belk Waynes Collection Owner:Wayne Bell Palm Desert'! free Shopper Hopper is now ■James Wong Bakers Square General Manager: Dawn Neubur er on a reduced summer schedule offering g ■ Elizabeth Reid, California Pizza Kitchen General Manager: Kevin Deloach service from 10 a.m. to 4:40 p.m.Tuesday through Saturday. Nine continuous loops INDenny Lytten, Desmond'!Big&Tall Owner: Frank Grasso Rick Doerfler,Mario's Owner: Mario Lalli are made every 50 minutes between Palm Desert's main shopping areas —Westfield ' TALES OF ABOVE & BEYOND Shoppingtown, One Eleven Town Center, a Joel Hughes, TraderJoe's Regional Manager:Paul Madarieta Town Center Plaza, Waring Plaza, Desert ■ Mary Bell, Staples Office Supplies General Manager:Joe Magoon Crossing, and El Pasco. As part of an ■ Sandra Valenzuela, Sav-On Drugs General Manager:Larry Parent environmental partnership, SunLine has HONORABLE MENTIONS RESTAURANTS operated the shuttle for the City since 1995. Information: 343-3451. a Del Taco Owner:Jerry Walker ■ Bananaz Grill e'r Bar Owner:Agrawal Raj The Palm Desert North Wing Gallery is 0 CC Inn on El Pareo Owner: Sabine Bielefeld featuring an exhibition by photographer ! HONORABLE MENTIONS RETAILERS Mark Stephenson. The Gallery is located ■ Ace Hardware Owner: Larry Dorn at Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred • Art Works Gallery Owner: Lindsey Jacobs Waring Drive and is open Monday • Brookstone Company District Manager: David Bennett through Fridav, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. • Jensen!Finest Foods Manager:Jim Madala Information 30-061 I,ext. 342. 4 7albots Pentes iNlanaver Jennifer Daniels * Voris Manager:Glenn Stansill � i4ore Oki SA,mme r o f Fun ly ~/ Following the annual Fourth of July celebrations featuring The Side Street Strutters, Palm Deserts Summer of Fun continues with"A Hard Days Night,"the Beatles' 1964 classic music comedy movie screening on July 11. This is a playful,day-in-the-life look at the emerging shaggy-haired rock stars from Liverpool: George, Paul, - - John, and Ringo. Pursued by hordes of shrieking girls caught up in Beademania,the lads dash in and out of railways through London streets and into a TV recording station.With concert Ixtapa-/—ill 1.1atoIle o footage of The Beatles performing"She Loves You," this film survives as an indelible portrait of that era. D i g n i to r i es s i gn Then,the Pat Longo Big Band brings back the era of the 40s on July 18,with songs like"In the Mood,""It Dont Mean A Thing," "Satin Doll,""A String of Pearls,"and Memorandum of Friendship other Favorites. After Longo completed his vice president banking career,he took up his saxophone The City of Palm Desert recently hosted a dinner for a again and joined forces with Lee Castle and later Harry James.Beginning with"Chain delegation of dignitaries from Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo,Mexico, Reacuon, his first LP for Town Hall Records,Longo propelled his all-star aggregation into many club and concert performances in Los Angeles. This and a second album, and Indian Wells, during which the three cities signed a "Crocodile Tears," were both Cash Box Magazine Big Band Album picks. In 1983, Memorandum of Friendship.Each city will"work diligentl with the other to creatively learn,work,and solve problems Longo collaborated with vocalist Frank Sinatra,Jr.in`Billy May for President,"and has together through reciprocal cultural,educational,municipal, performed with great talents such as Mel Torme, Tony Bennett, Sarah Vaughan, business,professional,and technical exchanges and projects." Rosemary Clooney,The Pied Pipers,Dick Haymes, Kay Starr,and Bob Hope,among The signing of the Memorandum of Friendship is the many others. first step in developing a partnership that may turn into a Coming to the Civic Centers silver screen on July 25 is"Spy Kids," an inventive formal Sister City relationship. movie in which a pair of small fry spies save their parents,two of the world's top secret The Mexican delegation, consisting of the Mayor of agents, from an evil techno-wizard. Alm Varga and Caryl Sabana star as Carmen and Zihuatanejo, the President of the Office of Visitors and Jun who rescue their parents Gregorio(Antonio Bandews)and Ingrid(Carla Cugmo) Conventions, President of the Hotel Association of&taps- from Fegan Fleep(Alan Cummings)in this family adventure. Zihuatanejo, Director of Fonatur (a Federal Tourism ....................................................... Development Agency), director of an educational inscim- R Add tion,director of the Institute ofTechnologyof Zihuatanejo, . �TeW Banners AGGGG �+o%r,advisor of the Zihuatanejo Chamber of Commerce, and New 1. L r several members of their Rotary Club, spent several days Festivity to El Paseo muting Palm Desert,Indian Wells,and the surrounding area. During their visit they participated in working sessions EI Pasco looks even more patriotic with the on drought-tolerant landscaping, marketing, public art, addition of new red, white, and blue striped recreation, and business support. They toured the banners waving from center medians. These Coachella Valley Water District, Stmline Transit Agency, banners augment the City's more than 200 \ die new California State University Campus and College of American Bags that grace El Pascos sidewalks the Desert, Desert Willow, the McCallum Theatre,Joslyn during Memorial Day,Flag Day,the Fourth of Senior Center, Indian Wells Tennis Garden, the ocher pat h Living July,and otrodc holidays. Desert,and several of the cities'major resorts. They part patriotic a new series of banners President Dwight D. Eisenhower originated the sponsored by the Poses Business "People-to-People"program in 1956,and as a result of the Improvement District. success of that program,the Sister Cities International(SCI) When the Bags and patriotic banners are program was Formed in culture, Having Sister t City links is taken down in mid-July,they will be replaced by a brand new series designed to convey about sharing ideas and culture,learning about how other people live,and helping us all better understand people from El Paseo's retail and leisure activities. Six banner designs feature bold graphics depicting dining, jewelry, fashion, outdoor cafes,art, and home furnishings, as well as a generic have b the world.Palm Desert and Ginshi. ,New Zealand H Pasco name style banner m bring color and festivity to the shopping district. have benefited from a Sister City relationship since 1978. The banners relate in design as well as color. The name style banner has a yellow sun, Palm Desert established a community-based Sister blue sky,green palm trees,purple mountains,and white lettering. Each graphic banner has Cities subcommittee that creates exchanges and develops a yellow background and incorporates blue, green, purple, and white in its design. They edifying programs. provide a cascade of images to the words El Pasco. This series will alternate with the patriotic banners throughout the year. r- - -- ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Nominations Being Acceptea ' Palm Desert For City's InauguralATHENA Award Achieves State Mandated t t The Cityof Palm Desert and FirstBank announce the inaugural ATHENA Award Goals d t in Palm Desert. Nominations are now being accepted for the Award,which will be r r presented on Wednesday,October 30,at Desert Willow Golf Resort. In 1986,the State of California established the California r A Corporate Business ATHENA Award and an Entrepreneurial ATHENA Award Integrated Waste Management Act(AB939) that required : will be presented to exceptional individuals who have achieved excellence in her/his California cities and counties, by the year 2000, to divert t business or profession, have served the community in a meaningful way, and have up to 50% of their solid waste from landfills through assisted women in reaching their full leadership potential. ! various recycling and diversion programs. The ATHENA Award, started in Lansing, Michigan in 1982, is presented in The City of Palm Desert was one of only a few cities to hundreds of cities across United States and Canada.The award takes the form of a hand- meet the State's mandate. The California Integrated Waste cast bronze sculpture symbolizing the strength,courage,and wisdom of the recipient. Management Board officially approved Palm Deserts Palm Desert believes in the values underlying the ATHENA Foundations diversion rates at its May 14, 2002, board meeting. The philosophy of incorporating the talent and expertise of women into the leadership of our City was approved at 52 percent for 1999,and 62 percent businesses,communities,and government. for the year 2000. The 62 percent diversion rate included The recipients will be invited to join the thousands of ATHENA Award recipients a ten-percent biomass conversion credit for diverting green worldwide at the annual International ATHENA conference. As part of an international waste ro Colmac Energy, Inc. The biomass credit is network of leaders,the Palm Desert ATHENA Award recipient becomes part of a force received by those who utilized some of the green waste with a strong voice in setting new standards of leadership practice. for conversion into energy and fuel. The ATHENA Award Program is locally sponsored by FirstBank.Nationally,the To help Palm Desert continue to meet the State's man- program is underwritten by the Oldsmobile and Pontiac GMC Divisions of General date,residents are encouraged to continue supporting recy- Motors,and National City Bank. In addition,Waste Management of the Desert will cling efforts by recycling green and mixed waste products present an educational scholarship to a local college student. through the City's curbside waste management programs. - Nomination forms are available at the Palm Desert Visitor Information Children also are encouraged to learn more about recycling Center,72-990 Highway 111;at Palm Desert City Hall,73-510 Fred Waring Drive;or at home and school so they too can help keep the environ- by calling 346-0611,ext.488. Deadline for entries is July 31,2002. ment clean. •------ - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - PRESORTED STANDARD 1 73-510 Fred Waring Drive US Postage PAID PALM DESERT Palm Desert,CA 92260 Palm Desert,CA Permit No. 160 phone 760/346-0611 fax 760/340-0574 e-mail: info@palm-desertorg Web site: www.palm-desertorg ■ Richard S. Kelly Mayor Resident and/or Business Jean M. Benson Palm Desert, CA 92260, 92211, 92255 92261 Mayor Pro Tem Buford A.Crites Jim Ferguson Robert A.Spiegel ■ Arnold Palmer Honorary Mayor It's Your City Look Inside to See What's Happening this Month! gp ouilding Ordinance Amendment ReQuires Approval of Colors and Textures The Palm Desert Historical As part of the City's architectural process, the Architectural Review Commission approves colors and Society is now collecting items textures for all buildings with the exception of custom single-family homes. Planning Department staff for its annual Fall Yard Sale. approves colors and textures for custom single-family homes and new walls or fences. All items except clothing and shoes are accepted. Please call Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not prevent a property owner from repainting or retexturing a building,wall,or fence to a different color or texture from what was approved. 346-6588 to request a pick up or to A new ordinance, if adopted by City Council,will require that the colors and textures of an existing arrange a drop-off. building,structure,sign,wall,fence,or other improvements to real property that are visible from public right- Through September, College of the of-way,not be significantly changed from the original approval unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development,or Architectural Review Commission by appeal. No fees will be charged for Deseres Street Fair summer hours are from this process. 7 a.m. to noon every weekend. The Fair The goal of the ordinance is to provide a mechanism for City review of the most obvious controversial provides open-air shopping for the entire color choices without creating undue regulatory burden on the majority of property owners.For example,a Family and includes selections of crafts, change from off-white to tan would not require approval while a change to pink, purple,or any intense gifts, a farmer's market, and refreshment primary or secondary color would trigger careful City review. booths. Admission, parking, and enter- City Council is expected to vote on this amendment on Thursday,August 22. Public comments may be tainment are free. Street Fair made in person at the Council meeting, or in writing prior to that date and sent to: Palm Desert City patronage supports the Alumni tAMINN Council,73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,CA 92260. Associarioris scholarship and >, financial aid programs. -Information:340-1045. Palm Desert Salutes Customer Service Stars For the first time, College of the Desert's Economic Development and Community The spotlight was turned onto more than a dozen retail professionals recently when winners of the annual Education department is offering summer Make Someone A Star program were saluted at a luncheon in their honor. The program,held in conjunction school for adults. Short-term classes - with College of the Desert's Institute for Retail Studies, the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce,and continue through July. Information: The Desert Sun newspaper, focuses attention on retail and service industry personnel, to encourage and 776-7420. .. reward higher levels of customer service in Palm Desert. Winners of the City-wide program were as follows: MOST NOMINATED BUSINESS ■ Snookies Footsies Owners:Charlotte Diamond and Myra Levine ■ Garyt Island Owners:Scott and Rose West ■ Native Foods Owner/Manager.Tanya Malch and Sue Hinkle EXCELLENT CUSTOMER SERVICE NOMINEES Palm Desert's free Shopper Hopper is now -; • Wayne Bell, Wayne!Collection Owner.Wayne Bell on a reduced summer schedule offering 0 James Wong,Bakeri Square General Manager:Dawn Neuburger service from 10 a.m. to 4:40 p.m.Tuesday x Elizabeth Ra'd California Pizza Ifitchen General Manager:Kevin Deloach through Saturday. Nine continuous loops • Denny Lytten,Desmond!Big&Tall Owner: Frank Grasso are made every 50 minutes between Palm _ • Rick Doerfler,Maridr Owner:Mario Ialli Deserts! main shopping areas — Westfield TALES OF ABOVE & BEYOND Shoppingtown,One Eleven Town Center, e Joel Hughes, TraderJoes Regional Manager:Paul Madarieta Town Center Plaza,Waring Plaza, Desert ■ Mary Bell Staples Office Supplies General Manager:Joe Magoon Crossing, and El Pasco. As part of an ■ Sandra Vakwuelz Sav-0n Drugs General Manager:Larry Parent environmental partnership, SunLine has HONORABLE MENTIONS RESTAURANTS operated the shuttle for the City since 1995. Information: 343-3451. • Del Taco Owner:Jerry Walker ■ Bananaz Grill dr Bar Owner.Agrawal Raj The Palm Desert North Wing Gallery is • CC Inn on El Pareo Owner:Sabine Bielefeld featuring an exhibition by photographer HONORABLE MENTIONS RETAILERS Mark Stephenson. The Gallery is located ■ Ace Hardware Owner:Larry Dorn at Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred ■ Art Works Gallery