HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 13-82 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1983 MINUTES JANUARY 279 1993
REGULAR CITY COUN. , MEETING
C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 326 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REORGANIZATION.
Councilman Jackson stated she felt the, Council should at least
reconsider the length of ,terms established %y the proposed ordinance
which had been reviewed earlier in the Agenda.
Councilman Jackson moved to amend the existing ordinance to include terms
of office for the existing 7-member board. Councilman Wilson seconded the motion.
Mr. Diaz explained that this could be accomplished by amending the
existing ordinance.
Councilman Jackson withdrew her motion and Councilman Wilson withdrew
his second. \
Councilman Snyder moved to continue the matter to the meeting of February
10, 1983, to allow staff to prepare the necessary revisions. Councilman Jackson seconded
the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council.
Mayor Pulugi asked that everyone note the Future Meetings listed on the
Agenda.
XVII. ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Wilson, second by Jackson, and unanimous vote of the Council,
Mayor Puluqi adjourned the Council meeting to Closed Session to immediately following
adjournment of the Redevelopment Agency meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Mayor Pulugi reconvened the meeting at 11:58 p.m. and immediately adjourned
to Closed Session at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 3, 1983.
ii
r
MEO S. PULUQI, MAYOR
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILL N, CITY K
CITY OF PALM DESERT, C ORNIA
-7-
MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1983
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MR. STEVE SULLIVAN, 73-730 Highway 111, Palm Desert, opposed the
reduction in the number of architects but supported other recommended
changes.
MR. RALPH WOOD, Chairman of the Planning Commission, addressed
Council to clarify the position of the Commission's recommendation.
With no further input offered, Mayor Puluqi declared the Public Hearing
closed.
Councilman Wilson noted the structure of this Board had been changed
just a few years ago to expand the number of architects in membership.
He asked why it was necessary to now reduce it. Mr. Diaz responded
that the Board makeup had been changed to increase the number of
architects so that a majority of them were always present at the
r
meeting.
Councilman Kelly moved.to waive further reading.and pass Ordinance 326 to
second reading. Mayor Puluqi seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Councilman Wilson stated he felt the expertise of architects on the
Board was important. He felt the Board was and had done an excellent
job in creating a community we could all be proud of and could not see
changing something that was working so well.
Councilman Kelly stated he felt that the landscape architect would
create the majority of architects that everyone was concerned about.
Councilman Snyder stated that all testimony given had praised the
Design Review Board for their excellence, and he could not justify
changing it for the sake of change.
a Councilman Jackson stated she opposed the motion in that she had
served on that Board and that 5 architects would not streamline its
performance in that it ran smoothly now. The testimony received had
verified that. She agreed with Councilmen Snyder and Wilson that
something working so well should not be changed.
Mayor Puluqi called for a vote on the motion on the floor and the following
votes were cast:
AYES: Kelly and Puluqi
NOES: Jackson, Snyder & Wilson
The motion was defeated and the request was denied.
*Note: This item was subsequently recalled for discussion and action under
Section XVI, REPORTS AND REMARKS, of the Agenda.
IX. RESOLUTIONS '
A. RESOLUTION NO. 83-12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE STATE
LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT A POLICY DESIGNATING THAT ANY
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING WHICH IS REALLOCATED FOR
STATE PURPOSES SHOULD BE ALLOCATED FROM LOCAL
GOVERNMENT "BAIL-OUT" FUNDS.
Mr. Bouman stated this resolution had been requested by the City of
Rosemead. It would urge the State legislature to establish the policy of
leaving the State subventions intact and discontinue the practice of
using State funds to bail out local agencies. He noted that the City of
Palm Desert and many other cities without. property taxes had never
received bail-out monies, and the proposal to use subventions money
now would penalize us.
Upon motion by Wilson, second by Snyder, Resolution No. 83-12 was adopted
by unanimous vote of the Council.
MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1983
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
* * * � a �t r * a • +r + • * • • � • + a a • t +r • • * • • a +► * r
50 acres and yet at the same time include them in the plan and to have
separate studies when these areas are ready for development. He
concluded by recommending the adoption of Resolution No. 83-3 and
the first reading of Ordinance Nos. 322 and 323.
