Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 5-5-09 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY – MAY 5, 2009 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tanner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Van Tanner, Chair Connor Limont, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Nancy DeLuna Mari Schmidt Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent April 23, 2009 City Council actions. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the April 21, 2009 meeting minutes. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 2 Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the April 21, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4- 0-1 (Commissioner Limont abstained). VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 09-65 – JAMES GAGAN AND BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of Parcel Map Waiver 09-65 to allow a lot line adjustment transferring a portion of Lot G, Tract 27520-4, to 112 Suuwat. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 09-180 – LISA THEODORATUS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the rental of a single-family residence in an R-1 zone, for periods of less than 30 days, located at 77-040 Utah Circle. Ms. Renee Schrader reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Campbell noted that the shortest period of rental time would be for one week, so the applicant was requesting one week at a time, or two weeks. Ms. Schrader said that was right. In the conditions, staff also included that this would be two-week rentals within a one-year period, which meant that either longer rentals are encouraged, or they go MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 3 without tenants for a while. That was up to the Commission if they were agreeable to the condition or wanted to change it. Commissioner Schmidt asked how many of these exist in the city presently. Ms. Aylaian indicated that there are approximately 40 residential properties that are paying bed tax in the city at this point. Commissioner Schmidt asked if this property was subject to that provision, if approved. Ms. Aylaian replied yes, and explained that it is allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP). Short-term rentals are allowed in the R-1 zone in which this property is located. Chairperson Tanner asked if there were any short-term rental properties in the Palm Desert Country Club area. Ms. Aylaian explained that staff began looking into this a little bit more because Ms. Theodoratus brought to staff’s attention that there are other properties that are paying bed tax, but do not have conditional use permits. They started looking into that issue to see how big an issue that might be, and identified that there are a couple of properties in the Palm Desert Country Club area. It looked as if there are seven or eight in the city that have not gone through the CUP process at this point, but are paying bed tax. Based on the answer of 40 properties that do have CUPs, Commissioner Limont noted that a letter with the staff report said that there are already quite a few homes in this neighborhood operating short-term rentals. She asked if they had any idea of the percentage. Ms. Schrader said that was a comment by the applicant, and she didn’t know that they had really had an opportunity to look into how many are really operating without the city’s knowledge or a CUP. Ms. Aylaian further explained that typically what happened was that staff responds if there is a complaint or call about a specific location, and if there is a report that someone is operating a short- term rental property without having the proper license, they send Code out to investigate and then pursue from that standpoint. They didn’t arbitrarily canvass neighborhoods looking for short-term rentals that may or may not be operating, so when it is brought to the City’s attention, staff responds and investigates. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MS. LISA THEODORATUS, 74 Crestwood Drive in San Rafael, California, stated that Ms. Schrader explained the request. She got kind of caught in a catch-22 with this with a single mention that she was planning on doing short-term rentals. She stated that she screens people very well and endeavors to make sure she has one MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 4 couple. She generally doesn’t rent to more than one couple at a time. They are most often retired people and very quiet, so she really didn’t think there would be any negative problems for anyone in the neighborhood. She noted that there was also a letter included in her application from one of her neighbors who lives on the cul- de-sac, Suzanne Tracy, who had mentioned that Ms. Theodoratus had been very conscientious about choosing people to stay in her house, and she planned to continue to do that. Her reason for trying to do the short-term rentals is that in our economy right now, most people are unable to afford a full monthly rental, and this year especially it has become a very big problem. Also, her income has gone down and this has become an issue of just trying to keep up payments on the house and that was why she was requesting this. She noted that Ms. Schrader had also mentioned the rental contract, and she would most certainly make sure there were no problems. Commissioner Campbell asked about how many months out of the year the home is rented. Ms. Theodoratus answered that generally in the past she has rented just a few months out of the year, and it was usually February, March and sometimes April. She would foresee that those months would be rented in season and an occasional week throughout the summer because not that many people really want to be here in the heat. Commissioner Campbell noted that she wanted to keep it rented as much as possible, and understood that. Ms. Theodoratus explained her goal was to rent a couple of months during the winter so that she could kind of make it through the year. Commissioner DeLuna recalled that Ms. Theodoratus mentioned her mailing address is in San Rafael and asked if that meant that she did not reside locally. Ms. Theodoratus said that this was a secondary home for her and her husband. They live in San Rafael, which is in the San Francisco area. Commissioner DeLuna said that in effect, Ms. Theodoratus was an absentee landlord. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 5 Ms. Theodoratus said she is, but she has a property manager who does take care of the house while she isn’t here, who also takes care of the cleaning and maintenance. So everything was well taken care of. Commissioner DeLuna pointed out that Condition No. 4 under Department of Community Development addresses some negative impacts that could occur from a short-term tenant: music, noise, overnight guests, parties or functions. If Ms. Theodoratus has someone in her home for a week and some of these conditions occur, how would Ms. Theodoratus enforce the rules? Ms. Theodoratus said she would have her property manager go to the residence and ask the people to vacate. Commissioner DeLuna asked if she had any way of enforcing that. Ms. Theodoratus didn’t know the legality of doing that, and indicated that it has never been an issue. She didn’t rent to anyone under 25 years of age and when she screens people who call looking for a rental, she can generally pick up that people are retired and they are pretty much going to be sitting in the yard and playing some golf. There were no other questions of the applicant. Chairperson Tanner asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Campbell thought the applicant had a good record with what she has been doing in the past. There haven’t been any complaints or any police calls. She thought she was doing a very good job, and understood what she was trying to do. It is a quiet location, not surrounded by a lot of homes. She moved for approval. Commissioner Limont noted that there was a letter from a neighbor that isn’t in agreement with this rental, and that made it difficult when it wasn’t unanimous. She agreed with Commissioner Campbell in that Ms. Theodoratus was doing an excellent job and was coming forward with some great suggestions on how to screen renters. Her concerns were that she honestly believed that neighborhoods needed to be protected. People buy into these neighborhoods and these are their primary residences, their primary homes, and where they live. When they’ve had renters in the past, as good or as not as good as they are, it changes the atmosphere and MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 6 character of the neighborhood. It was just noticeable. Her concern is that when Palm Desert put in R-1 zoning, it was so they would maintain the character of our neighborhoods. Her concern is, and Ms. Theodoratus is probably a terrific landlord, but she is a distant landlord. It was terrific that she had a property company to manage it, but she had concerns about having Palm Desert starting to morph into rental neighborhoods, even if it’s just one neighbor who says this is my primary residence. That was her biggest concern. Chairperson Tanner shared Commissioner Limont’s thought process. He recognized that these are tough economic times and understood that, but at the same time this is a neighborhood that was developed for primary dwellers. He knew that there were rental properties in there, and understood that, but not short term. He didn’t want to see Palm Desert Country Club turn into a one-week, two-week rental property area. So he was not in favor of this moving forward. He noted that there was a motion on the floor and asked for a second. There was no response; the motion died due to the lack of a second. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to deny Case No. CUP 09-180. Ms. Aylaian noted that staff would need to prepare a resolution of denial that would come before the Commission at the next meeting. After discussing the matter further, keeping the public hearing closed, Commissioner Limont amended her motion, and Commissioner DeLuna amended her second, to continue the matter to May 19 and instructed staff to prepare a resolution of denial. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted no). B. Case No. ZOA 09-104 – CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of a zoning ordinance amendment updating and revising Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs. Mr. Bagato gave a power point presentation, reviewing the staff report in detail. He recommended approval. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 7 Commissioner Limont asked for clarification that illumination on signs along the freeway is allowed. Mr. Bagato explained that currently it is allowed, but the new code would require them not to illuminate them. Commissioner Campbell asked if the Closet Tailors sign was legible from the freeway going 70 mph. Mr. Bagato said that was subjective; he could see it. Commissioner Campbell thought it looked pretty far away. If they approved this tonight and moved forward, Chairperson Tanner asked how that would affect the buildings currently sitting on the freeway with signage in excess of the new ordinance. Mr. Bagato said that since they were approved under the current code, which is legal, they would be grandfathered in. They would remain as long as they remain; if someone else took over that space or if Gateway Place wanted to change their sign, they would have to comply with the new code. There would be some issues because there are some sign programs like the Kelly Paper Store that actually have approvals at 24-inches, so some of them wouldn’t conform to the current code because of past approvals; they would be grandfathered in. But anything new would be enforced. Chairperson Tanner asked if it would be the same thing for the illumination along the freeway. Mr. Bagato concurred. Commissioner DeLuna commented that staff has done a