Owner.Lindsey Jacobs Waring Drive and is open Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ■ Brookstone Company District Manager:David Bennett ■Jenren't Finest Foods Manager:Jim Madala Information:346-0611,ext.342. ■ Talbou Petites Manager:Jennifer Daniels IN low Manager.Glenn Stansill PALM DESERT July 2002 a publication of the Ciq of Palm Desert 2002 Cool Cash FJoin in the patriotic salute at fir • Palm Desert'snon annual Fourth of July Hot Deals celebration on Thursday,July 4,at the � What's Civic Center Park J_ ` Festivities begin at 7:15 p.m. Inside Inside! AY Jwhen teenage singing sensation Paige Williams performs the National ■ CelebrationSAnthem and sings the patriotic rune, I.uok inside this issue of BnghzSide for "United America." Following, the your share of Cool Cash. Palm Desert Cool Cash Dollars " Side Street Strutters Jazz Band take to the amphitheater stage and bring part retail merchants are giving away"Cool of our colorful American musical heritage alive Cash for Hot Deals"throughout July as ■ with a half a century of jazz,classic big band;and part of the annual summer shopping swing sounds of the 1930s and 40s. promotion. Every household in Palm Building Ordinance No ordinary Dixieland Band, the Strutters' Desert receives $20 in Cool Cash Amendment repertoire encompasses the jazz style from early redeemable at more than 120 Dixieland and blues sounds of Louis Armstrong, participating Palm Desert merchants. ■ Jelly Roll Morton, and Fats Waller, the timeless For every $5 you spend, you can use classic of Porter,Carmichael and Gershwin,to the one Cool Cash dollar,the same as cash. Make Someone A Star swing sounds of Benny Goodman, Duke Plus, every time you spend Cool Winners Ellington,Count Basic,and others. Cash,you are entered to win a variety The entertainment is part of the City's Summer of fabulous prizes. Starting July 1,look ■ of Fort concert series held on Thursday evening. for"Palm Desert Cool Cash Accepted Following the Side Street Strutters at 9 p.m. the spectacular fireworks Here" signs at your favorite stores and PD Achieves State display will be synchronized to get some hot summer deals. Recycling Goals patriotic and American contem- porary music on The Mix 100.5 ■ radio station. Additional seating is available at Inaugural College of the Desert Golf TDEPIL S Athena Award Institute driving range. The driv- ing range and park are located at ■ Fred Waring Drive and San Pablo Avenue. Cool Cash dollars also are available New Banners Line Bring picnic dinners, blankets, at the Palm Desert Visitor Information or chairs to enjoy the fireworks. Flashlights are recommended for safety exiting Center on Highway 111 at Monterey El Paseo the park. Drinks and snacks will be available for purchase. No alcohol, Avenue; the Palm Desert Civic Center smoking,or private fireworks are permitted in the park or driving range. on Fred Waring Drive at San Pablo Free SunLine shuttle service to the Civic Center Park is available from Avenue; the concierge desks at the Westfield Shoppingtown Palm Desert's north parking lot starting at Gardens on El Paseo, Westfield 6:30 p.m,returning participants to their cars after the show. Shoppingtown, or any Palm Desert The City of Palm Desert presents the event with co-sponsors Waste hotel. For more information call Management of the Desert,The Mix 100.5,and SunLineTransit. Formore 346-0611,ext.414. information call 346-0611,en.352. LOCAL HIGHLIGHTS PALM DESERT VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER 72-990 Highway I I I 568-1441 www.pahn-desertorg Hours: Monday-Friday,9 a.m.-5 p.m. C. Saturday-Sunday,9 a.m.-4 p.m. Palm Desertlogo merchamlue for sale. No IE DE THE ART PLACE Girls'ASA Softball Camp(7-14) fQ y. 41-801 Corporate Way Monday-Friday,5-8 p.m. 1 346-7893 July I -12 Monthly Art Walks Day Camp COLLEGE OF THE DESERT Resume in October Monday-Friday,9 a.m.-4 p.m. 43-500 Monterey Avenue Session I 346-8041 wwwdesemcc.mus BLM SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS June?-July 5 Alumni Association Street Fair VISITOR CENTER Session Summer Hours:7 am:Noon 51-500 Highway 74 July 8-July 26 Information:568-9921 862-9984 Bookstore:862-9084 Session III July 29-August 16 Summer Hours Open daily,9 a.m.-4 p.m. Monday-Thursday,7 a.m.-5:30 p.m. Cadjor hikes and activities. DESERT SANDS UNIFIED Closed Fridays SCHOOL DISTRICT June 10-August 8 t 47-950 Dune Palms Road,La Quinta 777-4200 www.dsusd.k12.ca.us Summer Classes In Session Summer School Closed Closed for Independence Day Thursday,July 4 Thursday,July 4 Board of Education Meetings Board of Trustee's Meeting Tuesday,July 16,7 p.m. Thursday,July 18,9 am. Cove Communities/Anita R Richmond District Education Center Boardroom Information:773-2500 CHILDREN'S DISCOVERY MUSEUM OF THE DESERT DESERT SANDS ADULT SCHOOL MUS COD Foundation Auxiliary MUS Gerald Ford Drive,Rancho Mirage 47-950 Dune Palms Road,La Quinta Information:773-2561 71--01 G ld Ford g Registration:863-3693 wwwdesertsandsadultschool.com COD Economic Development Museum Closed Mondays Call far fees, registration,and details. &Community Education Classes Information:776-7420 Summer Camp(ages 5-9) DESERT WILLOW GOLF RESORT Continues through August 23 38-995 Desert Willow Drive Desert Landscaping-Beyond the Basics Monday-Friday,8:30 a.m.-4 p.m. 346-7060 www.desertwillow.com July 8&10,8- 11:30 a.m. $110 members;$125 non-members Watercolor II Dining Room Open Daily July 9, 11, 16,& 18,6-8:30 p.m. PALM DESERT Breakfast,7-11 am. COMMUNITY CENTER Lunch, 11 a.m.-2:30 p.m. Just Enough Spanish 1 43-900 San Pablo Avenue July 9, 16,23,&30,9- 11.45 am. 568-9697 Summer Frequent Player Program Native American Culture Call for classes,camps,sports leagues,and childcare. Now through September July 10, 17,&24,7-9 p.m. $99 Resident Card Youth Basketball league(ages 5-14) $199 Non-resident Card Investing on Wall Street-Introduction Tuesday&Thursday evening $25 green fees July 11, 18,25,&Aug. 1,6:30-9 p.m. New this year. 5&6th Year Division Academy Membership Basketball Camp(ages 7-14) Call for details. Monday-Friday,5-8 p.m. July 1 - 12 July 4th Firecracker Open 7:30 a.m.shotgun First 50 registrants, 18&older Information:346-7060 ri - PALM DESERTin LOCAL HIGHLIGHTS July 2002 PALM DESERT CHAMBER Art exhibit: OF COMMERCE "Musicians on Stage" 73-710 Fred Waring Drive,Suite 114 Photographs by John Rowlands 346-6111 wwwpahndesert.org Computer Classes Mayor's Breakfast How to use your computer Tuesday,July 9,7:15 a.m. Microsoft Word Desert Willow Golf Resort Internet/E-mail OF PALM DESERT $12 with RSVP/$15 at door Registration required..346-6552,ext.249 Palm Desert Civic Center 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Putt Putt On El Pasco Youth Programs 346-0611 www.palm-desert-org July 10,6-9 p.m. Play 9 Holes at Palm Desert Businesses Pre-School Storyme(ages 2-5) El Pasco Exhibition: Peter Vottlkos Prizes awarded at The Gardens on El Pasco Time El Pasco between Highway 74& Story and simple craft g y Portola Information:346-6111 Wednesdays, 10:30 a.m. On Exhibit Through December 2002 Story Room Summer of Fun Chamber Mixer Wednesday,July17, 5:30-7:30 m. Grandparents & Books Every Thursday Evening y' k P Tuesday&Thursday,Through September 5 More Than Oak y y, 10:30 a.m. Civic Center Park Highway 111 Youth Library Cancera:730 p.m. $1 new members;$3 members;$6 non-members Summer Reading Program Pre-movie activities. 7 p.m Through August 31 Movies:At dusk Wrapped up in Reading-Ancient Egypt Side Street Strutters Sign up at Youth Library Desk for incentive rewards Judy 4 Egyptian Safari Fireworks at 9 p.m. Meet a python,monitor lizard,monkey, A Hard Day's Night tarantula,&hedgehog July 11 Tuesday,July 9, 11 a.m. Pat Longo Big Band PALM DESERT PUBLIC LIBRARY The Unwrapping of a Mystery July 18 73-300 Fred Waring Drive Storytelling with Ken Frawley Spy Kids 73-30052 Wednesday,July 24, 11 a.m. July 25 www.infopeople.org/rivw/pld Adventure on the Nile Hours:Monday-Wednesday, 10 a.m.-8 p.m. Story and art project with die CommunityGardens MeetingTbursday-Saturday, 10 a.m.-5 p.m. Sunda I 5 m. Palm Springs Desert Museum Wednesday,July 17,6 p.m. y - p• Tuesday,August 6 Administrative Conference Room Homehound Program City Hall 346-6552,ext.253 North Wing Gallery Exhibition Special Events Mark Stephenson,Photography Monday-Friday,8 am.-5 p.m. Breakfast, Books &Banter Wednesday,July 3,9 a.m. Theme:Travel&Adventure Community Room LOCAL THE LIVING DESERT ►OSLYN COVE SENIOR CENTER 47-900 Portola Avenue 73-750 Catalina Way 346-5694 wwwJivingdesert.org 340-3220 Call for complete listing of regular ckwes and awns. Summer Hours Now-August 31 Daily 8 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. Independence Day Party i icsert Willow Women' Golf Clinic Last admission at 1 p.m. Wednesday,July 3, 11:30- 1 p.m. 6-7 m Sponsored by Marriott's Brighton Gardens P Beginners Summertime Adventure for Kids $3 members;$4 non-members July 1,3,8,& 10 Monday-Friday,8:30- 11:30 a.m. Thursday, td 4 Intermediate &1 -4 p.m.July 1-26 Closed Thtu Y July August 5,7, 12,& 14 New Member Orientation Advanced Living Desert University September 2,4,9,& 11 Information: 346-5637 ext.230 Friday,July 5, 12:30 p.m. Cost: $80 for four lessons Birthday Bash Registration:3404057 Friday,July 5, 1 p.m. Group & Individual Instruction Organ Donor Awareness Lecture Information:346-7060 Lee Pennington Tuesday,July 9,9 a.m. Fairway Kids Golf Camp Summer 2002 Monday-Thursday Pot Luck Lunch Now through August 23 Thursdays, 11:30 a.m. $175 per child per weekly session McCALLUM THEATRE 73-000 Fred Waring Drive Social Bingo EL PASEO GALLERIES 340-ARTS (2787) www.mccallumtheatre.com Tuesdays&Thursdays, 12:30-2 p.m. 73-956 El Paseo 346-8885 Imagination Station Day Camp Sizzling Summer Cabaret Series &Stage Tech Thursdays,2 p.m. Thursday Art Walks July 8-19 Call for schedule. Resume in October Registration forms now available Call:346-6505,mt. 142 Summer Weekly Movie Fridays, 11 a.m. WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN Ameofcharge PALM DESERT 72-840 Highway I I I Tea with Mussolini \ 346-2121 July 5 www.palmdesert.shoppingtown.com Crazy in Alabama a : July 12 Independence Day Celebration THE GARDENS ON EL PASEO July 4,3-5 p.m. Music of the Heart 73-646 El Paseo Throughout the center July 19 862-1990 The Talented Mr.Ripley Kids Club July 26 Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Friday,July 12,5-7 p.m. Putt Putt on El Paseo Awards Activities:TBD Dance Classes Wednesday,July 10,6-9 p.m. Robinson's-May West Country Western Line Dance In conjunction with CDMOD Mondays,8:45- 10 a.m.,Beginners HISTORICAL SOCIETY 10- 11:30 a.m.,Intermediate OF PALM DESERT $4 members;$5 non-members 72-861 EI Paseo Ballroom Dance 346-6588 Tuesdays, 11:30- 12:30 p.m. Monday,Tuesday&Thursday, 10 a.m.-3 p.m. $3 members,$4 non-members Closed during July and August Except by appointment Call Ginny,340-0828 or Dan,346-6522 -Contd on back page— _—� —Contd from page 3— FAMILY YMCA OF THE DESERT PALM DESERT 43-930 San Pablo YOUTH SPORTS ASSOCIATION 341-9622 PO Box 11646 Palm Desert,CA 92255 Sommer of F Biddy Sports (ages 3-5) 568-0700 www.pdysa.org Un Indoor Basketball Season ` Through August 10 Summer Camps -01 Saturdays,9 a.m. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Schedule Summer Swimming Lessons (all ages) 343-3451 Through August 23 SunBus Pass Outlets Thursdays at Civic Center Park Weekday and Saturday sessions Visitor Information Center Concern:7.30 p.m. Summer Day Camps(ages 8-14) 72-990 Highway 1 I I Movie Pre-show:7:00 p.m. Various activities weekly: Youth Summer Go Pass Available Tennis,Cooking,Sports,Arts&Crafts Unlimited rides all routes Through August 31 July 4 Side Street Strutters Jazz Band High Adventure(5-9th grade) Dixieland Jazz Monday-Friday,8 a.m.-5 p.m. Palm Deserts free Shopper Hopper Followed by Fireworks Drop-in available Summer Schedule: July 11 A Hard Days Night H2O Caravan (ages 10-17) Tuesday through Saturday July 18 Pat Longo Big Band 7 day adventure of water and fun First Departure at 10 a.m. Big Band August 11-17 from Westfield Shoppingtown to: July 25 Spy Kids Childcare Services One Eleven Town Center August 1 A Hawaiian Experience Information:771-1811 Town Center Plaza Sounds from the Island Waring Plaza Summer Adventures Desert Crossing August 8 Princess Diaries Childcare Program El Paseo August 15 Walden Dahl&Kinfolk Ages 2 - 12 years old last departure from Westfield Shoppingtown Bluegrass is 5:05 p.m. August22 The Flintstomes- Fall Childcare Enrollment Viva Rock Vegas (No cost for those who qualify) August29 Instant Replay Oldies but Goodies September Redlands Symphony Classical Music Followed by Firework Finale , Update From Public Works The first phase of improvements is underway for the California State University site at Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street. Expect periodic lane closures and disruption to traffic northbound on Cook Street and westbound on Frank Sinatra. The project is scheduled for completion by September. Drivers can expect delays along Fred Waring Drive between Highway I I I and Fairhaven, and between San Pascual and Deep Canyon, due to the street widening project.This major phase of the project is expected to be completed by November. Construction of sidewalk, wall, and landscaping improvements along El Pasco are nearly complete. , s STAFF REPORT ordinance No. 1015 !' ZOA 02-01 May 23, 2002 As part of the City's architectural process the Architectural Review Commission approves colors and textures for all buildings, with the exception of custom single-family homes. Staff approves colors and textures for custom single-family homes and new walls or fences. The current language of the zoning ordinance is ambiguous and does not prevent a property owner from repainting or retexturing a building, wall, or fence to different color or texture from what was approved. Staff researched the zoning ordinances of other cities and found that the Beverly Hills Municipal Code requires that any painting, texturing, repainting, retexturing of any exterior portion or area of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property be processed through the city's architectural review. Staff and the Architectural Review Commission are recommending that we adopt a similar code. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION: The code amendment was presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 16, 2002, and was recommended to City Council for approval on a 5-0 vote. C. ANALYSIS: Currently, the Architectural Review Commission approves colors for new commercial/industrial buildings and tract homes. Staff approves colors for custom single-family homes. The new ordinance, if adopted, will require approval from the Director of Community Development, or Architectural Review Commission by appeal, for any significant change of an approved color or texture of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or other improvements to real property. The proposed ordinance, if adopted, will be added to Chapter 25.56.510, General Provisions and will read as follows: 25.561.510 Exterior Modifications The colors or textures of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property that are visible from public-of-way shall not be significantly changed from the original approval unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development, or Architectural Review Commission by appeal. This shall be a no fee process. 