Councilman Jackson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No.
83-3 and to waive further reading and pass Ordinance Nos. 322 and 323 to second reading.
Councilman Snyder seconded the motion.
Councilman Wilson spoke against the motion. He felt that when this process
started, it was an attempt to reach a reasonable compromise between the
original land development designation without opening the hillsides to rampant
development. He felt strongly that the City was opening the door to it and
would be very sorry in the future. It would be unfair to developers to give
them the impression that if they acquire large acreage, they might have a shot
at developing those hillsides.,, He said that philosophy is not consistent with
the desires of the majority of the people in the City nor the Council today or
past Councils.
Councilman Snyder concurred that hillside development should not be
encouraged. However, he felt the latest committee had achieved a
compromise that put in adequate safeguards to protect the City from such
rampant development.
Councilman Kelly said that he was satisfied with the original recommendation
— before the latest committee recommended this development agreement. He
felt that this new proposal satisfied concerns raised during the public hearing.
Mayor Puluqi called for the vote, and the following votes were cast:
AYES: Jackson, Kelly, Snyder, do Puluqi
NOES: Wilson
B. RE UEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE
MENDMEN LA ING O DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
REORGANIZATION. (Continued from the meeting of January 27,
1983.)
Mayor Puluqi noted that the public testimony portion of the public hearing
had been closed at the meeting of January 27, 1983, and would not be reopened
unless a majority of the Council so desired. He called on Mr. Diaz for the
staff report.
Mr. Diaz reviewed the new recommendations which were reducing the
number of architects from 7 to 5 and letting all members be named by
the Council to reflect whatever area of expertise the Council so desired
and designated terms of office.
Councilmen Wilson and Snyder both stated this was a technical advisory
board and that the makeup consisting of a majority of architects was
important. They favored the designated term of office.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 326
to second reading amended to read "a majority of 3 architects, if available". Councilman
Jackson seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT PERMITTING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS HAVING AN
AREA NOT TO EXCEED 35 SQUARE FEET FOR ANY "URGENT CARE
FACILITY" — CASE NO. ZOA 10-829 CITY OF PALM DESERT,
APPLICANT.
Mayor Puluqi declared the Public Hearing open and asked for the staff report.
Mr. Diaz reviewed the report in detail noting that' the Council had
approved the request to modify the sign ordinance to allow for urgent
medical care facilities for additional signage of 35 square feet at its
However rior to staffs submittal of the
2 l982. , p
meeting of August 1 ,
-3-
MINUTES 3ANUARY 279 1983
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
r +� a r r s a a r * • • a +� + � * * +� s * * * • r * * * * a * * •
D. RE UEST FOR RELEASE OF BOND For Tract No. 55539 Ironwood
Country Club, Applicant.
Rec. Approve the request and reduce the Faithful Performance
Bond to 10% of the face amount for the one-year
maintenance period or accept a 10% maintenance bond and
fully release the Faithful Performance Bond.
E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP For. Parcel Map 18831, s
Housley Associates, Applicant.
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 83-11,
approving the Final Parcel Map for Parcel Map 18831.
F. RE VEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK FOR CONTRACT NO. 10489
Highway 111 Improvements from Portola Avenue to San Pablo Avenue.
Rec: Accept the work as complete and instruct the City Clerk to
file a Notice of Completion for Contract No. 1048 with the
County Recorder's Office.
Upon motion by Wilson, second by Jackson, the Consent Calendar was
approved by unanimous vote of the Council.
VIL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A
MR. SCOTT ELLERBROEK, Vice President of Eldorado Bank, 73-301 Highway
ill, Palm Desert, presented the Council with a petition signed by 168
merchants who asked that the Frontage Road system be returned to 2-way
traffic. He stated he was chairman of a Chamber of Commerce committee
established to review the frontage roads and make suggestions for their
revision. He noted that the committee was going to seek the advice of traffic .
engineers in their proposed solutions.
