Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0303 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 3, 1975 PALM DESERT MIDDLE SCHOOL I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission � was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. on March 3, 1975 at the Palm Desert Middle School II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners: GEORGE BERKEY, ED MULLINS, WILLIAM SEIDLER, S. ROY WILSON Absent Commissioner: MARY KAY VAN DE MARK Others Present Paul Williams - Director of Environmental Services Dave Erwin - City Attorney Freeman Rader - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Seidler pointed out corrections to be made to the minutes,which are as follows: ' 1. Page 2, line 35 - Delete the word and, replace with the word �"' the. 2. Page 2, line 35 - Remove the quotation marks from the word conditions. 3. Page 3, line 22 - Substitute the word landscaping with the reduction of 10 trees. Commissioner Wilson moved, Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was unanimously carried. V. WRITTEN COMMiTNICATIONS Paul Williams read a letter from Winters Plumbing & Mechanical Service requesting information on zoning districts permitting storage of construction equipment and recommended the matter be referred to Staff for response. The Commission concurred. Mr. Williams then brought to the attention of the Commission, two additional items to be received and filed: 1. An article prepared by the Urban Land Institute. � 2. A copy of the approved Palm Desert Sphere-of-Influence. VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. Zoning Ordinance Amendment-Ol-75/City of Palm Desert: Consideration of an amendment of Ordinance No. 43 and the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, Section 18.30 pertaining to the compo- sition and operation of the Palm Desert Architectural Review Board. Planning Commission Meeting -2- March 3, 1975 Chairman Seidler explained the public hearing procedure. Paul Williams presented the Staff Report and gave a brief history of events concerning Ordinance No. 43 adopted in July of 1974, which for the first time, established an Architectural Review Board in the City of Palm Desert. He stated that since the adoption of this ordinance, the Architectural Review Board process had been closely monitored and m�ny intended objectives had been realized. However, it was found that some deficiencies now exist. One of the major points which had to be addressed concerns the composition of the Architectural Review Board. The Staff expressed a concern that more practicing professionals be included on the Board whose � expertise would be beneficial in formulating new development standards, which could also be included in the development of the new Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommended that it be moved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 39, recommending to the City Coun�il, that an ordinance be adopted to establish a revised Architectural Review Board process and board. After a brief discussion regarding the proposed ordinance, Chairman Seidler then opened the public hearing. First to address the Commission was: 1. George Ritter 73345 Juniper, Palm Desert Mr. Ritter said he was not exactly opposed to the Ordinance, but wished to make suggestions which included the following recommen- dations: - Change the name from Architectural Review Board to Design Review Board. - Recommended the composition of the Architectural Review Board should consist of two staff inembers, one member from the Planning Commission who would act as liaison � to the Planning Commission and City Council; and remaining members who should be design professionals, such as a building designer, architect, civil engineer or mechanical engineer, directly involved in land development process. 2. Bernard Leung 73960 El Paseo, Palm Desert Mr. Leung expressed that the Architectural Review Board not be overpowered by architects. Perhaps a more diverse background was necessary including one architect, one landscape architect, and one civil engineer so that all aspects could be covered to ensure the greatest feasibility of a project. To be a full committee, Mr. Leung felt these people should be included, not just architects by themselves. The second point Mr. Leung brought up was that the name, Architectural Review Board, was a misnomer. It should have a "design" definition. Decisions are not based purely on an architectural basis. Therefore, he proposed the name be changed to Design Review Board. 3. Michael Buccino 73660 Highway 111, Palm Desert � Mr. Buccino recommended that the Board consist of one member from the Planning Commission and four members made up of people with professional expertise in the design field. He also suggested that a review of all projects to be considered by the Board� should be reviewed prior to the public hearing. Chairman Seidler commented that although it wasn't stipulated in an ordinance, study sessions to review the projects were presently being held prior to the public hearings. Planning Commission Meeting -3- March 3, 1975 4. Carl Cox 73127 Shadow Mountain Drive, Palm Desert Mr. Cox was against having anyone from the City serve on the Board. He felt the membership should consist of two architects, one landscape architect and two experts from the community with artistic ability. Perhaps a business person to add to the economic feasi- bility of a project. 