2 fi y..:. • add Section •.510 • •Consideration of approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to approval for any significant change of an approved color or 1. textureon • building, - sign, or - other improvementsto real property. "_ �1 II1LL•'. -`A. -�'7Esi L1.1 Fs. '_�B' __ __ _ d �_A. %J.1rJ..A,.d.� :d� '1�11•��f) �'' r ,�,; * ��Tt i, �:'i.J'ia :ti.� ' CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of 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. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 02-01 V. DATE: May 23, 2002 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Analysis VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution No. B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2124 C. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 16, 2002. D. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. approving the Zoning Ordinance amendment to add Section 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications, to the General Provisions Chapter. B. DISCUSSION: 1. BACKGROUND: In March the Architectural Review Commission and staff initiated an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance because of recent concerns with buildings and fences that have been repainted or retextured. STAFF REPORT ZOA 02-01 May 23, 2002 As part of the City's architectural process the Architectural Review Commission approves colors and textures for all buildings, with the exception of custom single-family homes. Staff approves colors and textures for custom single-family homes and new walls or fences. The current language of the zoning ordinance is ambiguous and does not prevent a property owner from repainting or retexturing a building, wall, or fence to different color or texture from what was approved. Staff researched the zoning ordinances of other cities and found that the Beverly Hills Municipal Code requires that any painting, texturing, repainting, retexturing of any exterior portion or area of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property be processed through the city's architectural review. Staff and the Architectural Review Commission are recommending that we adopt a similar code. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION: The code amendment was presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 16, 2002, and was recommended to City Council for approval on a 5-0 vote. C. ANALYSIS: Currently, the Architectural Review Commission approves colors for new commercial/industrial buildings and tract homes. Staff approves colors for custom single-family homes. The new ordinance, if adopted, will require approval from the Director of Community Development, or Architectural Review Commission by appeal, for any significant change of an approved color or texture of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or other improvements to real property. The proposed ordinance, if adopted, will be added to Chapter 25.56.510, General Provisions and will read as follows: 25.561.510 Exterior Modifications The colors or textures of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property that are visible from public-of-way shall not be significantly changed from the original approval unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development, or Architectural Review Commission by appeal. This shall be a no fee process. 2 r' STAFF REPORT ZOA 02-01 May 23, 2002 A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The request is a Class 5 categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: TONY BAGATO PHILIP DRELL PLANNING TECHNICIAN DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Review and Concur: Review and Concur: RICHARD J. FOLKERS CARLOS L. ORTEGA ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT. SERVICES 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 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 23rd of May, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 25.56 adding Section 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2124 recommended approval of Case No. ZOA 02-01; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with 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 is 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 exist to justify approval of the General Plan 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. 3.1 That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare that the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. i ORDINANCE NO. 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 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications. I PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. f j EXIHIBT "A" i CHAPTER 25.56 GENERAL PORVISIONS I 25.56.510 Exterior Modifications 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 from the original approval unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission by appeal. This shall be a no fee process. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2124 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 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 Califomia 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 Cynthia Finerty, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL Secretary Palm Desert PI nning Commission 2 I 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 that are visible from public right-of-way shall not be significantly changed from the original approval unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission by appeal. This shall be a no fee process. 3 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 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 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 II 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 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 16, 2002 CASE NO: ZOA 02-01 REQUEST: Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval for any painting, repainting,texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs,walls,fences, or improvements to real property. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert City I. BACKGROUND: The Architectural Review Commission and staff initiated this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance because of recent concerns with commercial buildings that have been repainted or retextured. As part of the city's architectural process the Architecture Review Commission approves color and texture for all buildings,with the exception of custom single-family homes. Staff approves colors and textures for custom single-family homes and new fences. The current language of the zoning ordinance is ambiguous and does not prevent a property ownerfrom repainting or retexturing a building orfence that is different from it's approved colors and/or texture. Staff researched other cities zoning ordinances and found that Beverly Hills Municipal Code requires any painting, texturing, repainting or retexturing of any exterior portion or area of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property requires architectural review. Staff and the Architectural Review Commission are recommending that our Zoning Ordinance adopt a similar code. STAFF REPORT ZOA 02-01 APRIL 16, 2002 II. ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance, if adopted, will support what the architectural review commission and staffs decisions in regards to any color changes to buildings, structures, signs, walls, and fences. Currently the Architectural Review Commission approves colors for new commercial/industrial buildings and tract homes. The proposed ordinance, if adopted, will require approval from the director of community development, or architectural review commission by appeal, for any painting, repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property. The proposed ordinance, if adopted, will be added the Chapter25.56, General Provisions and will read as: 25.56.510 Exterior Modifications No exterior portion or area of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property shall be painted, repainted, textured, or retextured unless the plans, colors, textures for such work have been reviewed and approved by the director of community development, or architectural review commission by appeal. A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The application is a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval from the director of community development, or by the architectural review commission by appeal,for painting, repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 APRIL 16, 2002 V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Exhibit A Prepared by � W, Tony Bagato Planning Technician - t Reviewed and Approved by ) I Phil Drell Director of Community Development 3 IIIV OE PRIM 9ES _ 21 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2378 TEL: 760 3q6—u6,I FAX: 76o 341-7098 CITY OF PALM DESERT 1. LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.ZOA 02-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56,510 to the General Provisions requiring approval for any painting, -repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property. SAID, public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission (or city council)at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH, Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary April 4, 2002 Palm Desert Planning Commission A CIIV 91 PIICM DESL � i 73-510 FREO WAPING DRIVE .S PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o61I FAX: 760 341-7098 . In( @palm desert arg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.ZOA 02-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval of any significant change of an approved color in regards to painting, repainting, texturing, retexturing an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 23, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission(or city council)at,or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun SHIELA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk May 9, 2002, 2002 Palm Desert City Council IIIY Of PnLM OESERT 73-5io FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6 s s FAX: 760 341-7098 . i n Fo @palm-desert.org FAX TRANSMISSION TO: /�EBB�E DATE: ,319x Z COMPANY: Q5 re7— 5[ws1 FAX: 778 751 FROM: TONY BAGATO DEPT.: Planning Dept. Message: nlp7e/C - PliAGi.3 / A LK s. 7- o2 5�16 -D6i/ x279 # of Pages Including (Cover Page): I i I Confirmation Report — Memory Send Time May-09-2002 02:33pm Tel line : 7603417098 Name PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT Job number 336 Date May-09 02:31pm To 7784731 Document pages 002 Start time k May-09 02:31pm End time May-09 02:33Pm Pages sent 002 Status OK Job number : 336 *** SEND SUCCESSFUL *x* E I T Y O F P H L M 0 E S E R T 73_.•1.^ Pww�a �1,7wwINf3 Dw�v6 Pn ar L'an Gw ww�w yaafio—v y7N - 7Goa34G—o6x y6u 34x-7ngB Y'L3L1 ��l�V�1dJLJl��JI®LEI COMPANY: ,�T -t a � FAX= FROM: 'PONY BAGATO uerr_: Plaiutia De t. Mavcaagc it of Pages Tnclvding (Cover Page): Confirmation Report — Memory Send Time May-13-2002 08:34am Tel line 7603417098 Name PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT Job number 380 Date May-13 08:32am To T784731 Document pages d02 Start time May-13 08:32am End time May-13 08:34am Pages sent 002 Status OK Job number 380 *** SEND SUCCESSFUL * * CITY OF P fl L m OESERT \ 7H�H io Yxuu Wn,axa..a:: Uw+vn l'war Unw nw'�', C:nx.�x�c�nrrw 9w�Gn—a y'JA • -: 9G� HOG--o 6'v� 7Gu j4x-7oyA +r, COMPANY:—_ �`- T SUiC� FAX: 77B" �7.3/ 'd FIxoM: TONY B.1GAT0 DL+rr.: Pl��x+�•+Q Deot_ Mecsagc: �•riP.P-r.r�s�e%i�..i Off/ .C�'ry9� /T��77CG- /{�//�Si Z�3�•cf� # of Pages Irxclu3ing (Cov¢r Page): 1 F , CIIY OF PIIIM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 _ : ]60 346—o6is FAX: 760 341-7098 info @ palm-d esert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval of any significant -change of an approved color in regards to painting, repainting, texturing, retexturing an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 21, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in,court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun SHIELA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk May 9, 2002, 2002 Palm Desert City Council J u CIIV OE P111M DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 — I 341 FAX: 760 341-7097098 i nfo@palm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval of any significant change of an approved color in regards to painting, repainting, texturing, retexturing an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 23, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun SHIELA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk May 9, 2002, 2002 Palm Desert City Council PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2124 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEDING TO CITY COUNCIL i APPROVAL OF AN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS 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, Califomia, 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 arid considering all testimony and arguments, if any,` -of all interested persons desiring to.,,be:i heard, said Planning Commission did find the-following facts and reasons 1o:exist .to;justify approval of the General Plan Amendment: The proposed ordinance to require,approvat.foe::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 1, 1 Cynthia Finerty, Chairperson ATTEST: ;.PHILIP DRELL Secretary. Palm Desert PI nning Commission . 2 PLANNING COMMISSIOrt 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 that are visible from public right-of-way shall not be significantly changed unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or A chitectural Review Commission by appeal. This shall be a no fee process. 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 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 23rd of May, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 25.56 adding Section 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2124 recommended approval of Case No. ZOA 02-01; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with 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 is 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 exist to justify approval of the General Plan 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 that the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. ORDINANCE NO. 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 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. 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 that are visible from public right-of-way shall not be significantly changed from the original approval unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission by appeal. This shall be a no fee process. 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 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 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 CITY Of PII11M DESERI 73-510 FRIED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061 I FAX: 760 341-7o98 info@palm-deserc.o,g 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. 