VIQ, PUBLIC HEARINGS
ANCE
A. AMENDMENTOR REOLAT NG ATTON OF A DESIGNZONING REVIEWRDIBOARD
REORGANIZATION.
Mayor Pulugi declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's report.
Mr. Diaz reviewed the report in detail noting that the major areas of
change included the name of the commission, reduction in size from 7
to 5, its decision appealable to City Council, and specified terms of
membership. He reviewed Staffs justification for the recommended
changes.
He said that the Planning Commission had received input from
architects currently serving on the Design Review Board who felt that
the majority of architects on the board should remain as is. The
Commission did approve the recommended changes with the
recommendation to Council that it evaluate leaving architects in the
majority.
Mayor Puluqi invited input in FAVOR of the recommended changes, and the
following spoke:
MR. VERN BARTON, Design Review Board member, stated he was in
favor of the changes with the exception of the recommendation to
eliminate the requirement for a majority of-architects. He stated their
expertise was needed, and they should remain in the majority.
MR. RICK HOLDEN, 73-330 El Paseo, Palm Desert, addressed Council
as a member of the Design Review Board and opposing the
recommendation to reduce the number of architects. He favored the
other recommended changes.
-2-
M�,
a
City of Palm Desert
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission,
DATE: January 4, 1983
CASE NO: ZOA 13-82
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Zoning ordinance amendment relating to design review board
reorganization.
INITIATED BY: City of Palm Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
City council at its study session of December 9, 1982, reviewed a draft ordinance
to reorganize the design review board. Although the council gave no indication of
what its decision would be, it did direct staff to set the matter for public hearing.
II. DISCUSSION:
At the November 18, 1982 city council meeting the matter of appointing a new
member to fill the vacancy on the design review board caused by the election of
Councilman Phyllis Jackson was continued.
The continuance was requested by staff in order to present to council a proposal
for that body's reorganization. The recommended reorganization is designed to
create a more effective architectural review process and clarify the
responsibilities of the planning commission and the architectural board.
One of the principal recommendations in the reorganization is the reduction in the
size of the board. The reasons for recommending that board membership be
reduced from 7 to 5 with a reduction in the number of architects from 4 to 2 are as
follows:
1. Such a board would be similar to that makeup of architectural
commissions in other communities.
2. Eliminates the problem which occurs when different board architects
review the same project at successive meetings.
3. Increase the effectiveness of the nonarchitectural board members; as
well as the architects.
4. Eliminate the "too many cooks spoil the broth" syndrome.
The city's original board was composed of five members with two architects. The
board was expanded because the architects on the board often were unable to
attend. The solution to that problem should be to make the five member board
operable and not expand it.
Staff believes that a five member board can operate if the meetings of the board
were held later in the afternoon.
If council concurs with its provisions and adopts the proposed ordinance, it is
recommended that the following method be used to accomplish the reorganization:-
A. One of the present architects on the board would step down.
This would reduce the membership from 6 to 5 with three architects
remaining on the board.
- 1 -
ro
CASE NO. ZOA 13-82
JANUARY 4, 1983
B. The ultimate objective being that two architects will sit on the board
in its final configuration. It is proposed that one of the three remaining
architects be appointed for a one-year term; when that term expires he will
be replaced by a civil engineer or contractor.
C. The at large member and landscape architect presently seated on the board,
would be given four-year terms. The remaining two architects would be given
three-year terms.
The reorganization, if done in this manner could be accomplished with minimal
transitional problems.
M. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
The director of environmental services has reviewed the proposed ordinance
amendment and determined it to be a Class 20, Categorical Exemption for the
purposes of CEQA.
IV. AREAS OF CHANGE:
The following are areas of change which will result if the ordinance is adopted:
1. Name change from design review board to architectural commission.
2. The architectural commission will only review the following:
Commercial
Industrial
Multifamily Residential
There will be no review by the architectural commission or staff of single-
family dwellings.
3. Decision of the architectural commission shall be final unless appealed to the
city council.