very good job with trying to regulate. She herself had concerns. Now that Palm Desert has so many more new buildings going in, if all of them had signs as big as some of the ones previously approved, it would look like a constant billboard driving down the freeway, so she thought staff had done a good job addressing the issues and making it something that is user friendly, yet is still in keeping with the reflection of the way Palm Desert wishes to be noticed and commended staff’s efforts. Commissioner Campbell asked about political signs. Mr. Bagato explained that those standards hadn’t changed. They are allowed as long as they are on private property. During the election period, the current code says they are supposed to be removed within 30 days. They kept that the same, but the signs are allowed under law. He reiterated that they were basically keeping the same standards for 99% of the code. Since elections tend to be close to holiday times in general, Commissioner Limont asked if they could consider reducing that amount of time, such as 15 days. Commissioner Campbell agreed that they go up pretty fast and should come down just as fast. Mr. Bagato deferred that to the City Attorney. Commissioner Limont asked if they could reduce the time because sometimes they just straggle. Mr. Hargreaves explained that the MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 8 whole sign issue is very complicated because it is considered speech and they have the First Amendment free speech. Commercial signs are somewhat problematic; political signs are very problematic because they are regulating in an area that is very much protected by our constitutional rights. They could regulate if we have a compelling interest. What they have done in Palm Desert, and it has been recognized for some time, is left provisions in the code that they generally understood they would have difficulty enforcing, but they’ve asked people that run for offices within the city to abide by the sign ordinance as a matter of good faith in terms of city government. Sometimes they do, and occasionally they don’t, and we go through this trauma every time we have an election campaign. They try to keep people within certain limits for the aesthetics for the city, but on the other hand, we understand that our ability to enforce them, and somewhat limit them, is somewhat problematic. It’s almost more of a code of ethics than an enforceable sign ordinance on some of these issues. Chairperson Tanner asked if there was any provision in the ordinance that would allow the public to take these signs down as opposed to the candidates themselves. Mr. Bagato said they are located on private property, so they would be trespassing and they couldn’t do that. Ms. Aylaian explained that many of the candidates will use the same signs from one election to the next. They do like to get them back since they own the signs. They might appreciate the help, but they might request that the signs be returned to them. Mr. Hargreaves noted that there are more aggressive sign ordinances, and La Quinta has a pretty aggressive one in terms of the number of signs, but the enforceability of some of those prohibitions is somewhat questionable. Chairperson Tanner indicated that they also require them to be down in a shorter amount of time after an election. Mr. Hargreaves said that we at times have taken forward proposals, and there was talk at one time of having every political sign that comes up to get a stamp of approval from the City, and by doing that the candidate was basically acknowledging that it was their sign and they would have it down within a specific amount of time. Ultimately, City Council decided at that time that unless it was really broke, let’s not mess with it because it is such a touchy subject to try to regulate. Every two years it becomes an issue and then kind of goes away. Commissioner Schmidt asked when the new sign ordinance becomes final, if it would have a chapter index similar to the old code. Mr. Bagato said yes, it would be codified and would have an index as well. Commissioner Schmidt thought it was remarkable to her that the old code has enough left in it, if it was so antiquated, to be most of the new code. It obviously was a good sign code and they were spiffing it up some, and an extraordinary amount of work went into it, and is still going into it, and she MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 9 was very grateful for that. She really felt it was a mouthful and it has been worked on for over two years, and yet it is before them tonight once. She had some questions that needed to be answered, and what she really felt is that they should continue this and call for some sort of group study session between Architectural Review (ARC), and maybe even the Sign Subcommittee, so they could be comforted with some of these questions, because this vehicle is going to stay with the City for a long time. She didn’t like to pass law for any single purpose, and she saw a semblance of that threaded throughout the new ordinance. She would just like to be clearer on what that really meant. Mr. Bagato said that the time to try and get the Subcommittee together with both Planning Commission and ARC would be a bit challenging. Also, he might have to look at doing some kind of moratorium on signs, because if the news is out that they are going to regulate the signs at the freeway, they could have people applying for every business along the freeway right now and ask for approval under the current code. Commissioner Schmidt said a moratorium would be fine. Mr. Bagato would recommend a moratorium then, at least for signs facing the freeway. Also, technically, commercial real estate signs right now are out of compliance. They weren’t addressing them until the ordinance was updated. Commissioner Limont asked for clarification on why they weren’t addressing them if they are out of compliance. Mr. Bagato explained that they went to City Council