21(114 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 Pla Wing Commission /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 16, 2002 CASE NO: ZOA 02-01 REQUEST: Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval for any painting, repainting,texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs,walls,fences, or improvements to real property. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert City I. BACKGROUND: The Architectural Review Commission and staff initiated this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance because of recent concerns with commercial buildings that have been repainted or retextured. As part of the city's architectural process the Architecture Review Commission approves color and texture for all buildings, with the exception of custom single-family homes. Staff approves colors and textures for custom single-family homes and new fences. The current language of the zoning ordinance is ambiguous and does not prevent a property owner from repainting or retexturing a building orfence that is different from it's approved colors and/or texture. Staff researched other cities zoning ordinances and found that Beverly Hills Municipal Code requires any painting, texturing, repainting or retexturing of any exterior portion or area of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property requires architectural review. Staff and the Architectural Review Commission are recommending that our Zoning Ordinance adopt a similar code. STAFF REPORT ZOA 02-01 APRIL 16, 2002 If. ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance, if adopted, will support what the architectural review commission and staffs decisions in regards to any color changes to buildings, structures, signs, walls, and fences. Currently the Architectural Review Commission approves colors for new commercial/industrial buildings and tract homes. The proposed ordinance, if adopted,will require approval from the director of community development, or architectural review commission by appeal, for any painting, repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property. The proposed ordinance, if adopted,will be added the Chapter 25.56, General Provisions and will read as: 25.56.510 Exterior Modifications No exterior portion or area of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property shall be painted, repainted, textured, or retextured unless the plans, colors, textures for such work have been reviewed and approved by the director of community development, or architectural review commission by appeal. A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The application is a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further .documentation is necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval from the director of community development, or by the architectural review commission by appeal,for painting, repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 APRIL 16, 2002 V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Exhibit A Prepared by w Tony agato Planning Technician Reviewed and Approved by \ Phil Drell Director of Community Development 3 RESOLUTION NO. 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 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. RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cynthia "�,Finerty, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXIHIBT "A" CHAPTER 25.56 GENERAL PORVISIONS 25.56.510 Exterior Modifications No exterior portion or area of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property shall be painted, repainted, textured, or retextured unless the plans, colors, textures for such work have been reviewed and approved by the director of community development, or architectural review commission by appeal. CIIV 9f PHLM 91S � 1 73-510 FREN WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT,CALIVORNIA 9226o-2578 TEL: 760 346-06[I FAX: 760 341-7098 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.ZOA 02-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval for any painting,"repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property. SAID, public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments conceming all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission (or city council)at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary April 4, 2002 Palm Desert Planning Commission w . h1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2124 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 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 = '� Cynthia Finerty, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL Secretary Palm Desert PI nning Commission z v ✓ 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 that are visible from public right-of-way shall not be significantly changed from the original approval unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission by appeal. This shall be a no fee process. 3 RECEIVED '02 APR 10 HM 9 13 PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is spacegJ1, ..RyLAJrks l'11in9 ffip E (2015.5.C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen No.1084 CITY OF PALM DESERT years,and not a party to or interested in the I LEGAL NOTICE above-entitled matter. 1 am the principal clerk of a CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm as Planning COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, Commission to consider a request by CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Zoning OrdI- printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, nance Amendment to add Section 25.ss.510 to I: Countyof Riverside,and which newspaper has been ,he frog.Gene r aintinig, t xturinng approval for any painting, repainting, reuring or reteaturing of i buildings, structures. signs, walls, fences, or Im- adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the provements to real property. Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of SAID 2. a hearing will be the on Tuesday April California under the date of March 24,1988.Case 16.2802, at 7:00 p.m. in trio Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center,73-510 Fred Warin9 Number 191236;that the notice,of which the Drive, Palm Desert, Califomla, at which time and annexed is a rioted co set in a not smaller Place an Interested persona are Invited to attend P copy( type and be heard.written comments concerning all than non panel,has been published in each regular Items covered by this public hearing notce shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. IMor- and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any motion concerning the pro I.osed project and/or supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: oepanment lof Community�aDeve�opmen�et the above adtlress between the hours of a:00 a.m. April sth and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposetl actions in court,you may be limited to raisin gg onlyy those Issues you or someone else raise tl at the public hearing de- scribed in this notice, or In an cones pon- den ce dell re to the plennin8 commission(or All in the year 2002 city counciq at, or prior to, the public hearing. Secreta 1 certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the Palm Desert)LIP Pla nngLL.commisson foregoing is true and correct. PUB:April 5, 2002 Sth Dated at Palm Springs,California this day April o 2002 f �n , V�-`C�i. &_V_� Signature CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development DATE: January 15, 2002 SUBJECT: Initiation of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance DISCUSSION: Currently the Architecture Review Commission approves color and texture of commercial buildings and tract homes. Staff approves the color of a single-family home. The City Attorney has determined that the current language of the Zoning Ordinance is ambiguous and does not prevent a property owner from re-painting a building once it has been built and finalized. The Department of Community Development recommends that Planning Commission initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance requiring approval, either by the Architectural Review Commission or Staff, of all painting, repainting, texturing, or retexturing of commercial and/or residential buildings. The following is an example of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code: "No exterior portion or area of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvement to real property, or the interior of any mall area, located in any zone other than residential be painted, repainted, textured, or retextured unless plans, colors, and textures for such work have been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Commission, or by the Council on appeal." Beverly Hills Municipal Code Sec. 10-3.3007, 10120101 Staff Report Planning Commission January 15, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: That the commission, by minute motion, recommend that staff initiate an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance in regards to painting, repainting, texturing, or retexturing of buildings Prepared by: TONY B ATO PLANNING TECHNICIAN Reviewed and Approved by:� b7 PHIL DRELL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2 Sec. 10-3.3007. Architectural review required. Page 1 of 2 Beverly hills Municipal Code is subject to change. Use on-lure version for reference only. The most recent ordinances amending Beverly Hills ,11'rrnicipal Code orgy be found in the City Clerk's Offrce. October 20, 2000 Reprint 26 See. 10-3.3007.Architectural review required. (a)(1) No building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or landscaping located in any zone other than a single-family (one-family) residential zone shall be erected, constructed, altered, or remodeled unless the elevations and plans for the exterior portions and areas and the interiors of mall areas, as defined in Section 10-3.147 of Article 1 of this Chapter, have first been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Commission, or by the Council on appeal. (2) Exception. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1) of this Section 10_ 3,3007, temporary seasonal decorations may be displayed on private property, without architectural review, during the period between November 15th of each year and January 10th of the following year. Jr(b) No exterior portion or area of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvement to real property, or the interior of any mall area, located in any zone other than a residential zone shall be painted, repainted, textured, or retextured unless the plans, colors, and textures for such work have been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Commission, or by the Council on appeal. (c) No permit shall be issued for any work described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section and unless the necessary approval required therefor is first granted. Prior to the commencement of any work described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, an application for approval shall be made in writing to the Architectural Commission pursuant to the procedure set forth in this Article. (d) Notwithstanding Open Air Dining Plan approval pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 35 of this Code, no open air dining operations shall be established unless the plans for all improvements, fixtures, structures and facilities to be located in the public right of way have been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Commission, or by the Council on appeal. For the purposes of this subsection "facilities" shall include,but not be limited to, tables and chairs. (e) When in the opinion of the City Planning Official, the approval of an application for a minor or insignificant permit does not defeat the purposes and objectives of this Article, the Official may grant the approval without submitting the matter to the Architectural Commission for its approval, notwithstanding any other provision of this Section or this Article. The decision of the City Planning Official may be appealed to the Architectural Commission by filing an appeal petition with the City Planning Official no later than fourteen days after the Official's decision. The petition shall be on a form designated by the City Planning Official. (f) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, architectural review may be a condition of the granting of a conditional use permit or a variance when required for any use or improvement in a residential zone. (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, architectural review shall be a condition of the grant of a sign accommodation pursuant to Article 9 of Chapter 4 of this Title 10. http://www.ci.beverly-hifls.ca.us/municode/titiel 0/chapter3/article30/10-3.3007.html 7/27/01 w 25.56.010 ik Chapter 2556 2556310 Screening and landscaping. 2556320 . Minimum residential structure GENERAL PROVISIONS size, 2556330 Automobile service stations— Sections: Locations. 7556.010 Purpose. 2556340 Automobile service stations—Site 25.56.020 Conformity to the general size. provisions. 25.56350 Automobile service stations- 25.56.030 Inadequate street widths and Setbacks, improvements. 2556360 Automobile service stations- 2556.040 Duty to improve streets,curbs, Access. and gutters. 2556370 Automobile service stations- 2556.050 Duty to dedicate and improve _ Noise. additional property. 2556380 Automobile service stations- 2556.060 Duty of building official. Landscaping. 2556.080 Required drainage fees. 2556390 Automobile service stations- 2556.090 Required park dedication fees. Lighting. 2556.100 Underground facilities—Purpose. 2556.400 Automobile service stations- 2556.110 Development subject to Service bays. undergrounding provisions. 25.56.410 Automobile service stations— 2556.120 Recorded agreement. Wall. 2556.130 Responsibility for compliance. 2556.420 Take-out restaurants. 25.56.140 Nonconforming structures. 2556.430 Take-out restaurants—Setbacks. 2556.150 Development standards. 2556A40 Take-out restaurants—Curb 25.56.160 Site area and dimensions— cuts. Measurements. 2556.450 Take-out restaurants- 2556.170 Width of corner lots. Landscaping. 2556.180 Front yards—Requirements and 2556A70 Lighting standards in all zones. exceptions. •2556.480 Trash handling alternative. 2556.190 Side and rear yards— 2556.490 Expiration dates of application Requirements and exceptions. approvals. 2556.195 Standards for walls and fences 2556500 Hotel development standards. within or adjacent to R-1 single-family zones. 2556.010 Purpose. 25.56.200 Traffic sight obstructions. The intent and purpose of the general provisions is to 2556.210 Projections into yards. provide additional clarification and amplification of the 2556.220 Oriel or bay windows. requirements and standards governing development in each 25.56230 Porches and steps. zone. (Ord. 98 § 1 25.56240 Balconies over six feet above ). 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-1) ground. 2556.020 Conformity to the general 25.56250 Open stairways. provisions. 