4. Membership shall be reduced from seven (7) to five (5) and will be comprised
of:
Two (2) Architects
One (1) Landscape Architect or Designer
One (1) Engineer or Contractor
One (1) Community Member at large
5. Definite term of office: Initially specific term, then four (4) years.
6. Shall hold two (2) meetings a month when there is business to conduct.
7. Three members will constitute a quorum.
8. Director of environmental services may approve minor commercial and
multifamily development and signs lower than $1,500.
9. Board will review all building relocations.
10. Add solar protection to criteria reviewed.
11. Decision final ten (10) days following date of decision unless appealed.
12. Specific rules providing for disqualification of members with conflict.
13. Preliminary approval no longer required to be confirmed by planning
commission.
- 2 -
CASE NO. ZOA 13-82
JANUARY 4, 1983
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the planning commission recommend to the city council approval of Case No.
ZOA 13-82, a zoning ordinance amendment which would provide for the
reorganization of the design review board.
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
Prepared by: �46�i�k+
Reviewed and approved by: N
/pa �-
- 3 -
ORDINANCE NO. 326
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.70, DESIGN REVIEW.
CASE NO. ZOA 13-82
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
27th day of January, 1983, and the 10th day of February, 1983, hold a duly noticed public
hearing, to consider amendments to Chapter 25.70, Design Review.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 836, has recommended
approval; and,
WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-8911, in that the director of environmental services has determined the project is a
Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and,
r v
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts and reasons to exist to approve the 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.
3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public
health, safety and general welfare, than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
a Desert,,as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute
the considerations of the council in this case.
2. That it does hereby approve a zoning ordinance text amendment,
as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A".
3. The city clerk is directed to publish this ordinance once in
the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation,
published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert and shall
certify to the passage of adoption of this ordinance and the
same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after
its adoption. I
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this ?Fth day of February , 1 gR by the following vote to
wit:
AYES: Jackson, Kelly, Wilson , Snyder & Pulugi
NOES: None
ABSENT: /None
ABSTAIN: None
i
ROMEO S. PULUQI, Mayor
S0� � R. LIGAN, Clerk
C Palm Desert, fornia
/pa
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 326
EXHIBIT "A"
CHAPTER 25.70
ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION
GOALS/POLICIES/PROCEDURES
25.70.010 Architectural commission established. An architectural commission is
established in order to accomplish the following:
A. Review commercial, industrial, multifamily projects and single- family dwellings
and approve subject to conditions and/or with changes, or deny said projects;
B. Recognize the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and provide a
method by which the city may implement this interdependence to its benefit;
C. Encourage the development of private and public property in harmony with the
desired character of the city and in conformance with the guidelines provided in this title
with due regard for the public and private interests involved;
D. Foster attainment of those sections of the city's general plan which specifically
refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets
of the city and its harmonious development, through encouragement of private and public
interests to assist in the implementation process;
E. Assure that the public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for
improvement and beautification of streets and other public structures and spaces shall be
protected by the exercise of reasonable controls over the character and design of
buildings and open spaces.
25.70.020 Membership. The architectural commission shall consist of five (5)
members appointed by the city council; three of whom shall be architects (if available).
25.70.030 Appointment and term of office. The voting members of the architectural
commission shall be appointed by the city council. The first voting members of the
a commission shall be appointed for the followingg terms:
A. Two (2) shall serve for a term of four (4)years;
B. One shall serve for a term of three (3) years;
C. One shall serve for a term of two (2) years; and
D. One shall serve for a term of one year.
Thereafter the term of office for voting members shall be four (4) years.
If a member is unable to serve for three consecutive regular meetings, the chairman
or acting chairman shall declare the office of such member vacant. The secretary shall
immediately thereafter inform the city council.
25.70.040 Secretary. The director of environmental services shall serve as the official
secretary to the architectural commission. The records of all proceedings and the basis
for all findings shall be available to the city council and to the public.
25.70.050 Meetings. The architectural commission shall hold two (2) public meetings
a month when there is business to conduct.
