Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0416 ����� MINUTES � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 �'" � 7:00 P.M. - CIViC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER '�� , . 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE .� * � .� .� � -� �. * * * * � * � � �. .� .� .� � �. -� .� * � �- * * * * .� � -� .� � �« � � � .� I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez �"" Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Tony Bagato, Planning Tech Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the March 19, 2002 meeting minutes. Commissioner Lopez noted that the minutes should be changed to say he was present. Staff made the correction. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the March 19, 2002 minutes as amended. Motian ; carried 5-0. 1r+ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 � � � � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell indicated there were no pertinent items at the March 28 or April 1 1 , 2002 City Council meetings. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 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. PP 01-16 - PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to allow the construction of an 8,150 square foot visitor's and information center building. The subject property is located at 72-575 Highway 1 1 1 and is also referred to as Entrada EI Paseo. Mr. Drell explained that this is the first actual building within the Entrada project. (He noted that according to the City Manager it should be called De La Paseo.) Mr. Drell said the City's goal with the first building was to create a signature design similar to what we tried to do at the clubhouse at Desert Willow. He said that the architect was present to discuss the elevations. The plans showed the front of the building as seen from the internal pedestrian street. Another showed the elevation facing southeast. He pointed out that it essentially was on the same pad . designated on the original plan that the commission saw and approved. ' i Staff recommended approval. � � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRII 16, 2002 � Chairperson Finerty o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. REUEL YOUNG, the project architect, addressed the commission. He explained that his firm Interactive Design Corporation at 3001 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way in Palm Springs, 92262, had been working with the subcommittee for the last few months. Mr. Young pointed out the location of Highway 1 1 1 and EI Paseo to show the building orientation on the site. He stated that there were two basic components on how they viewed the building. One was a public component and one was an internal business component. The public component has a retail space and gallery with alcoves off of it for special interest groups such as the Historical Society and would perhaps have attractions for dining, accommodations, recreation, etc. The placement of the building from the very beginning was to provide an opening to the internal ,`„ road on the overall site and to take advantage of the garden which surrounds the building on two and a half sides. The arraying of the walls was intended to give first a grand view of the garden and then selective, more intimate views of nearby portions of the garden. Because this was the public realm, they felt it had to have a high ceiling and a high roof. Because these were offices, it has a more rectilinear flat roof. The roof plan has a fan shaped roof that slopes from a central tower and then faceted parapeted buildings around. From the public realm from Highway 1 1 1 going east, the view of the building would be of the faceted office windows in deep shadow. On the face of Highway 111 there were openings that suggest it is a public building but they can't gain entrance and the roof slopes around starting at the retail/gallery area. Turning right on EI Paseo, the facets would be seen with the angles which would cast shadows and give selective views of the garden. Anchoring this was the roof which wraps around and if they were to walk from EI Paseo through the garden into the internal street they would come to the place where the roof, which fans around, is held by a tower which he said has more of a symbolic function than any real functional purpose. �.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 � .� There was no two-story use. They just felt there needed to be something there to anchor the roof. He pointed out the public entrance that would face the internal street and a second entrance to the back. The materials were all plaster. The roof was a low slope, but they would have a kind of synthetic material that looked like slate. It would have a low profile in the gray and warm gray color range. The colorization was a series of tans, warm grays and terra cotta. He said that it was an active building and wasn't a passive facade. The purpose of that was to capture the sense of being public and also have smaller alcoves so that as a person walked in and through the building they had a sense that the outside was a foreshadowing of what was experienced inside. He asked for questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if the colors on the plans were the approved colors. � Mr. Young said it was the palette, but the color was never true. � What he found was that when they picked sample colors that small, it was always different on a large scale. So they always had a panel of five or six square feet from a selection of colors, but that was the intended range: warm grays and beiges with a strong mahogany or terra cotta. � Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on the gray slate material. Mr. Young passed out a sample of it and explained that it is a special formulation of polymer that had been recycled and one of the reasons they selected it is because they liked the low profile and the texture to the edge. But they also liked the fact that it is green architecture. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it also covered one of the sides. M�. Young said no, it was not vertical at all. He clarified that the area was a storef�ont at the entrance which would be two-story glass. The lower roof would provide shade and was at an 1 1 -foot � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 � height and behind that there are clerestories and transcends which would bring in light from above. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Lopez stated that the project is a beautiful building and thought they had done a good job with it. He moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. She thought it would be a great asset on that corner. She pointed out that it wasn't the typical tower design seen in the desert and thought it was very interesting. Chairperson Finerty said there was a motion and a second and asked if there were any other comments. Commissioner Tschopp said that he had a question for the applicant. He ••• said he only counted eight parking spaces and asked how many were dedicated to ADA. Mr. Young readdressed the commission. He said there were three ADA compliance spaces and two drop-off areas which weren't dedicated to ADA, but had a wedge-curb so there was no hindrance to getting out of a car and going up onto the sidewalk. Those parking spaces were intended for short-term parking. The idea was that if they were there for a longer period of time, there was plenty of parking. The short-term parking was intended to be in that location. Commissioner Tschopp asked if those spaces would be marked with a time limit. Mr. Young said that was a good question which came up earlier. The truth was he didn't know if the spaces would be signed but that was the intent of the use. It hadn't been discussed with the subcommittee, so he couldn't commit to that. r.. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any other comments. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 Commissioner Tschopp thought it was a beautiful building and the City was showing what they would like to see go on that corner and were designing it very well. But he had a concern with parking. He knew that a committee and better minds had looked at this, but in looking at how people use a visitor information center, there was very limited parking there for such a large building. If they looked at the parking lot as it goes to the west, there were only a few spaces where anyone could park to use the building. It seemed to him that the convenience and availability of the parking is such a deterrent to the success of the proposed use it was almost an oxymoron. We have a visitor center but no convenient parking for our visitors. He acknowledged that better people than he had looked at this for some time, but he would almost like to ask the applicant to take another look at it to see and make certain that the parking, although it met the requirements of the city codes, did it meet the requirements of the proposed use of the building. Mr. Drell explained that the employees would park in the main lot. There � were six spaces available for visitors at any one time since two were � handicapped. By definition most people going to visitor centers were people who didn't hang around there for hours. They were usually in and out in 15 or 20 minutes. The idea was to provide almost reserved very convenient parking for the customer of the visitor center and .long-term parkers used the main parking lot. Based on historical usage they typically don't get more than three or four people at a time. He thought that was the theory in the way it was designed. The bulk of the parking would be employees and they would park in the main lot. Commissioner Tschopp said those comments were duly noted, but he thought they were talking about a much smaller existing visitor information center and here they were combining a park-like atmosphere encouraging people to use it. As well, the building and proposed uses were such that he thought they would hopefully get more usage and he thought they would with the limited available parking limit how many people use it. He didn't know very many businessmen that would build a business like this with the lack of convenient parking. He wanted to see the applicant take a look at the parking but if they wanted to move forward, while they meet the parking requirement, he didn't think it was , a wise choice. :� ., � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 +�.. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he shared Commissioner Tschopp's concern. He thought there were an adequate number of parking spaces, but the location was counter productive. He said he would hope for a successfuf visitor information center and he thought to have a handfu( of convenient spaces was really short-sighted. It appeared to him to be unnecessary because there is adequate space. He wondered if relocating the building down at the left-hand corner would open up a central parking area which would then be accessible to all the buildings. Again, he was sure brighter minds have considered all of the permutations, but he thought one of the reasons they had the public hearing process was for an independent view to be taken. To him that was where this project came up short. He thought the design and all of the nice things that had been said he agreed with. He noted that there had been other applications before the commission that weren't quite as appealing for this location, including car dealerships. So this was great, but he wanted to see the parking reconfigured so that there were more convenient spaces closer to the .r. visitor center. Mr. Drell explained that there were some who agreed with Commissioner Jonathan. Reviewing the history, Mr. Drell indicated that members of the special subcommittee, which was both staff and council members, made that very recommendation. Since the restaurant was going to have valet parking anyway, it could be the one that didn't need the convenient parking and the corner building that has far more quick accessible parking should be the visitor's center. The City Council acting in their capacity as the Redevelopment Agency, the applicant, voted 3-2 that they wanted the visitor's center there. He said that Commissioner Jonathan's point was well taken, and as was said, those better minds considered this and thought that a different solution was appropriate. . Commissioner Jonathan said that ultimately the Council would be the final arbiter, but since there was adequate space and they were basically looking at a piece of paper they could rnove the structures around to accommodate more parking nearby. If that was where they wanted the visitor center that was fine. But perhaps the building identified as "building" could be moved to create additional parking between the two � structures. There was enough room and the�e had to be a way to create 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 a few more parking spaces near the visitors information center. He said he would be in favor of sending it back to the d rawing board for that purpose. � Going a little out of order, Chairperson Finerty said that she would like to give Mr. Young the opportunity to respond. She noted that this should have been discussed before she closed the public hearing. Mr. Young said that the issue of what is the right balance in terms of providing convenience for the individual in the automobile within a development that has a pedesirian component also was one of the most difficult balancing acts to take. The premise of this development started with the garden which was predicated on the idea that an individual would actually walk through the garden and be rewarded sensorially by that fine grain natural setting. When that became the basis, there was a discussion of where the garden would go and where the buildings would go in relation to it. He didn't believe there was ever one right answer. But it was decided � that the visitor center would have an intimate relationship. In fact � that was why one side of the building had a bunch of zig zags. It was the idea that landscape and building came together closely. That sensitivity spilled over into the discussion on what role the automobile has when they are trying to create an environment that they want people to enjoy on their feet. In the design process, the shape of that internal road, the width of it, the material, the curb, the relationship to trees, the relationship to buildings, was all considered quite carefully. He said he would take responsibility for being an advocate that said that the City is making a strong investment in creating a building which has information, has beauty, has a garden around it, that it is a memorable experience to go to that building and be in the garden. Therefore, one of the distinguishing characteristics of a commercial development versus a civic development is the balance between the convenience a 7- 1 1 would have and a balance that says that the building and its surroundings have a value that supersedes predominance of the automobile. That was the direction they took vastly and he didn't think there was real passion other than from him talking about it, but they did make a distinction that said having a�rived at the visitors center, with a garden, with the reward of that � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 r�.. environment, that too many cars would undermine it. So the question was how many were too many and how many was the right number. He didn't think there was a right number or magic number, but it was carefully considered. That was how it came about. Not by accident. Not by oversight. But by trying to find the balance between the experience of being out of the car and the convenience we have all become used to. There is a relationship one could make between a shopping center and a main street and they drew that connection. They said they wanted the characteristics of a main street that was pedestrian friendly and car tolerant. They did not want to exclude the car, but they also wanted to have primacy for the individuals, the families, and the groups that would come so that the road could be closed off for events and receptions and that in that environment within the buildings and relating to the garden there was a sense that a person belonged and had primary responsibility and reward as opposed to the automobile. It was a difficult decision to make and was the direction they took. Other people have felt that more cars `, would be better. Chairperson Finerty pointed out that there was still a motion and a second on the floor. She noted that it appeared that not only the City Council, but the Planning Commission decision would be decided 3-2 as well. She asked Mr. Drell if by continuing the item and sending it back that would only extend something that has already been hashed out over and over. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell thought the appropriate thing to do was to take the vote and then in addition to that as part of the minutes have each commissioner make their comments and those would be forwarded onto the Council. In either case it was an unusual project in how it was originated and conceived, but this was the opportunity for them to provide input. Apart from the vote, each of them could provide input. Chairperson Finerty asked if Commissioners Campbell or Lopez had any other comments to add. Commissioner Campbell said that regarding the parking, as Mr. Young and the committee said, they were providing a setting with a park and they have a building within the park. If they put parking close, they � 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 A � would be defeating the whole purpose. She said the Europeans that we have coming over here are not spoiled like the Americans are in that we have to have a parking place right in front of the building because we don't wa1k. So she didn't think the visitors coming to the visitor center would have any problem walking because they would park and go strolling in the garden area. She did not have any objection. Commissioner Lopez said he had been convinced with the conversation this evening regarding the parking situation. He said he would like to amend his original motion to include the aspect that they would like serious consideration to be made, although the project is very good looking, that they would like serious consideration and additional study done as to the availability of convenient parking to the building and reflect that in their motion as it goes forward to the City Council. He said he would like to revise his motion to that effect. Commissioner Campbell agreed with that, although her other comments stood. a Chairperson Finerty stated that she felt the subcommittee made the right °'� decision although it was difficult. She clearly saw both sides and said it was difficult to come to a decision. She said she also struggled with it herself. But in order to preserve the beauty of the building, and it is beautiful, it would be better to have less parking. She thought it might be a good idea, as alluded to by Commissioner Tschopp, to have signs that say 15 minutes only for those few spaces in front so that people would know if they want to go in and enjoy the garden and spend a little more time that they were going to need to find parking elsewhere on the property and there was plenty. She thought they made the right decision. That people should be willing to walk and enjoy the time. And for people that wanted to quickly get in and out, those few spots would hopefully be enough. Commissioner Jonathan said he was in agreement with everything being said. He listened to the architect and understood and appreciated his thoughtfulness. However, he didn't think they should settle for this situation. He thought they could have serenity in the park and a convenient, adequate number of spaces close by. He would challenge the designers to accomplish that objective and he believed that they could. .nri 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 +r.. For example, on the other side of the walkway, they could add another four spaces without creating a major intrusion. That would double the number of spaces accessible. He wasn't saying that would or would not work. What he was saying was that with a little more creativity and slightly more effort beyond the enormous effort that has been put forth already, he thought they didn't have to settle for an either or situation. He thought both objectives of serenity and convenient parking could be accomplished. Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff and recommended that serious consideration and additional study be done as to the availability of convenient parking to the building. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Tschopp voted no). ,r,,, It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2122 approving PP 01-16, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Tschopp voted no►. B. Case No. TT 30503 - GHA PALOMA GROUP, LLC/THE KEITH COMPANIES, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide 4.68 acres into 14 single-family lots located on the east side of Shepherd Lane, 1200 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Bagato explained that the site was one parcel totaling 4.68 acres located on the west side of Shepherd Lane north of Frank Sinatra. He said that the property is zoned PR-5, Planned Residential five units per acre. He said that all the existing zoning in that area was the same. He noted that the tentative map would subdivide the one parcel into 14 i�.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 � single-family lots. The subdivision would create a cul-de-sac that would extend east of Shepherd and would end right before Portola. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that the tract was on the east side of Portola and not the west side because they had both east and west in the staff report. Mr. Bagato apologized and clarified that east was correct. Mr. Bagato showed a map illustrating the subdivision with its cul-de-sac extending east of Shepherd. He stated that Frank Sinatra would serve as the main access point to Chinook Circle East. All the lots conform to the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and minimum yard width of 70 feet. The subdivision would be required to install half of the street improvements on the east side of Shepherd Lane. The west side was currently under construction by the same applicant. He noted that the pad heights along the south property line are two feet higher than the adjacent lots so they were conditioned by Public Works to build a wall, a combination retaining as well as extending over garden wall. The architecture of the buildings would go before Architectural Review Commission on April 23 for preliminary approval of both architecture and � landscaping. He indicated that the applicant was continuing� with the same tract that was approved on the west side. Mr. Bagato said that the tract map met all the Planned Residential zone requirements. For CEQA purposes, the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and staff prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Staff recommended approval of the findings, subject to the attached conditions. Noting that the pad heights along the south property line would be two feet higher than the adjacent lot, Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Bagato knew what the grading was on the vacant property to the south. Mr. Bagato said it was currently undeveloped and he had not seen any maps come in. Commissioner Campbell stated that the reason she was asking was because they have had problems on Hovley with pad height differences and was concerned about creating the two-foot difference here. Mr. Bagato said that it was pretty consistent. Shepherd Lane comes down the middle and a lot of tracts have two to three feet of difference and they have been built with a condition from Public Works with grading permit with the pad heights and combination walls. Mr. � Drell pointed out that the area isn't flat and when they are crea'ting some � sort of terracing, there would be a grade difference. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 `.. Chairperson Finerty asked for cla�ification in that Mr. Bagato had said that Public Works conditioned having a retaining wall and a garden wall on the south property line and asked which condition that was. Mr. Diercks said that condition 19 could cover that. Mr. Bagato said he didn't see it, but when he spoke to Mr. Greenwood and they discussed the pad height situation, Mr. Greenwood said he would like to see that. Mr. Bagato thought that it had been added. What Mr. Greenwood told him was that it would just provide a combination like the other properties have done along College View and Daisy Lane. Chairperson Finerty asked if this project was approved if they would want to add that as Condition No. 19 under Public Works. Mr. Bagato concurred. Chairperson Finerty o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DEAN PALUMBO, President of the Palm Desert Division of the Keith Companies, the engineering consultant to GHA Paloma Homes at 73-733 Fred Waring Drive. He stated that he had a few � items and he would start out with the pad height requirement. To the south it is vacant and the developer would secure an offsite grading letter for the slope. Specifically, when that property gets developed they have a condition where they would have to adjust their grades to meet the grades to the south of that property and also their project requiring them to probably lower their grades just as they had done for the tract to the north of them. Given the fact that they discussed it with Public Works sometime early on with a rough grading plan they prepared, as long as they secured an � offsite grading letter to essentially toe out their slope at his property line, Public Works didn't see a need for a retaining wall/garden wall. A few of the other items were more clerical than technical. In the staff report it talked about access and circulation and talked about an 88-foot right-of-way with 64 feet of pavement curb to curb. He clarified that the street geometry was different than that. It was approved through Public Works as a 76-foot wide right-of-way with 52 feet curb to curb. Later on in the Public Works conditions that geometry is reflected and he thought it was just clerical misprint in the staff report. The pad heights they just talked about. He believed that because the developer was going to acquire offsite grading letters it was not going to be required to do i... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 a two-foot retaining wall with a garden wall on top. Lastly, on the environmental assessment checklist, items eight and nine, he thought these items were probably just pulled from the other GHA project across the street to the west. Some of them weren't applicable such as the project being five acres, not ten, there being 14 single family lots rather than 32 and just some of the reference information for the surrounding land uses needed to be updated since the south was vacant, to the west is the existing Tract 30216 and to the east is Portola Avenue. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that the grading would not be two feet higher. Mr. Palumbo said that was correct. Ultimately when that tract develops they would grade their site to meet his project's grades or something close to them. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. MARIO GONZALES, 28-561 Avenida De Osa in Cathedral City addressed the commission. He explained he is the developer and was present to answe� questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Gonzales was just going to sell the lots or if he would be building the homes. Mr. Gonzales said they were actually the developers of the Sundance project and this project was just an extension of that. They have a five-acre parcel they were adding to that so they were the actual builder/developers. He was the owner of the project. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan asked for staff's response to Mr. Palumbo's comments, specifically with regard to the lack of need for a retaining wall. Mr. Bagato said that when he talked with Mr. Greenwood they 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 +�.. were working with the existing topography. Based on the calculations of what has taken place, they figured there would be a two-foot height difference. He wasn't aware that the property to the south was required to raise its heights. Commissioner Jonathan said that it wasn't yet, so that was his concern. Mr. Bagato agreed that no application has been received for it. Mr. Drell said that they could add the wording "as determined by the City Engineer" so at the time that happens the City Engineer could make that call. . Commissioner Jonathan said that other than that the project looked fine to him and he moved for approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tschopp. Chairperson Finerty asked for any additional comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she has looked at some of the homes there and commented that they are beautiful. She thought the developers were doing a very good job with the homes along Shepherd. Chairperson Finerty asked for clarification that Commissioner Jonathan's motion included an added Condition No. 19 under Public Works to be determined by the City Engineer. Commissioner Jonathan �,, concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2123 approving TT 30503, subject to conditions as amended adding Condition No. 19 under Department of Public Works. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. ZOA 02-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval of any painting, repainting, texturing or retexturing of buildings, structures, signs, walls, fences or improvements to real property. �.. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 ' Mr. Bagato explained that as part of the city's architectural process, the Architectural Review Commission currently approves colors and textures for any new commercial buildings and tract homes, with the exception of custom single family homes. He noted that the current language of our Zoning Ordinance is ambiguous and doesn't prevent a property owner from repainting or retexturing a building, wall or fence after it has been finaled by the Building Department. So the proposed ordinance, if adopted, would support the Architectural Review Commission's decisions as well as staff's with regard to any painting/repainting, texturing/retexturing of buildings, walls, fences, signs and basically any improvements to real property with regard to coloring and texturing. The proposed ordinance would require approval by the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission through an appeal process. The proposed ordinance would be added to our Chapter 25.56 of the General Provisions as outlined in Exhibit "A." Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Section 25.56.510 to the General Provisions requiring approval from the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission � by appeal for any painting/repainting, texturing/retexturing of any � buildings, fences, walls, signs or any improvements to real property. Commissioner Campbell asked if someone has a white building and they want to repaint it white, if they would have to have permission to repaint it white. She could understand if someone wanted to change the color, but if they wanted to repaint with the same color, she wanted to know if that would require permission. Mr. Bagato said that they would be required to have our approval, but normally if someone paints or repaints their building the same color, the city wouldn't receive a complaint. Mr. Drell thought that was a good suggestion. They might want to add or modify the language that would say a change from the approved color. Then if someone was just repainting the same color that was just maintenance. Obviously we have no concern for maintaining the same color. He concurred that they were only concerned with new colors. He noted that at ARC there was a lot of discussion about enforcement of this and whether or not people would rea�ly know to do this. Technically we require a permit to build a wood fence and he thought a lot of people on weekends probably built fences without a permit. Typically when people do the sort of thing that never draw attention, they never draw attention. Here we are talking about activities that by their nature will 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 � draw attention. In 20 years that has probably only happened two or three times total. So it wasn't a horrendous probiem it was just that when it happens people ask how we could let it happen. This would give the city some teeth for when it does happen. Commissioner Campbell said that when something changes colors, it really stands out, but after a while you get used to it. Mr. Drell concurred. He said that like all these sorts of codes, the City, like the police, typically doesn't enforce every infraction they see, they only go after the ones they think are worthwhile. What prompted this was the building at the southeast corner of Fred Waring and Monterey, so this was a way to deal with it. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Drell said that historically there are very few problems of this nature. He thought the iast thing we wanted was overkill and create a process that would result in 1,000 applications per year, so it was important in the language that is used to modify the ordinance that they have wording that indicates if the change ,�,,, is significant. That way he thought they weren't creating a rule or a law that we enforce by exception. He thought there was a danger in doing that. So at least there was judgemeni involved there. For example, a homeowner that goes from beige to brown could say that they didn't think it was a significant difference. But if someone complains and the City feels that it is, it has those teeth. He said he would advocate language that includes a qualifier that says not only does it require that there be a difference, but that it be a significant difference from the original approval. Mr. Drell said they could continue this and come back with more precise language before passing it on. Chairperson Finerty noted that they didn't know what everyone's definition of significant is. As an example, tf�e building at Fred Waring and Monterey that was painted green, in her mind that was significant. Others might not think it was. Commissioner Jonathan said the point he was making was that if the City thought it was significant, then they could make that determination. Chairperson Finerty noted that it could come from a complaint. Commissioner Jonathan thought there was a danger of having an ordinance if it was never enforced it and there were thousands of paint jobs done every year and no one had ever gotten a permit; therefore defacto it was invalid. So he wasn't sure there was a � 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 better approach to this. The last thing he wanted to do was for the City to have a string of applicants everyday saying they just wanted to paint their house. That was all they were trying to accomplish here. Commissioner Lopez asked if it applied to residential homes. M r. Drell said it does. This was another issue that ARC debated back and forth. Something for them to think about was if their neighbor suddenly painted their house pink and it was approved as brown. If they came to us when they painted their house and suggested pink, we would say no, change it to brown. If the city determines the color originally, he asked if it made sense that they wouldn't care the day after it was finaled. Chairperson Finerty said they need to care because the Albertson's Center painted the center purple and olive green. Mr. Drell said that staff approved that. Chairperson Finerty noted that it was an example of a significant change. Mr. Drell concurred that it was a significant change. He said.that they came to the city. He indicated that most large developments do come to the city. When people would ask him he said he would like to see it. He 4 said it was a tough question when they start micro managing people's � behavior. They run the risk of taking on a lot of work. � Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a possibility to insert or use language that approaches it from the other perspective. Instead of requiring an application that gives the City authority in its judgement to make a determination that ihe repainting varies significantly from the original approval and therefore might be denied. It would give an applicant the option of coming in and being preapproved. Mr. Hargreaves said there was no way to be able to craft language that was going to be clear and unambiguous when talking about ihese kinds of aesthetics. They were sensitive to this issue being over broad, but if they tried to narrow it they just created more arguments when they try to enforce it. He really thought the way they had it "in a rnanner significantly modifying the original color" would probably achieve their objectives as well as anything they would be able to come up with. It would give them the opportunity to go after the egregious examples like the one down the street. There might be a problem with people coming in more than we want them to, but after a while he thought that people would get the idea that it probably isn't necessary. In situations like this, he said there is selective enforcement. Everyone could make that 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 r.r argument, but they couldn't really win on it. If they have a case where there is a significant modification, they can't defend by selective enforcement. Mr. Drell said that chances are they were only going to go after the rather obvious examples. Getting into the terminology of color, they were talking about shades, tones and hues. Hu�s were different colors. Shades were variations within the same color. So they probably didn't care as much about different shades, it was the different hues that were approved which typically generate a problem. If people go from brown to purple. If people go from light brown to dark brown or dark brown to darker brown, it might be something they didn't like, but was probably something they could live with. It's the jump to different hues which probably generate the controversy. Chances are they would probably only be actively enforcing or making an issue of those rather gross changes which they probably wouldn't have a hard time determining that they are significant. Chairperson Finerty o ened the public hearing and seeing no one present to speak closed the public hearing. She asked for commission ,� comments. Commissioner Campbell asked if they wanted to bring it back with the proper language. Mr. Drell said it wasn't an emergency item and was up to the commission. Commissioner Campbell noted that by next week they could have a lot of different colored buildings. Commissioner Jonathan noted that staff had the language to include "if it varies significantly." He asked if the ordinance could be worded such that approval must be obtained only if the repainting varies significantly. Mr. Hargreaves said he thought that was the way they intended it to be. Commissioner Jonathan said it wasn't the way it was worded. Mr. Hargreaves said they were talking about adding the language after retexture that would say "in a manner significantly modifying the original colors." So they couldn't do it in a manner significantly modifying the original colors without prior approval. Commissioner Jonathan said that if an owner didn't feel he was varying significantly, then he didn't need to come in. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. �... 19 MINUTES . PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan said he would be in favor of that. He didn't know if the commission wanted to see that language again, but he thought that was a good solution. Chairperson Finerty asked if that was a motion. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He said he would leave it up to staff to do the wording in his motion. He wanted to see it though. Commissioner Lopez stated that he would second that motion. Commissioner Tschopp thought that the intent was very good. The wording was a challenge, but he thought they should try it and modify it if it became too burdensome on staff. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2124, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 02-01 as � amended to include the language "in a manner significantly modifying the � original colors." Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Review of Shephe�d Lane St�eet Improvement Progress Mr. Bagato explained that last October there was some discussion about different scenarios the City could take with regard to Shepherd Lane if development was piecemeal. The commission continued it to April to see how much more development had taken place within that six months. The summary was to continue along with Alternative 3 which was to continue to require applicants to provide full improvements along the street and connections with roadways as the projects came along. Since October, they had approved the first tentative tract today, TT 30503. They hadn't received anything from the Jewish Federation, which was one of the big projects for the other entrance along Shepherd. He thought what Mr. Alvarez recommended last October Alternative 3 which would have the City construct a 28 foot wide paved connection between the south and north and then have the developers finish up with the 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 � improvements as they come along. Staff felt from the last discussion that commission wanted to talk about the alternatives more in depth after seeing how the area developed. The item was on the agenda to allow the commission to discuss the matter. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were any problems that staff was aware of with the development that has taken place. Mr. Bagato said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the City was getting any feedback on this from residents. Mr. Bagato said no, not along Shepherd. Commissioner Lopez asked if there were any complaints or concerns voiced. Mr. Drell said no. He noted that they now had pretty solid development on that one side and they have at least a minimum of 28 feet, which some people thought was too wide for a street. So they have adequate access. The other thing they did was provide to the Portola tracts an emergency access out to Portola so the Fire Marshal was happy. The issue would happen if they started getting people smack dab in the middle of an undeveloped area saying ihat the burden on them was a little unreasonable. On the other hand, no one is forcing them to ,�„� develop and they weren't necessarily forcing or encouraging any faster pace. It was kind of a buyer beware situation. Commissioner Campbell suggested that they wait and look at it in another six months and see how it is going. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Finerty asked if they should do that by minute motion. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Campbell made the motion to continue this for six months. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Jonathan said that he hoped ihey used this as a bit of a learning tool. He didn't know if this situation would arise any where else, but generally it was advisable to have streets first and development second. Mr. Drell said they were encouraging people in this part of the new General Plan in the area north of Frank Sinatra and was trying to find and encourage master developers to come in and put in the back bone and then sell it off. It was tougher now days to attract that sort of developer but that is what they were looking for. Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. The motion carried unanimously. .r 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 ' Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to continue this matter another six months. Motion carried 5-0. B. Summary of the Brown Act 2002 and Conflicts of Interest by the City Attorney Mr. Hargreaves explained that this was the periodic talk about the legal environment in which the commission operates. He noted that the City Council asked that this year all of the City's commissions be addressed on these issues. He said that they were not only going to cover the Brown Act, they were going to cover briefly Conflicts of Interest. He noted that this was just a refresher course. He asked if everyone received copies of the Brown Act and a copy of the pamphlet. Commission concurred. Commissioner Lopez said it was very good. Mr. Hargreaves explained that the point of the Brown Act is that the City's business and the Commission's business is the people's business. The philosophy of ' the Brown Act is that it should be carried out in public to the greatest � extent feasible. The way it is implemented under the Brown Act is that they are only basically allowed to discuss and make decisions regarding the people's business in an open agendized meeting. So before meetings there had to be an agenda informing the public exactly what is being talked about and then they are constrained to discuss only those things on the agenda. He said there is an exception that allows them to add items if there is some circumstance where it needed to be addressed quickly and it was something that came to staff's attention after it was posted. Otherwise, they weren't supposed to discuss it. The question always came up on what exactly is a meeting. He explained that a meeting is any time three of the commission members got together to chat about subjects under their particular jurisdiction. It didn't have to be in the Council Chamber. They could have a meeting for purposes of the Brown Act anywhere. He wasn't saying it was a legal one, but they could have it at Coco's or anywhere three af them got together. So three of them weren't supposed to get together and talk about this stuff unless it had been agendized. He stated that a meeting could also occu� through intermediaries. Any time a third person interacts with three of ,� them and ihere is a process through which ihey kind of communicate to reach a collective concurrence, they've had a meeting under the Brown 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 �r.. Act. That could be through emails or voice mails or even an exchange of correspondence. Anything like that where three of them were basically exchanging information and views on a subject within their j�risdiction they have a problern. When this could come up is when applicants who have business before them contact them and want to talk about their app�ication. They have every right to do that. It is their constitutional right to do that. The commission had no obligation to talk to them and he generally discouraged them from doing so. If an applicant talked to one of them, then talked to another one and then called the third one and said, "Well, these other two have already agreed to this. What is your decision?" If they participate under those circumstances, they arguably had a violation of the Brown Act because there was that kind of information being exchanged. Somewhat along that same line, Mr. Hargreaves said that some of the decisions the commission makes here are legislative decisions which are general policy decisions. Most of the legislative decisions weren't really decisions, but recommendations to the City Council who actually has the power to make legislative decisions. The kind of decisions the commission actually makes were usually on ,,�„„ conditional use permits and precise plans where they have the final decision making authority and those were considered adjudicatory decisions where they actually make the decision and the commission is considered the judge and the jury. Part of the due process right�that goes along with that is they are making decisions affecting someone's property rights and they have a right to hear all the evidence that they take into consideration in making that decision. So if there are things going on outside the meetings where they are collecting evidence that is relevant to their decision making, they need to be reporting it in the open session so that everyone knows the factors going into those decisions and the developer or whoever could have the chance to rebut it. It arguably applied to site visits. If they go out on site visits, and he thought site visits were a good idea, but if they were seeing things out there at the site that are really affecting their decisions, it would be helpful if in their comments they would report that. The same thing if they are having conversations with applicants or other people and they are receiving information that is pertinent to their decision, they should come back and report it so that it is part of the record before they make the decisions. He noted that with all of their adjudicatory decisions there are these forms where they have findings and the evidence supporting the findings. The idea is that evidence gets incorporated. Based on the evidence they � 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 make the findings and then make their decisions based on the findings as part of the routine. In the Brown Act there are certain exceptions to open meetings. The only one they had ever used at Planning Commission was potential litigation and they went into closed session. He thought they had done it twice in the last ten years. He said the commission could get together in kind of public meetings even if material is being presented which is somewhat relevant as long as they didn't discuss it among themselves. If there are open public meetings of relevance to general plans, they could go there and listen, but if there was a quorum of three or more present, they weren`t allowed to be talking about it amongst themselves. He�asked for any questions regarding the Brown Act. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Hargreaves discouraged Planning Commissioners from meeting with applicants. Mr. Hargreaves said yes. If there is a controversial project and there are communications going on � outside the meeting, there is a potential for the appea�ance of a problem. � If they are receiving information that becomes pertinent to making their decision, then that information is not necessarily in the record and it becomes a problem if they end up in litigation. It raises a lot of due process issues that someone could complain and say the process wasn't fair because they were receiving information that wasn't part of the public process. It would be akin to having a trial. In a t�ial they are very careful about the kind of information that goes to a jury. They go to great lengths to make sure the jury isn't getting relevant information that hasn't gone through the trial process where everyone could see the information they are getting. That was why they didn't want juries out reading the newspapers or talking to people on the street about a case. To an extent, that same consideration applied here. They didn't want to be getting information that other people that are involved in the process didn't have access to rebut or bring up contrary information. There was no prohibition against it. It just started getting into areas that could become problematic. It becomes more and more problematic when an applicant talks to two, three, four or all five of them. Especially if there is information exchanged back and forth about what the other Planning Commissioners were thinking. They were walking into an area where certain kinds of red flags go up. He thought it was helpful if they do have 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 `.. communications outside here with applicants that they inform the commission what happened and the substance of those communications. Commissioner Lopez asked when that should be done. Mr. Hargreaves said it should be given during the consideration of the item or when they are making their comments before the public hearing. They could say they wanted everyone to know that they met with the developer out at the site and this is what they saw and this is what communication occurred and that they want it to be part of the �ecord. Chairperson Finerty informed Mr. Hargreaves that the commission received a call from a developer. The commission turned down his original application and now he has decided he would like to put in a car wash and he wanted to have each of the commissioners chat with him about it. She said she hadn't returned his call and she was hearing Mr. Hargreaves say that it is just as well she hasn't and to just wait until it comes before them if he really wants to move forward with his car wash. Mr. Hargreaves said that would certainly be the preferred approach. He ;r,,,, would tell him first of all if they have additional information, they would appreciate it if they would communicate it to staff and if they wanted to address the commissioners on that issue, please come to the meeting under public comment if nothing else or get it back on the agenda. That is the preferable way to handle it. These kinds of calls and the kind of information that could get passed around and they don't have control over and if it ever ends up in litigation, then different parties, if they find out that these kinds of communications were going on, could make an issue out of it. Commissioner Campbell noted that she also didn't return the call. Commissioner Jonathan stated that for all these years his personal policy has been the opposite. He felt like he had a duty and obligation to be available to people who wanted to chat with him always with a proviso that he wasn't listening with the idea of forming an opinion. He was just listening, period. He explained that he didn't even begin to form an opinion until he read the staff report and then he kept his mind open during the hearing process. But he always felt it was his obligation. Now he was hearing that it wasn't a good idea and he was in a quandary. Mr. Drell said that with this particular issue they had never had a Brown Act come up on a decision. The Planning Commission's position was a little �.. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 less sensitive. If they make a controversial decision, it is more likely to get appealed to the Council anyway. Then the Council would take the heat and there would be so much more discussion and so many more hearings and opportunities for people to get all the information out. He said they should use their judgement and when they feel they are being pressured in a certain way by that meeting, then they should say it was not appropriate and if they have constructive information, they can give it to staff. Commissioner Lopez said he agreed with Commissioner Jonatk�an. More than once he has been contacted. He also indicated to them that he would listen but not make a decision or form an opinion. He said that maybe it was his misunderstanding that it was okay to be approachable from that standpoint. Mr. Drell said that it at least gave an applicant the feeling that he received a fair shake. As long as they are just conveying that information. He encouraged them if they ever received any significant information from an applicant that they either tell staff about it and encourage them to tell us. {f it was something significant, they should request them to give it to staff to share with all of the other commissioners. Commissioner Lopez cited an example of when one site put up balloons and it was suggested that they each go out and individually meet with the developer to see the balloons. From there, he figured it was being informative and they certainly made a point of not going there with even two of them at the same time. Mr. Drell said it was just using good judgement. Mr. Hargreaves said they should just be concerned that there is an issue out there. The other side was if there are citizens really opposed to a project and they come to the hearing and get the sense from listening to the comments they make that they have all been out meeting with the developer at the site and received information, they will suspect they came to the meeting with their minds made up. There was a concern, but they should use their judgement. They just needed to be aware that there is an issue there. Regarding conflicts, Mr. Hargreaves explained that several years ago some of the rules were changed that they operate under. Those new rules were reflected in the pamphlet that was handed out which tries to summarize it in a reasonably accessible way. The reality is that the Political Reform Act, which is a citizens initiative, came up with some rather broad language and authorized the Fair Political Practices 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 i.. Commission to come up with guidelines, which they did with a vengeance. In order to really sort out the details of this stuff, most attorneys couldn't wade through it because it was very technical. But generally speaking, the idea is that if anything comes before the commission where they have any kind of a financial link to it through some kind of actual money. These things were driven entirely by money. They weren't driven by friendships or relationships or anything else. If there was no financial link, there was no problem, but if there was some kind of financial link that impacts some investment they have, property they have, or impacts a source of income, then there is a potential issue there. Then there are threshold values about how much of an impact and how much money. If it was a little bit, it didn't matter. If it was a significant amount, it did matter. But if they find themselves facing that kind of situation, they should either call him or the FPPC has an advice (ine with people who are excellent. They could call him or they couid call FPPC up and they would give really good advice on these issues. The one kind of easy rule of thumb was that if they own property within 500 feet of the project before them, then they have a presumed conflict. It used �,,,, to be 300 feet, then 1 ,200 feet. Now it's 500 feet. If they are within it, they basically have a conflict unless they could establish otherwise which is somewhat difficult to do. If it is beyond 500 feet, they didn't have a conflict unless it is pretty clear it would have a significant financial ramification to them. The idea of the rule is to make sure that when they take actions here their actions are based on the public interest and the merits of the project and not on their own financial stake. Just as importantly, to the people watching them make the decisions that it is clear to them that the decisions are made fairly and impartially and not because they have a financial interest in it. The pamphlet was based entirely on the Political Reform Act which is driven entirely by financial interest. He said there is another conflict doctrine which he called the Common Law Doctrine, which doesn't have any bright lines. It basically said that when they make their decisions they need to be made in the public interest. If they have some kind of personal stake in it that is clouding their ability to act entirely on the public's behalf, then they also have a conflict. A case that carne up five or six years ago with a planning commissioner or city council member in Hermosa Beach had a personal vendetta argument with one of his neighbors over a series of is.sues. The neighbor ended up before the city council with a project and the guy voted against it arguably because of this war he'd had with his neighbor �.. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 over a number of years. The court said under those circumstances he needed to abstain because anything he did was clouded by this appearance of being based on their own personal considerations rather than public policy. So sometimes he would ask them to abstain if it just looks bad. One of the things they didn't want to do is create an impression for the public that this isn't a fair and impartial body. So he asked if any of these situations come up that they just don't fee� comfortable with, contact him ahead of time and they could work through these issues. Generally speaking he would just ask them if there was any appearance of a possibility of a problem to abstain because that was the easiest thing to do and that way they weren't subject to criticism down the road for taking an action that someone could say they had some personal interest in. Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (March 21 ,�2002) Chairperson Finerty noted that the committee discussed the Economic and Fiscal Element. Mr. Drell said they would be getting back to the land use issue and would talk about the Palma Village Plan and the Core Commercial Plan which would include the area behind Highway 1 11 on the north side, land uses adjacent to EI Paseo and along Portola where they are widening the road. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2002 ir G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan noted that with the Shepherd Lane application the staff report had a number of inaccuracies and that was rare. He hoped that staff would remain diligent to detail so that it wouldn't happen in the future. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. +�... PHILIP DRELL Secretary ATTEST: - ; , � , ,. ;- _ , : -- ; _� , ," 'i '� � � �'� CYN IA FINERTY,�Chairperson,j Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm � 29