25.56260 Covered patios. The general provisions and the special standards shall 25.56270 Underground structures. govern all uses and structures in every zone in addition 2556280 Detached accessory buildings. to the development standards within each zone.No structure 25.56290 Projections over public property or use may hereafter be constructed,substantially changed, in commercial zones. relocated, operated, occupied, established or maintained 25.56300 The height of a structure. on a lot unless it conforms to the general provisions and 25.56301 Home satellite receivers. the development standards for the zone in which it is 25.56302 Sale of alcoholic beverages in located.However,Chapter 25.76,on nonconforming uses commercial zones. and structures shall rule in determining the applicability of the general provisions to existing uses and structures. (Ord. 98 § I (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-2) 415 (Palm D.a 10-00) 25.56.030 ! 2556.030 Inadequate street widths and or other required improvements to meet the needs created improvements. by such proposed improvements or use, there shall be The existence of inadequate street widths and inadequate required as a condition to approval of such proposed improvements in the street right-of-way adjoining buildings, improvemeats or use of issuance of a building permit,that dwellings and other structures within the city,and the lack sufficient right-of-way be dedicated and improvements, of adequate curbs, or gutters and tie-in paving is found including but not limited to curbs,gutters,drainage facilities and declared to be dangerous to the public health, safety and paving, be installed to meet such needs. (Ord. 98 § and welfare of the inhabitants of the city.This section shall 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-3.02) not be construed so as to conflict with, limit, or affect dedications of property for public use or improvements 2556.060 Duty of building official. thereof by developers pursuant to the processing of subdivi- The building official shall not conduct a final inspection Sion maps or to other conditions imposed by the city of any building,structure or other facility and shall withhold Pursuant to the city's subdivision ordinance. (Ord. 98 § approval of permanent public utility connections other than I (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-3) telephone utilities thereto unless the nabs,gutters,drainage facilities,street paving and dedication of property required 25.56.040 Duty to improve streets, curbs,and under this chapter have been completed,or when penaitted, gutters. cash deposit to guarantee such Construction has been posted A. Except as otherwise provided in this title, every and approved by the city,or unless such requirements have owner,lessee,of other person,constructing or substantially been waived in accordance with Section 25.56.040.(Ord. modifying, or causing to be constructed or substantially 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 24.32-3,03) modified, any building, strucnue, or off-street parking facility in the city shall also provide for the construction 2556.080 Required drainage fees. of necessary curbs, gutters, drainage facilities and street Except for existing buildings,no building and no land paving. The improvements shall be made in accordance shall be used for any new commercial,industrial,profession- with city standards specifications and design,for all public al, group dwelling or community facility use, nor shall street frontage adjoining the property upon which the any certificate of use and occupancy therefor be issued construction is to be done,unless curbs,gutters,drainage where the site of such building or such land to be used facilities and street paving have been constructed and for said uses is located within the boundaries of the city located in accordance with city standards and design. A duly adopted master plan of drainage,until and unless the waiver shall be considered by the director of environmental drainage fees pertaining to the gross area of the site have services or design review board based upon the building been paid in the amount set forth in the legislative action permit valuation determined by the building official. adopting and establishing such a master plan of drainage. B. If the director of environmental services finds that The funds derived from the drainage fees imposed shall deferring the improvements is in the public interest, he be utilized only for the construction of local drainage may permit the posting of a sufficient cash deposit,or other facilities for the disposal security to guarantee the installation of such improvements. C. The director of environmental services or the design review board may waive the construction of curbs,gutters, drainage facilities,or street paving under this chapter when the public health,safety,and welfare will not be adversely affected,taking into consideration the contour of the ground, the relation of the adjacent property in the area, and the convenience of the public.(Ord 98§ I gwt),1975:Exhibit A § 25.32-3.01) 25.56.050 Duty to dedicate and improve additional property. Where the director of environmental services finds that the proposed improvements or use of property will cause an increase in vehicular or pedestrian traffic, which will constitute a substantial burden upon existing streets and create a need for additional right-of-way,street extensions (Palm Dna ]0-00) 416 r 2556.080 i of surface and storm waters from the local drainage erty being developed shall be installed underground as area in which such building or land is located pursuant a part of development from the nearest existing pole to the adopted master plan of drainage. not on the property being developed with the following At the discretion of the city council,dedication of exceptions: rights-of--way, or actual construction installation, or A. In the development, remodeling, or enlarge- design by a duly registered civil engineer or im- ment of a single-family dwelling upon an existing,sub- ' provements described in the master plan of drainage, divided lot in the RI, R2,or RE zone district where or any combination thereof,may be accepted in lieu of overhead utility distribution lines presently exist, the the payment of the aforementioned fees."Commercial, facilities may remain.Any new single-family dwelling industrial,professional,group dwelling,or community shall conform to the requirements of Section 2556.120 facility use" as used in this title includes any retail, as apart of development.This exception shall not apply wholesale or industrial business,the carrying on of any profession,the operation of a group dwelling consisting to new residential subdivisions or any new service lines of five or more families,mobile home parks,motels, to the dwelling. hotels,and community facilities;but does not include B. Temporary utilities along with the necessary ser- agriailtural or horticultural products grown or pro- vice Poles,wires,and cables may be permitted for the duced on the premises as an accessory use to the land, period during which authorized construction is contin- or the operation of any home occupation,or temporary uing for which valid building permits have been issued individual mobile home. (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: or for temporary uses which comply with requirements Exhibit A§25.32-4) of the zoning ordinance,building code,and other ap- plicable regulations. 2556.090 Required park dedication fees. G Risers on poles which provide service to the No building permit shall be issued for the purpose property and existing buildings are permitted and shall of establishing a dwelling unit or units,a mobile home be provided by the developer or owner on the pole. or mobile home park,or for increasing the number of D. Appurtenances and associated equipment such existing dwelling units or mobile homes on a parcel or as surface mounted transformers,may be placed above parcels of land until the director of environmental ground when it is determined by the city engineer that services has verified that the parcel or parcels of land it would be too costly to underground such equipment. upon which such use or uses are proposed to be estab- E The undergrounding of existing overhead facili- lished is in compliance with all applicable regulations ties shall not be required as a part of the development of the city's local park dedication or payment of fees in of property in the R2 and R3 districts where more than lieu thereof requirement, as provided by the Subdivi- fifty percent of the street frontage situated within the sion Ordinance.(Ord.128§7,1976:Ord 98§1(part), same block has already been developed with overhead 1975:Exhibit A§25.32-5) facilities. In these cases,Section 2556.120 shall apply. This exceptiondoesnot apply to anyservice lines.(Ord. 2556.100 Underground facilities—Purpose. 128§§8,9(part),1976:Ord.98§1(part),1975:Exhibit It is the intent and purpose of Sections 25.56.110 A§25.32-6.02) through 2556.140 to establish regulations and proce- dures governing the installation of underground utili- 2556.120 Recorded agreement ties or the conversion of existing overhead facilities In lieu of undergrounding existing distribution lines within the boundaries of the city as a part of develop- as a part of construction,the planning commission may went.(Ord.128§§8,9(part),1976:Ord.98§1(part), permit the recording of an agreement guaranteeing 1975:Exhibit A§2532-6.01) that the property will voluntarily be a part of any un- dergrounding distridwhich is subsequently established 25S6.110 Development subject to by the city including the property in question.The form undergrounding provisions. of this agreement shall be acceptable to the city attor- Except as provided in this chapter all new and exist- ney and shall run with the land.This section shall not ing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable an- be applicable to the service lines that lead directly to tenna television, and similar service wires or cables, the building.(Ord.128§§8(part),9(part),1976:Ord. which are adjacent to and provide service to the prop- 98§1 (part),1975:Exhibit A§2532-6.03) 417 1. 2556.130 i 25.%IM Responsibility for compliance. C. Except for single-family zones,if after dividing The developerorownerisresponstbleforcomplying the area of a site in a residential district by the site area with the requirements of Sections 2556.110 through required per dwelling unit, a remainder equal to or 2556.140 and he shall make the necessary arrange- greater than ninety percent of the area required for an meats with the utility company for the installation of additional dwelling unit may be located on the site; such fam7ities.(Ord.128§§8(pazt),9(pan),1976:Ord. provided,that all other applicable yard, open space, 98§1(part),1975:Exhibit A§2532.6.04) bulls, and parking regulations are met. (Ord. 98 § 1 (part),1975:Exhibit A§25.32-7.02) 2556.140 Nonconforming structures. Buildings or structures,which on the effective date 2556.170 Width of corner lots. of the ordinance codified in this chapter are noncon- Corner lots shall have extra width in addition to the forting in regard to aboveground on-site utility lines, width prescribed in the zoning schedule at least equal may continue to be used, altered,or enlarged in the to the width of the minimum interior side yard pre- same manner as if such nonconforming utility lines did scribed for a main structure in the district and innocase not exist However,when the buildings or structures are shall the lot width be less than eighty feet(Ord 98§1 enlarged over two thousand five hundred square feet (part),1975:Exhibit A§2532-7.03) in area or when alteration or enlargement require the installation of utility lines at new locations on the build- 2556.180 Front yards--Requirements and ings and structures,the service lines shall comply with exceptions. the requirements of this title.(Ord 128§§8(part),9 In addition to the regulations prescribed within each (part), 1976: Ord. 98 § i (part), 1975: Exhibit A § residential use district,the following regulations shall 2532-6.05) apply: Where sites comprising fortypercent of the frontage 25.56150 Development standards. in a residential district on a.block are improved with It is the intent and purpose of the development buildings,the minimum front yard shall be the average standards set out in Sections 25.56.160 through of the minimum front yard depths for structures on 25.56,310 to supplement the development standards each developed site in the district on the block In and special development standards within each use computing the average,a depth ten feet greater than district (Ord. 98§ 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A§ 25.32- the minimum required front yard shall be used for any 7.01) site having a greater yard depth. (Ord 98 § 1 (part), 1975:Exhibit A§25.32-7.04) 2556.160 Site area and dimensions— Measurements. 25.56.190 Side and rear yards—Requirements A. Required front, side, and rear yards shall be and exceptions. measured as the minimum horizontal distance from the In addition to the regulations prescribed within each property line of the site or street right-of-way line to a residential use district,the following regulations shall line parallel thereto on the site;provided,that where a apply: specific street plan has been adopted by the city council, A. On the street side of a comer lot the side yard site area and requiredyards shall be measured from the shall not be less than ten feet plan line, and no provisions of this title shall be con- B. On a reversed comer lot the minimum rear yard strued to permit a structure or use to extend beyond may be not less than the minimum side yard prescribed such line;and provided further,that where a site abuts for the district if the side yard adjoining the street is not on a street having only a portion of its required width less than the required front yard on the adjoining key dedicated or reserved for street purposes,site area and lot,or fifteen feet,whichever is greater. required yards shall be measured from a line drawn on C. On the side street side of corner lot,the mini- the boundary of the additional width required for street mum side yard for a garage,carport,or off-street park- purposes abutting the site. ing space required to serve a dwelling in a residential B. No site shall have less than the required lot width district shall be twenty feet;provided,that if the garage, as prescribed in the applicable zone district,except lots carport,or off-street parking space is entered parallel fronting on cul-de-sac or knuckle streets may have to the street,the minimum side yard shall be the same thirty-five feet of frontage. as the side yard otherwise required on the site. (Ord. 418 • 25.56.190 1 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988; Ord. 512 § 1, 1987; Ord. Materials: 128 § 7 (part), 1976: Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975;Exhibit A i. Block—all types; § 25.32-7.05) ii. Redwood,cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; 2536.195 Standards for walls and fences iii. Wrought iron. within or adjacent to R-1 3. Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and single-family zones. wrought iron fencing: A. Purpose.The following wall and fence development a. Retaining and combination walls located on a rear standards specifying location,material and review proce- or interior side property line associated with a cut slope dunes are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from consistency throughout the city.The objective is to protect the highest adjoining grade.Material standards in subsection and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, (D) (1) of this section shall apply. privacy, security, view sight lines and drainage. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior B. Review Procedures.All applications for fences and side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to walls shall be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval a maximum of six feet in height of solid wall material as by both the department of community development and measured from the lowest adjacent grade.A combination budding and safety.In addition,retaining walls will require of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed approval by the department of public works. nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent C. Wall Requirement—New Residential Construction. grade.The maximum combination fence height measured All new residential construction shall include walls or fences from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet. of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and In addition,the department of public works shall refer to interior side yards. Ordinance 514 amending Title 27(the grading ordinance) D. Development Standards. as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill conditions. 1. Walls and fences within front and street side set- c. Where a fill slope retaining wall is proposed adjacent backs: to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the city's a_ Fences under forty-eight inches in height. grading ordinance, the city engineer shall determine the i. Location:may be located on property Tine but shall lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the be a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the ii. Material: must be decorative material including grade elevation drainage requirements. decorative blocks,stucco,wood split rail,open picket,or 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal wrought iron. maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted b. Fences forty-eight inches to seventy-two inches to preserve a quality appearance.Major structural repairs in height: - or replacement shall be required to conform to the above i. Location: within front yard setback must be a location and material standards. minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb.Within street 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street minimum than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject of twelve feet from face of curb.Site inspection shall insure to a conditional use permit. that visibility adjacent to driveways and street comers shall E. Exceptions Procedures. Requests for exceptions not be impaired. (Reference: code Section 25.56.200) to the above standards may be brought before the Palm ii. Material:decorative block,stucco,or wrought iron. Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to approved,the architectural commission must make a finding a maximum of seventy-two inches in height: that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal a- Side yard tie-in fences,interior side yard and rear interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this Materials: section and that the exception shall not result in damage i. . Decorative block; to adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; proposed exception shall be informed of the application iii. Redwood,cedar or other approved decay-resistant at least ten days prior to the architectural commission wood product; meeting. (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) iv. Wrought iron. b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way: 419 (Palm De "s-o() 25.56.200 25.56100 Traffic sight obstructions. structures shall be cantilevered or supported only by neces- On a comer lot,no fence,wall,hedge,structure or other sary columns.A balcony or deck projecting from a higher obstruction, except the natural grade of a site, within a story may extend over a lower balcony or deck but shall triangular area formed by the existing or future curblines not in such case be deemed a roof for the lower balcony and a line connecting points on the existing or future or deck. (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § curblines a minimum of forty feet from the intersection 25.32-7.07(4)) of the projection of the curblines, shall exceed a height of three feet above established grade at the edge of the 2556.250 Open stairways. street pavement or the existing pavement or traveled way. Open, unenclosed fire escapes and fireproof outside (Ord.524§2(Exhibit A), 1987:Ord.98§ I (part), 1975: stairways may project into any required yard not more than Exhibit A § 25.32-7.06) four feet;provided,that no yard shall be reduced to less than three feet. (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 2556.210 Projections into yards. 25.32-7.07(5)) Architectural projections including eaves, awnings, louvers, and similar shading devices; sills, belt courses, 25.56.260 Covered patios. cornices,and similar feature;and flues and chimneys may Covered patios attached to a main structure may project project not more than six feet into a required front yard, not more than eight feet into a required rear yard and five rear yard,or side yard on the street side of a comer lot, feet into a required side yard within thirty-five feet of the and not more than two feet into any other required yard; rear lot line; provided, that the required side yard shall provided,that the distance between an architectural progec- not be reduced to less than five feet and the covered patios tion and a side or rear property line shall not be less than shall not cover more than fifty percent of the rear yard. three feet. (Ord 98 § I (part), 1975: Exhibit A § A covered patio not attached to a main structure is deemed 25.32-7.07(1)) an accessory structure.(Ord.98§I (part), 1975:Exhibit A § 25.32-7.07(6)) 2556.220 Oriel or bay windows. Otel or bay windows may project not more than three 2556.270 Underground structures. feet into a required front yard, rear yard,or side yard on Underground structures(pools)may project without limit the street side of a comer lot;provided,that the aggregate into any required yards;provided,that they shall not have width of oriel or bay windows shall not exceed fifty percent a height of more than two and a half feet and are not closer of the length of the wall in which they are located and than five feet to any property line.(Ord 98§ 1(part), 1975: the width of any individual oriel or bay window shall not Exhibit A § 25.32-7.07(7)) exceed ten feet. (Ord 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-7.07(2)) 2556.280 Detached accessory buildings. Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by 2556.230 Porches and steps- this chapter shall be subject to the following regulations: Unroofed porches,steps,and terraces may project not A- Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected more than six feet into a required front yard or side yard in any required yard except a rear yard.Accessory buildings on the street side of a corner lot,or to a point not closer not located in any required yard shall not be subject to than three feet to an interior side or rear property line; this section. provided,that the height including railings shall not exceed B. On lots having twelve thousand square feet of lot six feet above the grade of the ground at the property line. area or more detached accessory buildings may be located (Ord. 98 § I (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-7.07(3)) in a required rear yard upon approval of a conditional use permit by planning commission and approval by architectur- 2556.240 Balconies over six feet above al review commission. Said detached accessory building ground. shall not exceed one story or fourteen feet in height and Balconies,decks,terraces,and other similar unroofed may not occupy more than twenty-five percent of the structures at a height including railing more than six feet required rear yard and shall be set back from the property above the level at which a yard must be provided may lines a distance equal to its height. project not more than six feet into a required front yard On lots having forty thousand square feet of lot area or rear yard and five feet into any other required yard; or more, the maximum height shall be one story and provided,that they shall not reduce any yard to less than eighteen feet provided the structure is set back from proper- five feet except on the street side of a corner lot. Such ty line a distance equal to its height. (Prim Dk n 8.01) 420 25.56.280 } In reviewing said conditional use permit the planning to ground mounted commercial communication towers or commission or city council shall use the criteria enumerated building mounted commercial communication antennas. in Section 25.73.013,Approval or rejection considerations, Height of said ground mounted commercial commurdcation in making its decision. towers and/or building mounted commercial communication C. On lots having less than twelve thousand square antennas shall be as prescribed in Section 25.104.040(G). feet of lot area detached accessory buildings used for storage (Ord. 817 § 10, 1996; Ord. 338 (part), 1983: Ord. 98 § purposes and having one hundred square feet or less of 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-7.09) floor area with a maximum height of eight feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of eight feet from any 2556301 Home satellite receiver& property line upon approval by architectural review com- A satellite receiving dish of five feet or more in diameter mission. must conform to the following standards depending on Open,nonhabitable,gazebo-like structures with a maxi- location. mum height of ten feet shall be permitted with a minimum A. Planned Residential Developments. Appropriate setback of one foot of setback for each foot of building association approval is required.The receiver is not to be height upon approval of architectural review commission. visible from adjacent properties or a public street Habitable structures,garages,work shops,large storage B. Other Residential Areas.The receiver shall not be buildings and the like shall not be permitted in the required visible from the street or be placed on a rooftop in a rear yam• required front setback,or any other required setback except D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total a rear setback with no portion of receiver located within building coverage allowed by the zone is exceeded.(Ord. five feet of a property line.Height from existing or finish 970§2(Exhibit A), 2000: Ord.948 § 2,2000: Ord. 128 adjacent grade,whichever is less,shall not exceed fourteen § 7 (part), 1976: Ord 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § feet if within twenty feet of a property line or eighteen 25.32-7.07(8)) feet otherwise. C. Commercial and Industrial Areas. Architectural 2556.290 Projections over public property in commission approval for design and screening is required commercial zones. if receiver is visible from a public street or adjacent proper- Building projections into public rights-of--way in commer- ty.The characteristics of the receiver to be evaluated are cial zones shall be regulated by the currently adopted the location,type(solid or mesh),color and screening.(Ord. Uniform Building Code.(Ord.98§ 1(part),1975:Exhibit 338 (part), 1983) A§ 25.32-7.08) 2556302 Sale of alcoholic beverages in 25.56300 The height of a structure. commercial zones. A. It shall be measured vertically from the average In all commercial zones a conditional use permit must elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the be obtained for convenience stores, liquor stores and structure directly above; provided, that a roof shall be establishments with on-site consumption of alcoholic measured to the highest point of the roof. The height of beverages. a fence or a wall used as a fence shall be measured from A convenience store is defined as a"grocery store used the higher finished grade adjoining the fence or wall. for the retail sale of food, food products, dairy products B. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, water tanks, and alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises." flagpoles,monuments,scenery lofts,radio and television (Ord. 468 Exhibit A, t986) aerials and antennas except home satellite receivers,com- mercial transmission towers,fire towers and similar strut- 2556310 Screening and landscaping. tures and necessary mechanical appurtenances covering A. Except as otherwise required by the provisions of not more than ten percent of the ground area covered by this title,screening shall consist of a solid wall or fence, the structure may be erected to a height of not more than vine-covered fence,or compact evergreen hedge.Hedge sixty-five feet or not more than twenty-five feet above the material used as screening shall not be less than three feet height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in height when planted and shall not be permitted to exceed in which the site is located,whichever is less.Utility poles the specified height by more than one and one-half feet. and towers shall not be subject to the height limits pre- Where buffers or trees are required,they shall have a mature scribed in any district regulations. height of not less than twenty feel apart.All screening and C. The height limit contained in the zoning district landscaping shall be permanently maintained in orderly regulations of this Code and in this Section do not apply condition by the owner. Plant material shall be watered, 421 (Palm Dmn 8-01) r, 25.56.310 1, weeded, pruned, and replaced as necessary to screen or 2556.330 Automobile service stations— ornament the site.A permanent irrigation system shall be Location. provided. All service station sites shall front on streets designated B. In a residential district an open parking facility for as state highways on the master plan of arterial highways more than five cars or a loading area shall be screened unless the sites are part of or in conjunction with develop- from properties in a residential district adjoining or directly ments such as shopping centers.No station shall be located across a street or alley.In a district other than a residential within five hundred feet of any other service station.(Ord. district an open parking facility or a loading area shall be 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-9.01(1)) screened from a residential district adjoining or directly across a street or alley.Screening shall be six feet in height, 25.56.340 Automobile service stations—Site except that screening to protect properties across a street size. may be not less than four feet in height The site of the service station shall be of sufficient size C. In an industrial district the required front yard and and configuration to satisfy all requirements for off-street required side yard on the street side of a corner lot,except parking,setbacks,curb cuts,walls,landscaping and storage for the area occupied by necessary drives and walks,shall as provided in this title.