25.70.060 Rules. The architectural commission shall adopt rules and regulations for
the conduct of its business. Three (3) voting members shall constitute a quorum. The
affirmative or negative vote of a majority of the members present shall be sufficient for
it to take action.
25.70.070 Jurisdiction.
{ A. General: Unless plans, elevations and proposed signs for buildings or structures
or alterations thereto, have been approved by the architectural commission, or by the city
council on appeal, no permit shall be issued for any building, structure, sign or other
development of property or appurtenances or alterations thereto, except in single-family
residential districts. Architectural review may be a condition of an approval of a
conditional use permit or a variance in a single-family residential district.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 326
B. Exceptions: When, in the opinion of the director of environmental services,the
approval of an application for a minor or insignificant permit does not defeat the purposes
and objects of this article, he may grant the permit without submitting the matter to the
architectural commission for its approval, notwhithstanding any other provisions of this
section or this article. In addition the director of environmental services shall be
authorized to issue sign permit approvals for signs having a value of less than $1,500.00.
The decision of the director of environmental services shall be subject to appeal made to
the architectural commission.
j 25.70.080 Building relocation. The architectural commission shall review all plans
submitted with applications for moving buildings within or into the city. Photographs shall
be included with the application showing all elevations, the structure proposed to be
moved, the proposed site, and the buildings adjacent to the proposed site. The commission
shall determine whether the building proposed to be moved will fit harmoniously into the
neighborhood wherein it is to be located. It may approve, approve with conditons, or
disapprove the issuance of a permit to move such building.
25.70.095 Staff review of a single-family residence. The staff of the department of
environmental services shall review applications for the issuance of a building permit for
a dwelling in the single-family and residential estate zones. The staff shall utilize the
criteria in Sections 25.70.090 in approving or causing to be modified such a request. The
staff, on its own initiative, may forward such a request to the design review board for
action.
25.70.090 Action of the commission. To approve an application, the commission shall
find the following:
A. That the proposed development conforms to any legally adopted development
standards;
B. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair
the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; and that it will not
unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or proposed
a developments and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion;
C. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious,
orderly and attractive development contemplated by this title and the general plan of the
city;
D. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a
desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors and that it is
aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors;
E. The proposed use must conform to all the requirements of the zone in which it is
located and all other applicable requirements;
F. The overall development of the land shall be designed to ensure the protection of
the public health, safety and general welfare.
25.70.100 Staff review. The environmental services staff shall process and review all
architectural commission applications and shall act as professional advisors to the
commission. Other staff members may provide advice to the commission depending upon
the complexity of the project and the need for specific expertise.
25.70.110 Effective date of decision. A decision or order of the commission or the
director of environmental services shall not become effective until the expiration of ten
(10) days after the date upon which a ruling of the commission or the director of
environmental services has been made.
25.70.120 Appeals.
A. The applicant or any interested party may file an appeal to the city council on
any decision of the architectural commission.
B. The applicant or any interested party may appeal to the architectural commission
any decision of the director of environmental services.
C. The appeal shall be held or made within ten (10) days. Except for appeals made to
the city council, appeals shall set forth the alleged inconsistency or nonconformity with
procedures or criteria set forth in this article or standards set forth in or pursuant to this
code. The council shall decide an appeal within thirty (30) days of the filing of such appeal
unless an extension of time is consented to by the applicant and such filing shall suspend
any building permit issued pursuant to the ruling of the architectural commission or
director of environmental services until the appeal has been decided.
f
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO..326
25.70.130 Disqualification of members for interest in buildings.
A. Any member of the architectural commission who shall be employed to execute a
plan building or structure of any kind requiring the approval of the commission or who
hall take part in competition for any such building or structure, shall be disqualified from
oting and shall abstain and step down from proceedings on that item.
_ B. Commission members with projects before the architectural commission shall file
projects under the same rules, procedures and guidelines as set forth.
j
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.836
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.70 DESIGN
REVIEW.