5. Don Shayler 73893 Highway 111, Palm Desert �+ Mr. Shayler concurred with Mr. Buccino's suggestion with regards to membership. Generally speaking, he felt it was not a good idea to have people that are reviewing and presenting the material to sit in judgment of it. Mr. Shayler was also against the idea of having a Staff inember serving on the Board. However, he felt that a Planning Commission member was needed for continuity of appeals. Mr. Buccino again addressed the Commission indicating it might be advisable to have a member of the Planning Commission sit with the Board, but not necessarily to be one of the 5 members. In other words, a non-voting participant representing the Planning Commission. 6. Robert Pitchford 73960 El Paseo, Palm Desert Mr. Pitchford explained that he had been a member of the Palm Desert Property Owner's Association architectural committee since the early 1960s when they went through their trial and and error period. Through past experience, he felt that two design professionals were needed to get the job done. When a problem is faced, a balance of differences of opinion is perhaps what gets the +rr job done faster and more efficiently. There being no further discussion the hearing was closed. Paul Williams then brought to the attention of the Commission, two items which should be extracted from Ordinance No. 43 (Sections D and E on page 2) for inclusion in the new ordinance as Sections H and I on page 4. The present H would then become J and so forth. The public hearing was reopened. Mr. Leung wished to suggest that perhaps the person from the Planning Commission, who would be represented at these meetings, could serve as an interpreter of ordinances and answer legal questions which may arise. The hearing was then closed. Chairman Seidler stated that the Commission would review the proposed ordinance, the changes recommended by the Staff and by participants who provided input during the public hearing. He then stated that a change of name of the Architectural Review Board might be appropriate because the actual function of the Board is broad and inclusive. Design certainly applies more closely to what i�rr. it does and what is envisioned for its future role. The Commission concurred. Planning Commission Meeting -4- March 3, 1975 The public hearing was reopened again, while Commissioner Berkey asked questions of the audience with regards to other Boards, specifically those of the Palm Desert Property Owner's Association and the Palm Springs Architectural Review Board. After a brief discussion regarding the process and composition of these Boards, the hearing was again closed. Chairman Seidler brought up another item, which was that if the Design Review Board was to provide the Planning Commission with a list of those items that were reviewed at the previous Design Review Board meeting, the Commission would be able to have ample time to review the project before discussing it publicly. Adminis- � tratively, it would certainly be helpful to review the projects in advance. The topic of conversation then shifted back to the membership compositon of the Board. Commissioner Mullins moved that the board consist of one Planning Commissioner, one architect, one civil engineer, one landscape architect, and one citizen at large (not currently practicing) but who was knowledgeable in the design field. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion. Paul Williams then suggested that perhaps because of the availa- bility of these professionals, it would be more appropriate to add (if avai�able) before spelling out those particular professionals. He then read the proper wording for Section B. Commissioner Mullins moved Section B be amended to include the wording as read by Mr. Williams, Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion. The wording agreed upon is as follows: "The Design Review Board shall consist of five members. One member shall be from the Planning Commission. Four members shall be citizens appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. The four citizen members (if available) shall be one architect, one civil engineer, � one landscape architect and one lay person knowledgeable in the design field." Commissioner Wilson stated that he felt the Board should consist of two architects. The vote was then called for with the following results: AYES: Berkey, Mullins, Seidler NOES: Wilson The discussion then turned to several changes to be determined throughout the content of the ordinance. After the changes to the ordinance were discussed and agreed upon, Commissioner Mullins moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 39 as amended. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried. VII. OLD BUSINESS - None VIII. NEW BUSINESS - None IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None wr.r X. COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - None C. Planning Commissioners - None Planning Commission Meeting -5- March 3? 1975 XI. ADJ�URidN1ENT Chairman Seidler moved, Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was unanimously carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. �� , n'.' V� � 'J . �..�y' � ,� , :w._. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY ATTEST: 9 � , • WILLIAM , AIRMAN � �