(Ord.98§ I(part), 1975:Exhibit be landscaped with trees and other plant materials suitable A § 2532-9.01(2)) for ornamentation. (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-7.10) 2556.350 Automobile service stations— Setbacks. 2556320 Minimum residential structure size. All buildings shall be setback from interior property A. Every dwelling hereafter erected shall have a mini- lines a minimum of eighteen feet and exterior property mum living floor area,exclusive of unroofed portions and lines a minimum of thirty feet except that pump islands garages as follows: may be located a minimum of twenty feet from all exterior property lines,and pump island canopies may project to Area in Square Feet By within five feet of exterior property lines. (Ord. 98 § I Dwelling Zone (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 2532-9.01(3)) Single-family detached 1,000 R-1,PR,R-2 RE 1,250 RI 10,000 to R-1 2556360 Automobile service stations- 14,000 Access. 1,500 R-1 15,000 Driveways shall be so designed and located as to ensure a safe and efficient movement of traffic on and off the Multiple Units—Apartments site to and from the lane of traffic nearest the curb.(Ord Duplexes and Condominiums 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-9.01(4)) Studio unit 600 One bedroom 600 2556370 Automobile service stations—Noise. Two bedroom 800 Buzzers and amplified signaling bells are to be located Three bedroom 1,200 within the service station proper and shall not generate noise beyond that of a normal residential telephone ring B. The standards may be increased by the design review when the service station site abuts residentially zoned process or the planning commission based upon: property or property used for residential purposes. (Ord. 1. Usability of the dwelling by the ultimate occupants; 98 § I (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-9.01(5)) 2. Compatibility of the dwelling to the neighborhoods. C. Multiple units in multiple residential zones may 25.56380 Automobile service stations— be decreased by the design review process or the planning Landscaping. commission based upon: A minimum of twenty percent of the site shall be land- 1. Efficiency of unit design; scaped with plant materials designed to provide beautifrca- 2. Usability of the unit by the ultimate occupants; lion and screening. (Ord. 98 § I (part), 1975: Exhibit A 3. Compatibility of the dwelling to the area. (Ord. § 25.32-9.01(6)) 337(part),1983:Ord.297(part),1982:Ord. 128§7(part), 1976: Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-8.01) (Palm Desert 8-01) 422 • 25.56.390 e3 2556390 Automobile service stations— 25.56.480 Trash handling alternative. Lighting. An alternative to a trash enclosure shall include the All lighting fixtures shall be located so as to shield direct placement of a trash bin in a concrete or metal lined pit. rays from adjoining properties. Luminaries shall be of a Use,location and design of the trash handling facility shall low level,indirect diffused type and shall not exceed the be reviewed and approved by the local disposal service height of the building.(Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975:Exhibit and the city. (Ord. 283, 1982) A§ 25.32-9.01(7)) 25.56A90 Expiration dates of application 2556.400 Automobile service stations— approvals. Service bays. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code related Service bay entrances shall not hunt upon a public street thereto,the anniversary date of any application approvals (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-9.01(8)) shall be tied to the effective approval date of the tentative tract map as processed for that property. When there is 2556A10 Automobile service stations—Wall. no tentative tract map application involved with a particular A six foot masonry wall shall be required along all property,the anniversary date for determining the expiration interior property lines and a three-foot-high wall along the of any application approvals shall be tied to the effective street(Ord.98§I(part),1975:Exhibit A§25.32-9.01(9)) approval date of the most recently approved application. When there is only an individual application relating to 2556.420 Takeout restaurants. a particular property,then the expiration date of the applica- The site shall be of sufficient size and configuration tion shall be as set forth in the code relating to that applica- to satisfy all requirements for off-street parking,setbacks, lion. (Ord. 304 (part), 1982) curb cuts,walls,landscaping and refuse storage as provided in this title. (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 2556500 Hotel development standards 25.32-9.02(1)) All hotel developments shall comply with the following: A. The minimum guest room/suite size for any hotel 2556.430 Takeout restaurants—Setbacks. shall be three hundred thirty square feet Hotel projects The planning commission may establish setbacks more shall have an overall average guest room/suite size of at restrictive than those required by the regulations for the least three hundred seventy-five square feet. district in which the proposed use would be located if it B. All hotels shall provide a multi-purpose(three meal) determines they are necessary or desirable for the protection restaurant either within the building itself, attached or of the public health,safety and welfare or to insure compati- adjacent to the building, together with room service for bility with uses on contiguous properties. (Ord. 98 § 1 hotel guests (a continental breakfast may constitute one (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-9.02(2)) of the three meals); C. All hotel developments shall utilize central air 2556.440 Takeout restaurants, Curb cuts conditioning systems or vertical fan coil systems,or other The size and location of curb cuts for driveways shall specifically approved systems.Window or wall installed be determined by standards development by the department air conditioning systems are prohibited. (Ord. 872 § 2 of environmental services.(Ord.98§ I (part), 1975:Exhibit (Exhibit A), 1998; Ord. 459 § 2, 1986) A § 25.32-9.02(3)) 25,56.450 Takeout restaurants—Landscaping. Not less than twenty percent of the total site area shall be devoted to landscaped planting areas.(Ord.98§ I(part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-9.02(4)) 25.56.470 Lighting standards in all zones. Every development occurring in any zone in the city shall be critically reviewed relative to mitigating any negative impacts from lighting proposed as a part of devel- opment. The use of lighted tennis courts and the use of lights in commercial developments will be particularly reviewed.(Ord.98§ 1 (part), 1975:Exhibit A§25.32-9.03) 423 Palm Desert 8-01) C � IY I P � M DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6i I FAX: 760 341-7098 info@ palm-deserrt.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval for any painting, "repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences, or improvements to real property. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: . Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary April 4, 2002 Palm Desert Planning Commission 1 i ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE- AGENDA WEDNESDAY, MARCH , 1998 3:00 P.M. COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE 1. CONTINUED REVIEW OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS A. COLOR LIMITS B. HEIGHT LIMITS C. ROOF SIGNS DEFINITION D. MONUMENT SIGNS E. AWNINGS F. POLITICAL SIGNS II. PARKING STANDARDS A. TWO COVERED SPACES R-1 ZONE B. MEDICAL OFFICE STANDARDS MINUTES ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 4, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Present: Tim Bartlett, Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Jim Foxx, Frank Goodman, Bob Leo, Steve Smith, Frank Urrutia II. DISCUSSION OF TATTOO ORDINANCE CHANGES Mr. Smith reported that the City Council considered proposed changes that would have made tattoo parlors part of the adult entertainment ordinance, and would have limited them to the SI (Service Industrial) area, but that would also prohibit other types of adult entertainment in that area due to the 500 feet of separation required between such uses; so the matter is going before the Planning Commission on February 17, 1998 to look at other means of regulating tattoo establishments. There are currently two such establishments located on Highway 111 at this time. Member Benson asked if the two existing establishments are licensed by the State, to which Mr. Smith responded that, pursuant to recent legislation, they will be licensed by the State. Mr. Smith noted that intent is to allow this type of use in the SI area, but not as a type of adult entertainment. Staff recommends that the two existing establishments become legal nonconforming, and the current operators have no objection to that since they are not opposed to limiting any new competition on Highway 111. To staffs knowledge, there have been no complaints from neighboring businesses about the existing establishments. Mr. Smith stated that in trying to create a definition for tattoo establishments, the intent is not to eliminate permanent makeup services. Member Bartlett noted that there are already several permanent makeup service businesses along Highway 111 and El Paseo Member Leo noted that electrolysis also uses needles, and asked if that service would be affected, to which Member Leo responded by suggesting that the City Attorney be consulted regarding licensing regulations for electrolysis services. 1 r ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 4, 1998 MINUTES Member Goodman pointed out that ear piercing also involves the use of needles. Member Foxx questioned the need to prohibit tattoo establishments in commercial areas, to which Mr. Smith responded that there have been no problems reported, but Councilman Spiegel asked the City Manager to look into it. Member Foxx recalled that there were previously problems with massage parlors because of the prostitution issue, and there were problems implementing the massage parlor ordinance so that it would not affect legitimate businesses. Member Bartlett felt that it is more of a social issue than a zoning issue. Member Leo suggested that things be left as they are because there really isn't a problem. Member Urrutia suggested regulating tattoo establishments via CUP in order to avoid discrimination, and if the shops look decent and there aren't a lot of them, they can be easily regulated. Member Foxx noted that the City currently restricts the proliferation of some types of businesses by allowing no more than one for every 500 feet (i.e., service stations), and suggested that this could be used for tattoo establishments as well. Member Campbell suggested that tattoo establishments be required to show,proof of licensing from the Health Department. Member Benson stated that her only concern regarding these businesses is signage. Mr. Smith indicated that he will relate to the Planning Commission the Committee's suggestion to regulate tattoo establishments via CUP and to establish a 500-foot minimum separation between the uses. 2 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 4, 1998 MINUTES Ill. TIMESHARE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Mr. Smith reported that the City Council heard a presentation from the Marriott regarding their proposal for a new timeshare development on 300 plus acres at Frank Sinatra/Gerald Ford/Monterey. Member Leo asked if the City receives TOT on timeshares, to which Mr. Smith responded that the people who own the timeshare are not required to pay TOT; however, when unused units are rented out as hotel units, the City does collect TOT, and the City also collects a $7,500 per unit TOT in-lieu fee. Mr. Smith noted that certain issues arose during Marriott's presentation. The City's timeshare ordinance was written in 1989 to assure quality management and success, and it requires that a timeshare facility be built in conjunction with a resort hotel having a minimum of 500 rooms and an 18-hole golf course of not less than 6,400 yards. The Marriott timeshare is approaching build out level and now wishes to expand. Member Benson commented that proponents are attempting to find ways to circumvent the intent of the ordinance, which she believes was that timeshares should only be allowed as part of a 500-room hotel development. Member Goodman stated that the reason for having a hotel is to provide food and beverage management; so if a timeshare complex has a large clubhouse managing meal facilities, then that would provide the same advantages of a hotel, without the rooms. Member Bartlett asked what types of problems are associated with timeshares, to which Member Goodman replied that the original concept was a hard sell to a family stretching their budget in order to afford a vacation in the area; however, the Marriott is a high class operation which brings in a lot of revenues, and if the overhead is enough to require amortization, it means it is a high class facility, with less potential for hard sell to affluent buyers, which will bring more tourism into the area. Member Leo noted that the existing ordinance indicates that a timeshare is permitted "in conjunction with"; not "contiguous to," a hotel. 3 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 4, 1998 MINUTES Member Foxx commented that the local businesses would probably prefer not to have a restaurant on site so that visitors will go out for meals. Member Foxx noted that the Marriott's proposal is for three units per acre, which is no more dense than a single-family home, but the City will receive higher revenues from the same number of timeshare units that it does for single-family homes. Mr. Smith remarked that the ordinance does not have a "purpose" section as do all other ordinances, and staff would propose that a "purpose" section be created to: i) Ensure quality development, maintenance and management; and ii) The City counts heavily on TOT from hotels to provide City services, but a proliferation of timeshares could stifle hotel development; therefore, timeshares should only be permitted when it is tied to a large hotel development. Mr. Smith suggested that an "exception" section also, tie created so that the Planning Commission may approve timeshare projects, contrary to the provisions of Section 24.1000.020 if it receives other guarantees or characteristics to assure the intent and purpose of this section is achieved. Member Foxx stated that hotel room demand should not be expected to diminished much because of timeshare units. Member Goodman felt strongly that timeshare units should have a clubhouse facility to house management and food services. Member Leo indicated that he is not in favor of more timeshare units, and the City does need more hotel rooms because hotels draw conventions, and convention goers bring in revenues to the City. Member Foxx indicated that he doesn't have an opinion on this issue; so the City Council will have to decide what it wants. Member Goodman commented that a high caliber successful timeshare facility can be great for the City, but an unsuccessful operation can be a nightmare. 