CASE NO. ZOA 13-82
a WHEREAS, the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California,
did on the 4th day of January, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider
amendments to Chapter 25.70, Design Review; and
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined the
project to be a Class 20 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering the testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify their recommendations as described
below:
1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives
of the zoning ordinance.
2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent witht he 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 RESOLVED by the planning commission of the city
of Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the commission.
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city
council approval of a zoning ordinance text amendment to rescind
Chapter 25.70 and replace same with those provisions contained
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of January, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: KRYDER, DOWNS, RICHARDS, WOOD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: CRITES
ABSTAIN: NONE
RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/pa
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.836
EXHIBIT "A"
CHAPTER 25.70
ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION
GOALS/POLICIES/PROCEDURES
;j
}
25.70.010 Architectural commission established. An architectural commission is
established in order to accomplish the following:
A. Review commercial, industrial and multifamily projects and approve subject to
conditions and/or with changes, or deny said projects;
B. Recognize the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and provide a
method by which the city may implement this interdependence to its benefit;
C. Encourage the development of private and public property in harmony with the
desired character of the city and in conformance with the guidelines provided in this title
with due regard for the public and private interests involved;
D. Foster attainment of those sections of the city's general plan which specifically
refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets
of the city and its harmonious development, through encouragement of private and public
interests to assist in the implementation process;
E. Assure that the public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for
improvement and beautification of streets and other public structures and spaces shall be
protected by the exercise of reasonable controls over the character and design of
buildings and open spaces.
25.70.020 Membership. The architectural commission shall consist of five (5)
members. The commission shall be comprised of two (2) architects, one (1) civil engineer
or contractor, one (1) landscape architect or designer and one (1) member from the
community at large.
*25.70.030 Appointment and term of office. The voting members of the architectural
commission shall be appointed by the city council. The first voting members of the
commission shall be appointed for the following terms:
A. Two (2) shall serve for a term of four (4)years;
B. One shall serve for a term of three (3) years;
C. One shall serve for a term of two (2) years; and
D. One shall serve for a term of one year.
Thereafter the term of office for voting members shall be four (4) years.
If a member is unable to serve for three consecutive regular meetings, the chairman
or acting chairman shall declare the office of such member vacant. The secretary shall
immediately thereafter inform the city council.
25.70.040 Secretary. The director of environmental services shall serve as the official
secretary to the architectural commission. The records of all proceedings and the basis
for all findings shall be available to the city council and to the public.
25.70.050 Meetings. The architectural commission shall hold two (2) public meetings
a month when there is business to conduct.
25.70.060 Rules. The architectural commission shall adopt rules and regulations for
the conduct of its business. Three (3) voting members shall constitute a quorum. The
affirmative or negative vote of a majority of the members present shall be sufficient for
it to take action,
25.70.070 Jurisdiction.
�d A. General: Unless plans, elevations and proposed signs for buildings or structures
or alterations thereto, have been approved by the architectural commission, or by the city
council on appeal, no permit shall be issued for any building, structure, sign' or other
development of property or appurtenances or alterations thereto, except in single-family
residential districts. Architectural review may be a condition of an approval of a
conditional use permit or a variance in a single-family residential district.
O �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 836
B. Exceptions: When, in the opinion of the director of environmental services, the
approval of an application for a minor or insignificant permit does not defeat the purposes
and objects of this article, he may grant the permit without submitting the matter to the
architectural commission for its approval, notwhithstanding any other provisions of this
section or this article. In addition the director of environmental services shall be
authorized to issue sign permit approvals for signs having a value of less than $1,500.00.
The decision of the director of environmental services shall be subject to appeal made to ^�
the architectural commission.
25.70.080 Building relocation. The architectural commission shall review all plans {
submitted with applications for moving buildings within or into the city. Photographs shall
be included with the application showing all elevations, the structure proposed to be
moved, the proposed site, and the buildings adjacent to the proposed site. The commission
shall determine whether the building proposed to be moved will fit harmoniously into the
neighborhood wherein it is to be located. It may approve, approve with conditons, or
disapprove the issuance of a permit to move such building.