and stated that our current codes are too restrictive and outdated, and the Council said work with staff and the Subcommittee. As long as they aren’t too offensive or too cluttered, they have allowed them to remain, even if they don’t meet the current code. But if there were ones staff thought were a problem or created a safety hazard, too big or too cluttered, they have been asked to redo them. So they have done that, but they can have a 4-foot by 6-foot out there that doesn’t meet the current code because they don’t want to enforce something right now that is at three square feet. Commissioner Campbell agreed with Commissioner DeLuna. She thought that staff did a good job on this and covered quite a bit of the laws or requirements needed for signage. She thought the pictures were very helpful and made it more understandable. There was a Signage Subcommittee to discuss all of this with staff, and staff said that they may have other people applying. Were they going to make them stop until they put it into law? That would stop it, and people would have to come in front of Planning or staff to get their signage approved. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 10 Commissioner Schmidt said she would express some of her concerns. She did not see much about enforcement in the ordinance. It referred to 8.20.020. She thought that needed to be beefed up. Mr. Bagato explained that the enforcement section basically referred to our municipal code section for all enforcement; Code Enforcement has the ability to go out and enforce, cite, and take legal action. So it was just referring back to Chapter 8 of our Municipal Code. He didn’t include it because it’s already how we do business today. Commissioner Schmidt said she pulled all of that out and was aware of it. Commissioner Schmidt noted that it also didn’t speak to the removal of non-conforming signs really specifically that she could find. She thought that if they were going to make changes, they really needed to make it very clear, as Mr. Bagato said the other was not, and there didn’t seem to be anything that she could see except the word neighborhood somewhere that relates to how some of these signs impact existing residential communities, and there was a lot of bare ground between the freeway and El Paseo, a lot of which is for residential use and commercial use. She didn’t see that in the ordinance. Mr. Bagato explained that the tables are broken down between the zones. Typically there weren’t signs in a residential zone. Commissioner Schmidt understood that, but asked about residential zones adjacent to a large commercial center. There was nothing in there to address the woman who has spent her life savings, or a couple in their dream home, and suddenly they’re facing a Kohl’s sign. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. It was difficult to address signs for every possible scenario in the city. They would apply the same standards today, and they do have a section in the code, and the general purpose is that signs in the city are intended for identification purposes and not advertising. There were very clear goals describing that: to eliminate clutter and promote architectural compatibility within existing neighborhoods. For example, when Kohl’s went through their signage, it was next to a residential property in the back (Falling Waters). He took that to Architectural Review and recommended non-illumination just based on that fact. So staff does look at signs in context of the surrounding property, it was just hard to draft every single possible scenario in a code to do that, so they have the ultimate clause, which is architectural compatibility with the building, as well as the neighborhood. He felt with Palm Desert staff and the Architectural Review Commission that they are prepared to handle those kinds of cases. Commissioner Limont asked if the Code Department, and Mr. Ponder was here this evening, if they have had issues of any magnitude with regard to signs or through the architectural process, or do they pretty much nip it in the bud, so it was just a few here and there? Mr. Bagato said typically MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 11 with code enforcement, people put up signs without a permit, and then the problem becomes, if it wasn’t something staff would approve, they’ve already spent money on something that is difficult to approve or they won’t approve it, but typically they haven’t had too many complaints, or any that he was aware of, with signs facing residential zones. Commissioner Limont indicated that her biggest issue was with real estate signs in the medians that say open house. She thought real estate signs were supposed to be on private property, were for the residences for sale, that type of thing. She also agreed with Commissioner Schmidt; if we are going to redo this, let’s make sure we are addressing these issues so that Code isn’t getting yelled at from both sides. They are supposed to enforce this, yet we’re giving them nothing to enforce. Mr. Bagato explained that signs aren’t allowed in public rights-of-way. He thought what she might be talking about were enforcement issues, which would continue to be enforcement issues whether or not a new code is adopted, because the code says signs in the public right-of-way aren’t allowed. People put open house signs in the medians and those are in violation. Those are problematic and will be enforced. Mr. Bagato reiterated that the code is how we’re already operating in staff’s opinion and didn’t see it as a major change, except for what the Signage Subcommittee directed them to do. From staff’s standpoint, it was to make it more user-friendly and easier to read. Commissioner Limont asked if the Code Department had input into the new sign ordinance. Mr. Bagato said yes: Code, City Attorney, and some sign companies that he deals with on a daily basis because he was also concerned about the business community too and wanted to do