4 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 4, 1998 MINUTES Member Be nson felt that the Citydoes not need more timeshare units, and the ordinance should be strengthened to require that the facility be contiguous to a hotel having a minimum of 500 rooms and an 18-hole golf course of not less than 6,400 yards. Member Foxx stated that the ordinance can be written to disallow timeshares if that is the will of the Council, and pointed out that the City of Rancho Mirage does not allow timeshares, and added that if it is decided in the future that timeshares are desirable, then the ordinance can be amended. Member Goodman disagreed with the 500-room hotel requirement, but felt that the golf course requirement is extremely important. Member Foxx also felt that the golf course requirement is important because it demonstrates a substantial investment commitment. Member Benson suggested that the City should consider prohibiting timeshares. Member Campbell suggested that retail uses not be allowed in timeshare facilities. Mr. Smith indicated that he will pass the Committee's comments along. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 5 MINUTES ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 25, 1998 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m. Present: Tim Bartlett, Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Bob Leo, Steve Smith, Frank Urrutia II. REVIEW OF SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS Mr. Smith presented draft language prepared in response to the Committee's recommendations for amendments to the sign ordinance provisions regarding color limits, height limits, roof signs definition, monument signs and awnings. Member Benson referenced Section 25.68.400 and suggested that it state, "Such signs shall be removed upon rental of the property or 30 days after the close of escrow," with which the rest of the Committee concurred. Mr. Smith reported that he made changes to Section J regarding awnings to require a 75-foot separation between each canopy awning, to which Member Campbell responded that 75 feet is not far enough, and added that she doesn't believe any additional canopy awnings should be allowed on El Paseo. Mr. Smith pointed out that the current policy has been to restrict the number of canopy awnings on El Paseo to one per building. Member Foxx commented that he likes the aesthetics of canopy awnings because they create a much different pedestrian environment, and he would suggest that canopy awnings be encouraged rather than discouraged because of the value they add to the streetscape along El Paseo, which would otherwise be pretty stark. Member Benson felt that there are already enough canopy awnings along El Paseo to break up the appearance of the street, and she would prefer not to clutter the street. 1 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 25, 1998 MINUTES Member Foxx stated that specialty retail is a unique animal, and he believes the canopy awnings help set El Paseo apart from the rest of the City. Member Fozx commented that the Committee should not trouble itself with this issue at this time, because he anticipates a bloodbath along El Paseo after The Gardens shopping center opens. Mr. Smith suggested maintaining the current policy of one canopy awning per building, and that requests for additional canopy awnings be subject to Architectural Review Commission approval based on findings, i.e., that visual access to other businesses not be blocked. Mr. Smith indicated that he will report back with the appropriate language. III. PARKING STANDARDS Mr. Smith reported that the Committee may want to consider revising the parking standards for medical office buildings, because it appears that certain buildings meet the code criteria, but still do not have sufficient parking, i.e, the Sunlife building. Staff conducted a survey of other cities in the area and found: 1) La Quinta requires four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the first 2,000 square feet, and one space for each additional 175 square feet of gross floor area; a) For example, a 10,000 square foot building in La Quinta would be required to provide 56 parking spaces; 2) Rancho Mirage requires four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area; a) For example, a 10,000 square foot building in Rancho Mirage would be required to provide 40 parking spaces; 3) Palm Desert requires four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the first 2,200 square feet of gross floor area (minus 15% for utility areas), and five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for areas exceeding 2,200 square feet; a) For example, a 10,000 square foot building in Palm Desert would be required to provide 37 to 44 parking spaces, depending on the utility reduction. 2 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 25, 1998 MINUTES Member Foxx noted that property owners must charge higher rental rates for medical offices than general offices in order to render the same economic return, because the medical office buildings require more parking space. Member Foxx commented that the Sunlife building is not a good example of a typical medical office situation, and the Committee should not over-react to that situation; however, if similar situations arise with other medical office buildings, then the Committee may wish to consider making changes. Member Bartlett felt that market conditions will help balance things out, because if patients cannot find parking space when they visit their health practitioner, they will choose a different provider. Member Urrutia noted that La Quinta's formula works out to one parking space for each 180 square feet of gross floor area, and he would suggest that Palm Desert's requirements be similar, and that the 15% utility reduction be eliminated. Member Foxx pointed out that the larger the building, the less parking is needed. Member Urrutia suggested requiring one parking space for each 150 square feet of gross floor area for buildings up to 2,000 square feet. Member Bartlett recommended requiring six parking spaces for the first 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, and five parking spaces for each additional 1,000 square feet of floor area, with which Member Foxx concurred. Member Foxx suggested that the 15% reduction only be applied to buildings of two stories or more, with which Members Urrutia and Bartlett agreed. Member Foxx recommended that it be worded "up to 15%" so that the exact figure could be calculated. Mr. Smith indicated that he will report back with language that requires six parking spaces for the first 1,000 square feet of gross floor area and five parking spaces per every 1,000 square feet thereafter, and that "up to 15%" reduction be allowed for utility areas in buildings of two stories or more. 3 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 25, 1998 MINUTES Member Leo suggested that vacant City land be converted to parking lots, and that shuttle services be established to transport people to their places of employment, to which Member Benson responded that it is a good idea, but she doesn't think the desert is ready for it. Mr. Smith commented that people seem to respond to incentive-based carpooling. IV. ADJOURNMENT The Committee agreed to meet again on Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at 3:00 p.m. in the Community Services Conference Room. The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 4 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1998 3:00 P.M. COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. REVIEW OF SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS A. COLOR LIMITS B. HEIGHT LIMITS C. ROOF SIGNS DEFINITION D. MONUMENT SIGNS E. AWNINGS II. PARKING STANDARDS A. MEDICAL OFFICE STANDARDS III. PLANNED OFFICE PARK DISTRICT �-- yo�-D Tr" 'v's Lye 21- vs MINUTES ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE . MARCH 4, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:07 p.m. Present: Tim Bartlett, Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Bob Leo, Steve Smith, Frank Urrutia II. CONTINUED REVIEW OF. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS A. Color Limits Mr. Smith referenced Section 25.68.480 regarding colors and stated that there has been a suggestion to eliminate the three-color maximum and require that colors be compatible with the particular commercial center architecture. Member Urrutia felt that it is good to have a limit on the number of colors because it provides a guideline for applicants, and does not necessarily mean that every application for signs with more than three colors will be denied, because the Architectural Review Commission has approved tastefully designed signs with several colors. If a guideline is not provided for the applicant, it makes the Architectural Review Commission's job more difficult; so he has no problem with this section of the ordinance as it is currently written. Mr. Smith stated that exceptions are made for cases involving a trademark. Mr. Smith suggested that there may be some benefit to expanding the maximum number of colors to four, and noted that the requirement is being skirted by not counting white as a color. Member Leo agreed that a four-color maximum would be acceptable, with which Member Benson concurred and suggested that the second sentence of the section be amended to state, "Sign programs for commercial complexes, shopping centers, other commercial/industrial development and individual business shall be limited to not mor than four colors which are compatible with the building/center." 1 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 4, 1998 MINUTES B. Height Limits Mr. Smith referenced Section 25.68.300 regarding the height of wall signs and indicated that it states, 'The top of such signs shall not be higher than the eave line of the building on which it is located as measured from the underside of the eave and in no event higher than 20 feet," and suggested that it be amended to indicate "...in no event higher than 20 feet, or as approved by the Architectural Review Commission." The Committee concurred. Mr. Smith suggested that the definition be changed so that the eave is not designated as the limit, because some buildings cannot accommodate signage below the eave. The Committee concurred. C. Roof Signs Definition Mr. Smith stated that the definition of a roof sign will be amended to be consistent with the changes just approved by the Committee. D. Awnings Member Campbell stated that she would not support having anymore canopy awnings (the type which extend from the building to the street) on El Paseo, to which Mr. Smith replied that the policy has been to allow one canopy awning per building. Member Leo felt that El Paseo is a unique district, and blanket ordinances should not be created based on the situations on El Paso, and suggested that a separate El Paseo district be established, with which Member Benson agreed. Member Campbell noted that El Paseo already allows less temporary window signage than other commercial areas in the City. 2 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 4, 1998 MINUTES Member Leo commented that even though there are nice, wide sidewalks in the commercial area on San Pablo north of Highway 111, the area is underdeveloped, and suggested that a special redevelopment district be created. Member Benson felt that it would be a wonderful area for an art colony and suggested the name "Old San Pablo." E. Monument Signs Mr. Smith stated that shopping centers are limited to center identification signage on each street frontage, and the Committee has already discussed that matter. F. Real Estate Signs Mr. Smith reported that the Enterprise building on Highway 111 is limited to three square feet of real estate signage because it has frontage of less than 200 feet. There has been a problem in leasing out the spaces in the building, and the owner has requested replacing the "Enterprise" Plexiglas face on the can sign with "For Lease." Staff feels that the building may have greater success with leasing space if additional "For Lease" signage is allowed. Members Bartlett and Urrutia felt that additional signage would not be helpful in this case. Mr. Smith asked about allowing 20 square feet of real estate signage for this particular instance, to which Member Benson replied that she would make it contingent on a 60-day time limit and a report from the owner on the number of inquiries about available space. G. Political Signs Mr. Smith reported that the City Attorney's office has advised that political signs cannot be restricted any more than any other type of commercial sign. With regard to developed residential lots, the rule of thumb is the home is a person's castle, and there are no restrictions on signage; however, vacant residential lots can be restricted to a maximum of 12 square feet of total sign area, and the owner's permission and a City permit can also be required. Other residential zones, i.e., 3 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 4, 1998 MINUTES churches, can be restricted to six square feet of total sign area. Developed industrial/commercial lots can be limited to six square feet of total sign area, and if the property owner is willing, approved permanent signage can be traded for additional political sign area. Undeveloped commercial lots can be limited to 12 square feet of total sign area, since that is the current limit. Mr. Smith noted that the City Attorney's office has also outlined a registration process. Mr. Smith recalled that Member Foxx had suggested a separate ordinance for political signs, and Member Benson concurred with that idea. III. PARKING STANDARDS A. Two Covered Spaces R-1 Zone Mr. Smith suggested that the Committee consider reducing the requirement for two covered parking spaces in the R-1 zone, to which Member Benson replied that she does not want to force residents to park in the street. Members Bartlett and Benson felt that the requirement should not be changed. Member Urrutia indicated that he would be in favor of allowing some relief if there was a way to address the setback issue, to which Member Bartlett replied that he would not be supportive of making exceptions to the setback requirements. Member Leo suggested that each case be reviewed on an individual basis by staff as an adjustment application, to which Member Benson replied that she would prefer that each case be placed on the consent calendar of the Planning Commission agenda. Member Urrutia hoped that each case would not be automatically approved, because then there would be too many. Member Bartlett felt that property values would be negatively impacted if a lot of people extend their carports or garages out to the street. 4 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 4, 1998 MINUTES IV. ADJOURNED The Committee agreed to meet again on Wednesday, March 25 at 3:00 p.m. in the Community Services Conference Room. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 5