25.70.090 Action of the commission. To approve an application, the commission shall
find the following:
A. That the proposed development conforms to any legally adopted development
standards;
B. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair
the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; and that it will not
unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or porposed
developments and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion;
C. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious,
orderly and attractive development contemplated by this title and the general plan of the
city;
D. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a
desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors and that it is
aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors;
E. The proposed use must conform to all the requirements of the zone in which it is
located and all other applicable requirements;
F. The overall development of the land shall be designed to ensure the protection of
the public health, safety and general welfare.
25.70.100 Staff review. The environmental services staff shall process and review all
architectural commission applications and shall act as professional advisors to the
commission. Other staff members may provide advice to the commission depending upon
the complexity of the project and the need for specific expertise.
25.70.110 Effective date of decision. A decision or order of the commission or the
director of environmental services shall not become effective until the expiration of ten
(10) days after the date upon which a ruling of the commission or the director of
environmental services has been made.
25.70.120 Appeals.
A. The applicant or any interested party may file an appeal to the city council on
any decision of the architectural commission.
B. The applicant or any interested party may appeal to the architectural commission
any decision of the director of environmental services.
C. The appeal shall be held or made within ten (10) days. Except for appeals made to
the city council, appeals shall set forth the alleged inconsistency or nonconformity wish
procedures or criteria set forth in this article or standards set forth in or pursuant to this 1
code. The council shall decide an appeal within thirty (30) days of the filing of such appeal J
unless an extension of time is consented to by the applicant and such filing shall suspend
any building permit issued pursuant to the ruling of the architectural commission or
director of environmental services until the appeal has been decided.
I V
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 836
25.70.130 Disqualification of members for interest in buildings.
A. Any member of the architectural commission who shall be employed to execute a
plan, building or structure of any kind requiring the approval of the commission or who
shall take part in competition for any such building or structure, shall be disqualified from
voting and shall abstain and step down from proceedings on that item.
B. Commission members with projects before the architectural commission shall file
projects under the same rules, procedures and guidelines as set forth.
/pa
1
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - JANUARY 4, 1983
7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A STUDY SESSION WAS HELD IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE PRIOR TO THE
MEETING. (NOTE: HOUSING STUDY WAS DISCUSSED).
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wood called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Richards
III. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Commissioner Downs
Commissioner Kryder
Commissioner Richards
Chairman Wood
Members Absent: Commissioner Crites
Staff Present: Ramon Diaz
Stan Sawa
Phillip Joy
Linda Russell
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 21, 1982
Commission approved the minutes as submitted.
V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION - NONE
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless members of the planning commission or audience request specific items be
removed from the consent calendar for separate discussion and action.
A. Case Nos. DP 15-79, 200 MF, TT 16015 - MAYER GROUP - Approval of an
one year time extension for a development plan, design review case and
tentative tract map to allow construction of 264 condominium units and a 9
acre public park located at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and
Monterey Avenue.
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve
the consent calendar item as presented. Carried unanimously 4-0.
V11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Case N Oq 2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for a zoning ordinance amendment relating to
design review board reorganization.
Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report and stated that the matter was before the
commission for hearing because the design review board comes under the zoning
ordinance. Mr. Diaz pointed out the major recommended areas of change: reduction in
size from 7 to 5; its decision appealable to city council and specified terms of
membership. He recommended approval of an amendment to the municipal code for the
proposed changes.
Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to
speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case.
MR. RICK HOLDEN, architect and member of the design review board, 73-330 El
Paseo, stated that he was in favor of the reorganization but objected to the proposed
number of architects to serve on the boardl-(Proposed: two architects, one landscape
J
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 4, 1983
architect or designer, one engineer or contractor, one community member at-large). He
felt that the majority members on the board should consist of architects. He did not feel
there was sufficient justification for reducing the number of architects to a minority on
the board. He pointed out that a study conducted by himself showed that architects would
rather deal with "lay persons" on the board than professionals because it was easier to
sway them in favor to their proposal. He concluded by noting that the duties of this board
is to review architecture and therefore an architectural commission should be made up of
a majority of architects.