something user-friendly, and wanted to make sure they agreed with it. Best Signs and Sign-A-Rama both reviewed it. He worked on it quite a bit to try to make sure he was doing his best to serve what City Council wanted, as well as the business community and what staff already does today. From an enforcement perspective, Ms. Aylaian added that they intentionally do not go through all the enforcement in Title 25. They refer back to Title 8, because what happens is over the years, they want to say what they have to say once and say it correctly. If they say it multiple places and go through and modify it piecemeal over the years, they pick up the change they want to make in one section, but not in another, and then they contradict each other. So the intent generally is to refer back to Title 8, which is where they address public nuisances and abatement procedures and the processes available for enforcement, not just of Title 25, but of the other titles as well. They want to refer everything back to that area so that if they want to change how things are enforced, they would change it in MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 12 one place and it doesn’t build in inconsistencies in the code. That was a very deliberate decision to not address great detail of the enforcement. In fact, the only thing they put in there that was different from other places and that was the charge of double fees for signs erected without getting permits in advance. But generally, they wanted to steer them back to our code enforcement process, which is covered elsewhere. Mr. Bagato noted that sign removal was addressed on page 36 of the draft resolution; they have a section for lawful non-conforming signs to be removed. Basically 25.68.120 addresses all the non-conforming sign issues and it was reviewed by Code Enforcement and the City Attorney. Staff worked with a sign consultant who has written hundreds of codes, so this was recommended by them, as well as Code Enforcement, to be more compatible with our standards in Chapter 8. Commissioner Schmidt said that was why she would like more time with this. She could understand from a staff point of view that they would want to make it user-friendly. The way she believed the Commission should look at it is to look at it is as it applies to the city overall and everyone who lives in or does business in it. From that perspective, she had to look at it differently. She wanted to make very certain that they don’t let the horse out of the barn because they hurried with it. She thought a great deal of work has gone into it and that it was close, but it wasn’t final or ready at this point. She thought they owed it to the city who they serve to take an extra day, even if it was complicated to arrange, she would be available, and go over some of these things. She didn’t like it being pushed. She thanked him for giving them the document two weeks ago, that was very helpful, but that was the first time she has seen that document and she spent a great many hours on it since then and she was still not happy. She asked Mr. Bagato to give her a good example of a creative sign. That was new to the code as she understood it. Mr. Bagato showed an example of a sign that was reviewed by ARC for the Wachovia building on Highway 111 at Monterey. It didn’t get built as proposed with signage on the architectural projection, but with the right building design, staff and the Architectural Review Commission believed that these types of signs could be allowed to fit a building design, but under the current code it wouldn’t be allowed. This would be a case of making specific findings if they felt it was compatible under the creative sign program and could be approved. The current code doesn’t address signs on an architectural projection. He noted that it was hard to write a code to address every possible scenario, so this was their way of being able to look at something unique or creative. They didn’t want to give away the farm, but wanted to be able to allow signs that if designed correctly and are creatively unique, but don’t meet MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 13 our code, they want to be able to present specific findings to approve it. One of the City Council members on the Subcommittee was also a little concerned with this section, and staff made it clear that any sign for maybe the first couple of years would go to the City Council so that it wasn’t just ARC making these decisions. Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that the Director of Community Development would provide criteria for the creative sign program. If an applicant wanted to go that way, then it would go before Architectural Review and they would pass it or not pass it. If they didn’t pass it, it would go straight to Council. Mr. Bagato said it would only go to City Council if the applicant filed an appeal. Commissioner Schmidt noted that it would not come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bagato indicated that ARC is the review authority for signage, and City Council the ultimate appealable decision maker. Signs generally don’t go before Planning Commission. The only time they might see them is on new development; they were now requiring that signage location be identified as part of the project. That was the only time they would really see them. Today they only see them was if someone was requesting a variance and that would come to the Planning Commission. Otherwise, today Planning Commission would not see signs, and that would remain the same. There were specific findings in Section 68.110 on page 34. So there were three different findings and a bunch of criteria that staff would have to find and ARC would have to agree with those findings. Commissioner Schmidt noted it wasn’t as subjective as it sounded. Mr. Bagato agreed, and thought it was pretty specific. Commissioner Limont thought it was interesting that Commissioner Schmidt brought up that issue, because that