Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-02 PC Study Session MinutesCITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2006 Large Conference Room, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Marantz called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: Director of Planning Services, Craig Ewing, reported that the agenda was posted by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 28, 2006, at City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning and Zoning counter. Chair Marantz introduced the new Planning Commissioners: Bill Scott and Jon Caffery As well, as the re-appointment of Larry Hochanadel. 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chair Marantz opened the Public Comments portion of the meeting. 1. Sheryl Hamlin, Palm Springs, representing the Historic Tennis Club Association, expressed interest in neighborhood overlays. She stated her concerned over unfinished projects in the City. There being no further comments, Public Comments was closed. 2. DISCUSSION – Neighborhood Standards – Zoning Overlays and Other Tools. Director of Planning Services, Craig A. Ewing, reported this is being brought to the Commission to initiate dialogue on the issue of neighborhood overlays. This has been on the City Council’s topics of discussion. A single family home in the Deepwell area because a focus of attention to the City Council. The grade was build different than what people expected. The house was built on top of higher grade than proposed making it higher structural height than a pattern in the neighborhood. He indicated neighborhood standards are rarely more lenient than the basic R-1. They are often more restrictive. The other option would be to put a more restrictive review process such as requirement for architectural review or another type of review to ensure compatibility. These are the 2 reasons why you might have a more specific set of standards for a neighborhood, tighter development standards or a more rigorous review process. Both can be done. He further indicated when dealing with an established neighborhood, putting a more restrictive set of standards can affect different property owners in different ways. Such as, neighbors who want to protect the look of the neighborhood that they have been used to for a number of years, City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Study Minutes of August 2, 2006 lower height standards or a greater set-back, which would not allow new development or redevelopment to alter that pattern. He indicated other property owner might be adversely affected such as an existing house which was built to current code and no longer complies with the new standards. Now it becomes non-conforming. Lastly, he added, how to go about creating and imposing a new overlay in a neighborhood. The city could go out and study; the city taking on the expense and come with Council approved set of standards for overly provisions. He gave examples such as petitioning the city to impose an overlay on a neighborhood such as the City of Manhattan Beach requires 51% of the property owners of the neighborhood to be on board. The issue is what is the right majority? He went into further details of issues that may arise. Chair Marantz discussed where the height is measured, color and tear-down projects versus new development. Craig gave information on the finish grade. Commissioner Cohen commented that he felt the 51% majority is dangerous. He gave examples for the setbacks of the streets in the City of Malibu. Commissioner Scott commented that the City of Malibu they measures the grade in middle of the street. The Commission requested clarification on the ways of measuring the grade. Craig reported that the Zoning Code establishes 4 ways to measure height without indicating which one to use first. He felt there is a need to sort out what is the preferred way. Jon Caffery commented to keep in mind the property owners rights and that restrictions it should require 2/3 or ¾ of a vote. Rick Hutcheson requested that the topic of heights be discussed at a future Study Session. The Commission discussed in detail the overlay zones and indicated that specific criteria needs to be established with a very strong majority such as 2/3 or ¾ of a majority vote. Craig A Ewing commented that he would like to take a specific character of the neighborhood and establish a requirement for each neighborhood. He would like to report back to Council with a follow-up. The Planning Commission is in support of the initiation of a neighborhood overlay. The Planning Commission discussed the details entailed in the overlay. The Planning Commission discussed remodeling process and code enforcement’s responsibility. Jon Caffery commented that it should have a 10 year clause because people move out and the consensus changes. 2 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Study Minutes of August 2, 2006 The commission discussed opted outs for property owners. Craig compiled a list of 7 criteria items from the Planning Commissions comments. 1. Specific criteria for any overlay based on standards. 2. A majority of number; more than 50%, at least 2/3 or 66 % or higher. 4. A 10 year sunset clause or move-out. 5. An opt out clause. 6. Define the area and size with a clear boundary. Recognize the neighborhood. Requirements. 7. Do we want to the specific neighborhood to approve it? Craig reported that he would follow-up with a memorandum of today’s discussion. 3. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Update. Craig A. Ewing gave an update on project going to City Council such as extended moratorium on certain business in the Historic Village Center area of downtown and added that the City Council did not extend the moratorium on mobile home conversions and continued to study the zoning. 4. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS – Rick Hutcheson inquired on the City Council’s view on pre-applications. Toni Ringlein requested better visuals on projects and indicated that they applicant needs to be more thorough. Dianne Marantz reported she saw story poles in Laguna Beach and indicated that she would like to see that more. Leo Cohen requested clarification on developers wanting to meet with the Commission. Craig gave details on what the Commission’s choices were in responding to requests from applicants. Vice Chair Hochanadel inquired on security gate follow-up he had made previously. 5. ADJOURNMENT – There being no further comments, Chair Marantz declared the meeting adjourned at 4:07 p.m. 3