Commissioner Downs asked if a landscape architect is categorized as an architect.
Mr. Holden replied that although a landscape architect is mandatory for the board, his
knowledge remains in landscaping and not in structural architecture.
Chairman Wood, in addressing Mr. Holden's concern for the number of architect's
to serve on the board, indicated that he received criticism from the public that too many
architects tend to view the designs differently which possibly creates unreasonable
requirements on proposals. Mr. Holden stated that it was unfair criticism and believed
that none of the board's architects had never pushed their views or architectural
persuasion on any applicants, and added that a design should be up to standards and if it is
not it should be revised.
MR. STEVE SULLIVAN, Architect, 73-730 Highway 111, AIA secretary, also felt
that the number of architects should be in a majority. He felt that it would be a much
more workable board and it would be advantageous to the city.
Commissioner Kryder asked how three architects would be better than two. Mr.
Holden replied that in a split decision of a particular request the third architect's vote
would mean the difference. He again pointed out that this body is an architectural
commission and although the architects may not agree with each other at times it should
still be an architectural decision.
Chairman Wood closed the public hearing and asked for further comments from the
staff or commission.
Mr. Diaz noted that this was an architectural commission because it reviewed
architectural plans and not because a majority were architects on the board. He
compared this commission with the planning commission, stating that planning
commissions are generally made up of citizens not professional planners, who review
staff's recommendations and make decisions with the use of common sense.
Commissioner Richards acknowledged that he previously believed the landscape
architect was in the same category as the architects but after listening to testimony he
felt that the number of architects should be in the majority.
Commissioner Kryder felt that this issue was not important but perhaps the
concern should go to the council for consideration together with the adoption of the
resolution as presented by staff.
After some discussion, it was the consensus that the proposed resolution should be
adopted as presented with commission noting to the council that it evaluate the issues of
having a majority of the board composed of architects.
Moved by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 836, recommending to the city council approval of a
zoning ordinance amendment which would provide for the reorganization of the design
review board and with a recommendation that the council evaluate leaving architects in
the majority. Carried unanimously 4-0.
-2-
January 6, 1983
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 13-82
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it applies to the Palm
Desert Design Review Board.
SAID public hearing will be held on January 27, 1983, at 7:00 p.m., in the council
chambers at Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at
which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post
January 13, 1983
/pa
PROOF PUBLICATION
(20109 2015. 5 CCP)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
LEGAL NOTICE
LOA 13-82
I am a citizen of the United
States and a resident of the
County aforesaid ; I am over the
age of. eighteen years, and not
a party to or interested in the
above entitled matter . I am the
principal clerk of the printer
of THE DESFRT POSTS -
r CITY OF PALM DESERT
a newspaper of general circula— LEOALNOTICE
CASE NO.ZOA 17'n
tions printed and published weekly NOTICEISVEREBYGIV-
EN that a nc hearing will
in the city of Riversides County ae held , r De
sash Planning ^mission to
of Riversides and which newspaper considerananiin t to the
has been adjudged a newspaper of tUD-
ZilI"1{aamePame%g m
poles 13�
general circulation by the Sign Review Board
$AID oabllc hearing will be
Superior Court of the County of p.m., nJtnecou^� It.
8�tao^�Y
Riversides State of Californial, 7 Piickl nr Lana.
under date of October 59 19641 wnicmi,tll rta dRiinvi i°lter
�i
Case number 83658; that the acted aersons are mvrted to ah,
tend and t. heard:
notices of which the annexed is RAMONA OAz
a printed copy, has been published PInn payert Planning
commission POP-12/23.
in each regular and entire issue
of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following
dates to-wit :
12123 01982
I Certify (or declare) under
penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct .
Dated December 239 1982
at Riversides California
CITY OF PALM DESERT
December 13, 1982
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 13-82
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance text as it applies
to the Palm Desert Design Review Board.
SAID public hearing will be held on January 4, 1982, at 7:00 p.m., in the council chambers
at the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at
which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post
December 23, 1982
/pa