was the one she circled and said no. They review height, and architecture, and disagree. They have had some pretty good discussions about extending and allowing people to go above the height limitations for architectural reasons or not, and to her this was too loose; just that one section. And she agreed, staff has done a great job and she went over this as best she could. She didn’t disagree that a study session would be helpful. She didn’t know if it was appropriate, but one of her thoughts was if they sat down with staff, because Council has met on this, Code has met on this, staff has been on it, and they’ve had a lot of players on it. But the only problem she had was with “C”. Commissioner Schmidt’s main concern was that they don’t encourage variances, which is what typically comes before them with almost every building she has seen since she has been here. And this old sign ordinance is very restrictive and was written that way for a purpose: to MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 14 discourage big signage in this city. So she didn’t want them to step off the cliff and open Pandora’s Box for variances. And when it doesn’t come to the Planning Commission, it becomes/remains a vehicle of Architectural control, and quite honestly, she has seen advance in buildings and building color that she wondered about. That is their duty and they do it very well, but she just wanted to make sure that they weren’t just making this more staff friendly and opening it up to things they don’t want in the city. There was so much undeveloped in the city, and she has seen this in her experience where they think it’s right and that it’s good, but as the city develops, they realize there is a roadway full of signs and that was not the intent of this ordinance. Mr. Bagato said that was the section added by staff, so they could recommend moving it forward without that section being endorsed by the Planning Commission, if that was the decision of the whole. He couldn’t speak for future staff members, but the intent wasn’t to build bigger signs; the whole intent of the ordinance is to address them for identification purposes and make sure they are architecturally compatible with the building. He thought if they looked at some of the signs throughout the city today, that’s the process. If they know sign companies, they are pretty grueling with them already on what they can have. He knew his intent was not to allow someone to have bigger, much bigger, or a brighter sign. In the last week, Commissioner Schmidt said she drove the entire city, street by street in the commercial sectors, drove Indian Wells, La Quinta, Cathedral City, and Palm Springs. She was very impressed with Palm Desert, in particular for its size and it’s attendance to keeping things calm, cool and collected. She was not criticizing; she was just saying take the time to do this thoroughly and right. There had been so much time put in on it there was very little in her mind that needed to be added, but she was not comfortable voting this through tonight. The motion was that they continue this to either the next or the following regular meeting of the Planning Commission, and as soon as possible, the Commission, with at least staff, go over this a little more thoroughly and anyone who wishes to sit in on that should be welcomed and invited: the Committee, Council, ARC, anybody. Commissioner Limont thought they should do it as soon as possible with a moratorium on signs in the interim, because it was only fair to staff and people getting their businesses going that they do this as quickly as possible. Commissioner Schmidt didn’t know if she would have the authority to move for a moratorium on signage, but she would certainly move for a continuance. Commissioner Limont said for their education with staff, and then put it on the next one. Mr. Bagato asked if they wanted an “agendized” study session, or if they wanted to meet with him one on one. If it was for everyone, the Brown Act MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 15 required that an agenda be published at least 72 hours prior, and to invite others, they would have to publish it as well. It was a little more difficult to try to have everyone involved. Commissioner Limont asked if they could just have a study session for Planning Commission and have it in the little conference room. Mr. Bagato said yes. Ms. Aylaian noted that she hadn’t heard if everyone was interested in a study session or not; staff was always available to meet one on one either to go over it or go out in the field and look at examples and answer specific questions. If the majority of the Commission was interested in a study session, they would set that up. Two things she would add is one, if they were looking to broaden that to involve other parties, the ordinance has already been through the Architectural Review Commission and they were done with it. If they were asking the City Council to set up a study session to go over it, their calendar is pretty full, so that would project out the time that it would take. If they wanted to keep it just for the Planning Commission, it could probably be a quicker date. She also urged not to look at any moratorium because she thought that would do irreparable damage to the business community. Staff processes signs every day and to stop businesses that are trying to upgrade or to open from being able to process new sign applications she thought would be a disservice to the community. For anyone presently trying to process their signage, Commissioner Schmidt asked if they would be free to continue as long as it complied with the existing ordinance. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Limont noted that the freeway is a big issue. Chairperson Tanner reiterated that it had been proposed to do a study session with staff. He asked if they could open it up to individuals from ARC without inviting them. Ms. Aylaian explained that study sessions are open to the public, so anybody that was interested could attend. Chairperson Tanner said he was all in favor of having a study session. He too was rather uncomfortable. They were presented with freeway signs which years ago were not present in Palm Desert. They were also concerned now with real estate signs, no vacancy signs, and leasing signs. They were all very important to the City of Palm Desert, and as far as he was concerned, he didn’t think he had enough information even in front of him, and there was no question that staff did a great job. The sign committee that was part of ARC to get this to this point, He also encouraged the Signage Subcommittee to be part of the study session. He was in favor of doing that and was in favor of doing that prior to the next meeting so this matter could come back to them within a two-week period of time. He also encouraged an open discussion at that meeting. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 16 Chairperson Tanner asked if there were any other questions of staff, then opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to, the public hearing. MR. DICK BAXLEY, Baxley Properties at 73-712 Alessandro in Palm Desert, informed the Planning Commission that he is a member of the Signage Subcommittee. He said they worked hard and there was a lot of variety of opinions. He thought 99% of what was in front of them was agreeable to everyone, including the real estate signs. But that was not his purpose for being at the meeting. He was a prime violator and those signs would be fixed. What he was very concerned about were the freeway signs and the freeway visibility when cars are going by at 70 or 80 mph. He strongly disagreed that it was for identification only. The signs were not readable and those poor people who have buildings out there that are empty or barely filled up, they need better visibility on the freeway. And that was his only concern, the freeway visibility, not bothering the neighbors, not hitting the city streets, but freeway visibility. A 12-inch sign on the small buildings was not adequate for any kind of visibility at all, and he believed they should be lighted. He also thought that could be done tastefully. He understood the City’s concern about what other places look like, but we are nowhere close to that, but he thought a little bit bigger and lighted would go a great deal toward helping those businesses be successful in an incredibly difficult timeframe. Those were his comments and he thanked them for their time. There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Tanner closed the public hearing and opened the discussion for Commission comments. Commissioner Limont said her only issue was with “C”, which she felt gave too much of a free hand. In going over, studying and reading what they were provided by the Planning Department, and she agreed with her fellow Commissioners that they did a great job. She also agreed with the changes that need to be made out on the freeway, with cleaning up the real estate signs, and she had no problem with the Spinello signs or the Prime Choice signs--she thought they were elegant, and real estate signs. But also, she wanted to make sure this Commission was in favor of it, so if they needed a study period, she was all for it and would make time. Commissioner Campbell stated that she wouldn’t be available for the study session, but the other Commissioners could get together and that was fine with her. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 17 Chairperson Tanner reopened the public hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Schmidt restated her motion to continue the public hearing to May 19, 2009 and convene a public study session on the proposed sign ordinance to allow for the Commission to finalize their questions and concerns. Ms. Aylaian suggested Tuesday, May 12, at 6:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room. Commission concurred. Commissioner Limont seconded the motion. Commissioner Schmidt asked if it was possible to invite everyone who has been concerned to that public meeting. Ms. Aylaian said staff would extend the invitation to everyone that was involved in the Signage Subcommittee, although in the past they would generally need three or four weeks to get the schedules to mesh. She understood that the Commission would like to hear this at their next meeting, and they would schedule it, invite people, and hope for the best. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Limont, continuing Case No. ZOA 09-104 to May 19, 2009 and scheduling a study session on May 12, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE None. C. PARKS & RECREATION Chairperson Tanner reported on the issues that were discussed. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 2009 18 XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Limont asked if one of the palm trees was dying at the Wachovia building, or if it was just getting beaten by the wind. She also thought that the palm trees were poorly placed. Commissioner Schmidt agreed and said that at night, it was horrible. On a more positive note, she thought the tower near the Holiday Inn looked good. They did a nice job and it looked good from the street. Mr. Bagato said he would go with an inspector to check out the palm tree at Wachovia. Commissioner Limont noted that it could be just that it was brand new. Ms. Aylaian explained that they liked to give them at least six months and it could look as if all the fronds are dead, but they look for the green wick coming up. Summer is the time they want to grow and don’t do as well if they get transplanted during the winter. She said they could get a landscape specialist out there to give their opinion. XIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m. _______________________________ LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST: ____________________________ VAN G. TANNER, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm