Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/10/19 - MINUTES ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall October 19, 1988 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1988 - 1989 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date Larry Lapham, Chairman - 6 2 Gary Olsen - 7 1 Barbara Whitney X 6 2 Brent Hough (Acting Chairman) X 6 2 Martha Edgmon X 7 1 Chris Mills X 6 0 Michael Dotson X 5 0 Staff Present John Mangione, Community Development Director Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Sherri Abbas, Planner Douglas Evans, Planner Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Chairman called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: The October 19, 1988 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 5:00 p.m. , Friday, October 14. October 19, 1988 ADJOURNED PC MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 5.0497-ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS of an amendment to `... Section 9311.00 (Public Art) to change the method and amount of allocation by which public art is funded. (Commission response written comments on Draft Negative Declaration; no comments received; action.) Recommendation: That the Commission order the filing of Negative Declaration and approve the Zoning Text Amendment as amended. Planning Director stated that the proposed amendment has been revised with the changes recommended by the Commission at the October 12 meeting, i .e.; that all development projects including new construction and remodels except for single-family residences and affordable housing receiving City, State and Federal assistance will be subject to a payment of 1% of the total construction valuation of the project. He stated that the Tribal Council questioned the mechanism of the process and the definition of "public art" ; and that a minimal fee of 5 or 10 dollars may be charged to small projects. Director of Community Development stated that in the normal process of development of a public art program, a task force is established to recom- mend a program that becomes an appointment of a Public Arts Commission; but that the City Council bypassed the task force to move faster, and staff is doing the work of the task force in drafting an ordinance which establishes rules and parameters of the Public Arts Commission. He stated that the ordinance will be finalized to address Palm Springs; and that the art would `..� be chosen by the Commission or Council and could be approved on site but would not be the developer' s option. He stated that affordable housing projects will be required to have public art if they receive special con- sideration such as a density bonus; that the fund is a separately main- tained one; and that the assessment is a fee, not a tax. Commissioner Dotson asked the definition of "appropriate alternate public amenities" . Director of Community Development stated that alternate public amenities would be such amenities as sidewalk decorations or decorative lamp posts. Planning Director stated that festivals and artists commissioned for non- permanent art could be included. Director of Community Development stated that the body formed to address public art would be a Commission with directive powers and could either recommend to Council or make a final decision appealable to the Council . He stated that many cities in California of the size of Palm Springs have a public arts program. Commissioner Mills stated that he felt that residences of all kinds, affordable or not, should be exempt and that the ordinance requires some residences like multi-family ones to pay the fee, which is unfair, and that if any should be exempt, residences under 5,000 sq. ft. should be, and he felt that apartments should also be. Discussion continued on the types of housing required to pay the fee. October 19, 1988 ADJOURNED PC MINUTES Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0497-ZTA. (Continued) Commissioner Mills stated that projects should be competitive and if the fee is charged, a similar project in a neighboring town would have lower rent. Planning Director stated that the 1% fee will be absorbed by the mass of development fees. Commissioner Mills stated that was the point and that there should be no fees on housing. Director of Community Development stated that the art does remain in the City and enhances the community; and that funds can be aggregated and not necessarily spent for art on the project site. Acting Chairman declared the hearing open. Barbara Foster, local citizen, stated that she was delighted to see that a public arts program would be established and complimented staff. She stated that there are many small communities with public art programs in the State. There being no further appearances; Acing Chairman declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Dotson stated that the largest single-family residences in the city are exempt from the public art fee. Commissioner Hough stated that he did not feel that there should be a differentiation for single-family residences. Commissioner Whitney commented that she did not know how the ordinance could be structured so there would be a differentiation. Commissioner Edgmon suggested a square footage limitation and Commissioner Dotson stated that the program should be developed on the valuation of the property. Commissioner Mills commented that square footage is hard to establish and that he still had concerns about a fee for residences, although he did not mind if the fee were on a high end product. He stated that he did not care if the fee were on square footage or valuation, but that affordable housing projects are being encouraged because of the fee instead of something better. Commissioner Edgmon stated that the 1% fee should not make that much difference. Commissioner Mills commented that apartment building is marginal now; that apartments are not being built, and those recently built are in bankruptcy. He stated that all the fee does is increase the monthly rental rates. Director of Community Development asked if a project with a � monthly rent of $3,000 per unit should be exempt. October 19, 1988 ADJOURNED PC MINUTES Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0497-ZTA. (Continued) Commissioner Mills stated that he did not know but felt that expensive houses or apartments should not be exempt. Director of Community Development stated that the Council is interested in getting the Public Arts Ordinance on an agenda soon. Commissioner Mills asked if the Council could be apprised that the Commission is concerned about inclusion of multi-family residences in the fee program and the exclusion of all single-family residences. M/S/C (Mills/Hough; Olsen/Lapham absent) ordering the filing of a Negative Declaration and approving the Zoning Text Amendment as amended but with concerns noted regarding the Commission's opposition to the inclusion of some types of multi-family housing and the exclusion of all single-family residences in the Public Art Fee program, and deleting the wording "on the project site" in the final paragraph of the amendment. The Commission approved the Zoning Text Amendment based on the following finding: That the Public Art Fee program will enhance the amenities of the community. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 12, 1988, indicates that the Public Art Fee is going to be adjusted by revising Section 9311.00 of the .; Zoning Ordinance, and that a mechanism for establishing the public art process will consist of a separate instrument to be placed in the Municipal Code. Since the Public Art Fee and the public art process affect undeveloped Indian trust lands, this Case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of October 11, 1988. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council to the following actions: 1. Noted that the proposed revisions to Section 9311.00 of the Zoning Ordinance do not establish criteria or otherwise attempt to define "public art" or "other alternate public amenities" . 2. Lacking any information relative to the "mechanism" for establishing the public art process referenced in the staff report, expressed its concern at being unable to fully understand and evaluate the intent and purpose of the proposed revision to the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Requested that this matter be continued until the criteria/definition of "public art" or "other alternative public amenities" is established, and information relative to the "mechanism" for establishing the public art process is available. ADJOURNMENT October 19, 1988 ADJOURNED PC MINUTES Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CASE 5.0497-ZTA. (Continued) M/S/C (Mills/Dotson; Olsen/Lapham absent) adjourning the meeting at 3:20 p.m. D, PLANNING DIRECTOR MDR/ml