Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18 Draft Minutes MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY – NOVEMBER 18, 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tanner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Van Tanner, Chair Sonia Campbell, Vice Chair Russ Campbell Connor Limont Mari Schmidt Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Limont led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the October 7 and October 21 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner R. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner S. Campbell, approving the October 7, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Limont abstained). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, approving the October 21, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent October 23, 2008 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 08-313 – LEILANI PARTNERS PD, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to move the west property line of Parcels 7, 8 and 9 of PM 34807 one foot to accommodate existing structure at 34-420 Gateway Drive. B. Case No. PMW 08-390 – JOHN J. NICHOLS, GRACE E. NICHOLS, STEVEN J. GORDON AND JULIE I. BORNSTEIN, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust the common lot line to match the existing block wall for property at 73-385 Pinyon Street and 73-460 Ironwood Street (APNs 627-322-008 and 017). C. Case No. PMW 07-20 – CAPRI W. CANTERRA, LLC AND WR XVIII, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver intended to initiate eliminating Parcel B, PMW 03-01, by creating roughly equal parts which are to be added to Parcels 1 and 2, Parcel Map 22794, adjacent and northerly of Parcel B. Property is located at 74-401 Hovley Lane East. Request for ratification of a one-year time extension granted by SB 1185 which applies to tentative tract and parcel maps that had not expired as of 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 July 15, 2008, unless a development agreement provides otherwise, for the following: D. Case No. TT 28818 – MARRIOTT SHADOW RIDGE, Project A tentative tract map for 999 timeshare units and an 18-hole golf course located at 36-750 Monterey Avenue. Project has a 20-year development agreement which expires 12/10/2018. E. Case No. TT 31490 – PONDEROSA HOMES II, Project A tentative tract map subdividing an 87.45-acre site for 237 single family lots located at 74-000 Gerald Ford Drive. SB 1185 extends the expiration date to 09/21/2011. F. Case No. TT 32655 – DESERT WELLS 237, Project A tentative tract map subdividing 69.26 acres into 270 single-family lots located at Gerald Ford Drive, Portola Avenue and Cook Street. SB 1185 extends the expiration date to 03/08/2010. Project has a ten-year development agreement which expires 03/08/2017. G. Case No. TT 33719 – RJT HOMES, Catavina Project A tentative tract map for 159 single-family homes on an 18.67-acre site at 38-301 Portola Avenue. SB 1185 extends the expiration date to 05/11/2010. H. Case No. TT 33837 – TAYLOR WOODROW, EMERALD BROOKS, Project A tentative tract map for 755 residential units, 605 condominium/single-family units, and 150 apartment units at 76-000 Gerald Ford Drive. SB 1185 extends the expiration date to 12/08/2011. I. Case No. TT 34055 – PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY, UNIVERSITY PARK, Project A tentative tract map for 244 single-family homes on a 42.2- acre site at 74-255 Gerald Ford Drive. SB 1185 extends the 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 expiration date to 04/04/2010. Project has a 10-year development agreement which expires 03/08/2017. J. Case No. TT 34057 – PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY, UNIVERSITY PARK, Project A tentative tract map for 141 single-family homes at 36-200 Pacific Avenue. SB 1185 extends the expiration to 04/04/2010. Project has a 10-year development agreement which expires 03/08/2017. K. Case No. TT 34074 – PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY, UNIVERSITY PARK, Project A tentative tract map for 72 single-family homes on an 81.6- acre site at 74-300 College Drive. SB 1185 extends the expiration date to 04/04/2010. Project has a 10-year development agreement which expires 03/08/2017. L. Case No. PM 31862 – INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK, Project A parcel map for a one-lot subdivision with a condominium overlay at the 191-space Indian Springs Mobile Home Park located at 49-305 Highway 111. SB 1185 extends the expiration date to 01/07/2010. M. Case No. TPM 34211 – WILSON JOHNSON CRE, Project A tentative parcel map subdividing 83.2 acres into 22 parcels located between Portola Avenue and Cook Street north of Gerald Ford Drive. SB 1185 extends the expiration date to 04/18/2010. N. Case No. TPM 34437 – GERALD FORD BUSINESS PARK, Project A tentative parcel map for a 100,500 square foot mixed use retail/office center with a two-story parking structure including one 4,500 square foot bank, four retail/restaurant spaces totaling 16,000 square feet, and 2 two-story office/retail buildings totaling 62,000 square feet located at 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive. SB 1185 extends the expiration date to 08/24/2009. O. Case No. TPM 34567 – LONGS DRUGS, Project A tentative parcel map for a 15,785 square foot Longs Drugs store that also merged six existing parcels into one at 74-527 Highway 111. SB 1185 extends the expiration date to 09/18/2010. P. Case No. TPM 35870 – NEDRAC INC. / DAVID CARDEN, Project A tentative parcel map subdividing a .50-acre parcel with an existing 6,935 square foot building into four separate parcels with common parking for sale purposes. Property is located at 76-621 Enfield Lane. SB 1185 extends the expiration date to 02/05/2011. Q. Case No. TPM 35978 – PALM DESERT ASSOCIATES LP, Project A tentative parcel map subdividing a .97-acre parcel with an existing 9,886 square foot building into five separate parcels with common parking for sale purposes located at 73-760 Dinah Shore. SB 1185 extends the expiration date to 05/20/2011. Commissioner Schmidt informed the Commission that she would be abstaining on Item L regarding the Indian Springs Mobile Home Park and asked if it would be appropriate to remove it from the Consent Calendar so that she could vote on the other items and abstain from that single item. Mr. Hargreaves said that would be preferable, and when that one item was discussed, Commissioner Schmidt should leave the room. Chairperson Tanner asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving Consent Calendar Item Nos. A-K and M-Q by minute motion. Chairperson Tanner asked for any discussion on the motion. Commissioner Limont noted that the City is going forward with energy and conservation with some of the actions they are taking as a City, and she understood that this extension was something mandated under SB 1185 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 for the extension, but wondered if they could be looking at, when these projects come back around, water tolerant landscape and energy efficiency. She just heard City Council required LEED Gold certification with the Holiday Inn. Ms. Aylaian said no, not on this. This was mandated by the State for a one-year extension. If the applicant returns at some point in the future to ask on their own for an extension or for concession on any of the conditions of approval, at that point it would open the negotiations again and they could look at making changes. At this point, this is granted regardless of anything that the City may or may not want to do. Commissioner Limont asked if this was under the approval they already received. Ms. Aylaian said that was correct. The conditions of approval that were granted at the time when individual projects were approved remain intact and did not change. Chairperson Tanner called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Schmidt left the room. L. Case No. PM 31862 – INDIAN SPRINGS MOBILE HOME PARK, Project A parcel map for a one-lot subdivision with a condominium overlay at the 191-space Indian Springs Mobile Home Park located at 49-305 Highway 111. SB 1185 extends the expiration date to 01/07/2010. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, granting approval Consent Calendar Item No. L by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 (with Commissioner Schmidt as an abstention). Commissioner Schmidt returned to the meeting. 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. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 A. Case No. TPM 36137 – MOLLERS GARDEN CENTER, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 12.17-acre parcel into four parcels for sale purposes. The property is located at 72-235 Painters Path. Ms. Grisa informed the Commission that there wouldn’t be a staff report. The City Attorney was requesting the addition of another condition of approval and the engineer wanted to confer with his client. Staff was requesting a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Hargreaves confirmed that was the recommendation and advised that the public hearing should be opened and the item continued to December 2, 2008. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked for any testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the matter. There was no response. Leaving the public hearing open, Chairperson Tanner entertained a motion to continue this matter to December 2, 2008. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, continuing Case No. TPM 36137 to December 2, 2008. Commissioner S. Campbell asked for clarification on the reason for the continuance. Mr. Hargreaves explained that there was an issue with respect to the map. What they were doing was taking a larger parcel and dividing it into four smaller parcels and there is an exception in the Subdivision Map Act if they do that, just divide it into four parcels. If it was less than four parcels, they could do it with a parcel map; if they did more than that, it had to be with a subdivision map. Sometimes the process gets abused where a large parcel gets divided into three smaller parcels and one bigger parcel and then a little while later they subdivide it again into four parcels. So they get a subdivision that kind of evades some of the protections of the Subdivision Map Act. They typically recommend when they have one of these subdivisions that if they were going for the four parcels, they put a condition on the large parcel that it won’t be subdivided again. But this is a condition they hadn’t had a chance to check with the owner on or work with Engineering to find out if it is appropriate in this circumstance, so the recommendation is a continuance to allow them the opportunity to work through it and find out whether it is an issue or not. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 Commissioner S. Campbell asked for and received clarification that the owner owns all this property and wants to subdivide it in part for the family. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Chairperson Tanner noted there was a motion and second on the floor to continue this to December 2, 2008. There was no further discussion and he called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. VAR 08-261 – MICHAEL AND MARIANNE TOIA, Applicants Request for approval of a variance to allow the reduction of a required minimum side yard setback from five feet to zero feet to allow construction of a golf cart shed located on property line for an existing single family home located at 46- 020 Burroweed Lane. Mr. Swartz explained that the subject property is located at the southeast corner of Burroweed Lane and Ironwood Street. The property is zoned R-2 8,000; to the south, east and west is also R-2 8,000, and to the north is zoned R-1 20,000. He stated that many of the properties that were built along Burroweed Lane were built when the property was under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside, so staff asked the applicant to get a survey to find the location of the property line. That was done and it has now been approved by the County of Riverside and is being recorded. It falls right through the common wall. On September 2, 2008, the variance was heard by the Planning Commission. There was a long discussion and after a 2-2 vote, the Commission forwarded the case to City Council. On October 9, 2008, the variance was heard by the City Council, there was a brief discussion, and the Council referred the case back to the Planning Commission. And the City Council did recommend to the applicant and to the neighbor, if they recalled there was a dispute between the neighbor and the applicant, to work it out. The City Council said that life is too short and they should work this matter out. The applicant and the neighbor, Ms. Pride, have worked out their issues and concerns and have come up with a mutual agreement, which is only between the two property owners and not with the City. The mutual agreement was distributed to the Commission. He asked if they needed a minute to go over it. Chairperson Tanner asked if everyone had had an 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 opportunity to read it. Commission concurred. Mr. Swartz explained that if the variance is approved, there would need to be a condition added since the agreement is based on the common wall being raised to the highest point of the golf cart shed. It would be Community Development Condition No. 6 to read, “That the applicant must obtain a building permit to raise the common wall located at the southern property line to the tallest point of the golf cart shed, but in no event higher than eight feet.” He displayed photos of the existing neighborhood showing that the structures are built right up to the property line. He said that some of these homes are condos and some single family homes. The applicant was requesting approval of a variance to build within the setback. Mr. Swartz stated that it has been shown that building to property line is consistent within the neighborhood. All the findings can be made and staff recommended approval by adoption of the findings and the resolution, subject to the conditions. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Schmidt asked if these two parties agree to reconstruct the wall, and either one of them disagrees with something that is going on, it becomes a civil matter and not something that the City would review. Mr. Swartz said that in regard to the wall, the applicant is responsible to build the wall no higher than eight feet, but anything else in that agreement would become a civil matter. Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that the City has control over this during the construction and permits, etc. Mr. Swartz replied yes, just for the common wall. Commissioner Schmidt expressed concern about the drainage; that needed to be really addressed and moved away from that wall. Mr. Swartz said the structure still had to be permitted, so during that process it would be. Chairperson Tanner asked if during that process of permitting, it also had to conform to building codes. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Chairperson Tanner said that if it’s not at this point to conformity, it would have to be rebuilt or a part/portion of it. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Commissioner S. Campbell said they were talking about the wall. There is a zero lot line and that was still going to stay there. Was that correct? Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Commissioner S. Campbell said it would be about certain heights of the wall. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Commissioner S. Campbell noted that when Mr. Toia bought this home, it was not an attached home; it had a common wall and five feet on Ms. Pride’s side and five feet on Mr. Toia’s side. And he built the building right on the zero lot line. She asked if he was going to undo what he had done and then take out permits to do it correctly, because this didn’t solve the 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 problem with just the size or the height of the wall. Not to her. Mr. Swartz said he would still have to pull a building permit. He wouldn’t have to tear down the structure, he would have to show plans for the structure being built and if the structure was not built per plan, then he would have to tear down part of that building and build it to the current codes. Commissioner S. Campbell said they again went back to the fact that people can go ahead and build something without a permit and then still be granted approval even though they don’t have a permit to build. Mr. Swartz noted that there is a section in the building code that somebody who does build without a permit can be fined and that was determined by the building official. So if they wanted, that could be placed as a condition. Commissioner S. Campbell noted they had another builder on Portola that did construction in homes and built smaller apartments without a permit and he had to undo a lot of things and get the permits to do it and sometimes he didn’t complete the work because he ran out of money. But he had to undo some of the things because he didn’t have a permit. The laws still apply and permits are needed to build. That was her feeling. Chairperson Tanner stated that if they vote to approve the variance, it didn’t take away the responsibility of the Toias to get a proper permit and build within the code, and if permits are not granted and code is not adhered to, then he would have to tear it down and start all over again. He said she was right; their decision tonight was to approve or disapprove the variance for the five-foot setback. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Commissioner Limont asked hypothetically, it hasn’t been built, they walk into the Planning Department and say this is what they would like to do, what staff’s response would be. Mr. Swartz said they would look at the setbacks, and if they wanted to build within the setbacks, then they would explain to them they would look at the lot, look at the location, and explain to them that they would need a variance to build. Commissioner Limont asked if they would have to come before the Planning Commission to ask for the exception and then, if approved, they could go forward. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Chairperson Tanner said they could go through the process. Commissioner Limont agreed with Commissioner S. Campbell from a standpoint of they didn’t want to set a precedent of having folks build without a permit, and they don’t want to send out a message of just go ahead and build it and they could wiggle their way through it type of thing. But then, if Planning Department is going to be really diligent on this and say sure, they will make sure everything is up to code and if it isn’t, it has to come down. Because she agreed with Commissioner S. Campbell, the permit process is there for a reason, but if they had to pull it down 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 because it doesn’t fit within the permit process anyway, she started to feel a little bit safer with regard to the decision. Commissioner S. Campbell noted there were several other things that were done without permits to the house. It seemed like things were going on and going on throughout the years that were being built. Commissioner Limont agreed and thought that was a very good point. Commissioner R. Campbell stated that he would also like to go on record, because this is a serious concern of his, and they have to be very very careful about opening this up and letting people abuse it, and as long as they could keep that from happening, then there are less people who are going to come before this body looking for variances; and also abuse what has happened. Commissioner Schmidt thought it was wonderful that Mrs. Pride has consented to this, but reading through the material, she had the very distinct feeling that she has just been almost brow-beaten into submission here and she just didn’t like this. She thought staff had bent over backwards to try and accommodate someone who has built something illegally. Quite honestly, looking at the pictures of this, her mother had a wonderful saying, Queen Anne in front and a Mary Anne behind, and that’s exactly what this structure is. It’s clear that the fascia street side of the house is much improved and the landscaping and the whole house looks a lot better than it did a few years ago, but the fact is that this man broke the ordinances of this city, which in essence is breaking the law, and now he is going to maybe abide by it; he’s getting what he wants. And she didn’t like it and wasn’t sure she could vote for this. She was sorry, but having read her plea (Mrs. Pride's), Commissioner Schmidt didn’t know how Mrs. Pride could live in the neighborhood because there has been some kind of crusade. She seemed to be the only one. No one else’s property is impacted by this but hers and she has rights as a property owner. And Sonia was absolutely correct. She’s stuck next to this person. Whether or not it is added or detracted from property values wasn’t really their concern. Someone had to talk her out of this, otherwise she couldn’t vote for it. There were no other questions of staff. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. MICHAEL AND MRS. MARIANNE TOIA, 46-020 Burroweed Lane in Palm Desert, stated that they were purely sorry that they exercised bad judgment. They came in with the original intentions 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 three years ago to get a permit, and through dealing with this five- foot setback and not understanding the logic that there was already not a five-foot setback because their awning that had been with the house for 25 years went to the very same wall, they exercised poor judgment. They weren’t going to defend that and were sorry. They have gone through this hell for 11 months now; it hasn’t been fun for Suzanne either. A lot of things have been said back and forth that were hurtful and not necessarily accurate. He knew they read some things about them that make them really vilified, but some of it was done in the spirit of bad feelings. Yesterday at about two o’clock he got a call from Ms. Pride. She had a valued friend come to her house, someone she’s gone back many years with, and they really sincerely wanted to talk this thing through. He had made an effort since the City Council meeting where they recommended that they get together and try to work this out. It’s documented and on file that he was researching alternative materials for the block wall, researching different ways to do this to please both parties, to no avail. But yesterday at three o’clock he got a call from Suzanne. They went over there and with the help of her friend, who was extremely helpful, they worked out a solution where her biggest complaint would be the ability to obscure her line of view to the golf cart barn; that was worked out and he talked to people in the Building & Safety Department and a permit could easily be secured to accommodate that. She was as happy as they were, literally in tears, both of them. They hugged twice when the meeting was over and he could tell them that no one was being coerced; this meeting was initialized by Suzanne. He asked the City if they both needed to appear tonight because Suzanne felt that by signing this she wanted to be done with it. He told her it wasn’t necessary to come. She could have been here to tell them they worked it out and maybe in hindsight he should have told her to come anyway, but they have worked it out, this agreement was written in the best faith of both parties, and he was confident they could put it behind them. Mr. Toia thought they were acting in accordance with the request of the City Council to try and work this out themselves. He hoped some weight would be placed on the fact that they have taken the request to heart and they have worked it out. He promised them that no coercion on either side to do this other than…they were all good people and this thing went way out of control and they were trying to take control and put it back in line again and they were just 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 hoping that this Commission would put their seal of approval on it so they could all go forward. He didn’t think any of them could take another month of this hell. They were wrong, but at some point…Mrs. Toia spoke up and said they learned a lot through the last 11 months of going through this. Mr. Toia said if anyone looked at what they went through the last 11 months and said that’s a great idea, think I’ll try it, they needed to have their head examined. He has been through 15 meetings; he has met with the City Attorney, Carlos Ortega, Russell Grance, Lauri Aylaian, and probably ten other people. He has been to the ARC (Architectural Review Commission) twice, been to the Planning Commission twice; if somebody looks at this and says that’s a great shortcut to avoid getting a permit, they’re certifiable. They are into this thing for five grand just to be before them, and it was $5,000 quite frankly they never would have spent. They would have pulled up the pegs and called it a day, except that they understood that this variance code was not intended to discriminate against things that already existed. If they had not called off the people who were going to speak here tonight on their behalf, there would have been a Mr. Ghidella here showing them pictures of his illegal cart barn built exactly on the wall and preexisting before somebody complained about it. He came down and got a variance for it; he never had to go to ARC, he never had to go to Planning Commission, and it was kind of in line with what they were presenting tonight, it was because he and his neighbor got together and the neighbor dropped the complaint. He (Mr. Ghidella) was also going to show them pictures of four other cart barns on the same Shadow Mountain golf course that were all in the same bailiwick. Not that other people did it made it right for them, but he was saying it has happened. They made a mistake. At some point the punishment needed to fit the crime. He thought they paid that already. They both thanked the Commission for their consideration. Chairperson Tanner asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. DAVID HUNSACKER informed Commission that he is a real estate appraiser. He did not know Mr. or Mrs. Toia; he did know Suzanne Pride. She asked him to come to her house and give a professional opinion about the appraisal of her home. He looked at it and noticed that there was a very adverse effect on her home from the structure next door. He considered this to be a little bit like 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 a home with security bars on it. There are many neighborhoods around the area where security bars are not only welcome, but sometimes they are necessary. If these security bars do not have a safety release, it is his job to tell the owner that their loan will not be approved until the bars are taken down. It becomes a hazard to the people that live there. They have a five-foot setback line on this home. This man broke the law in that he built not one golf cart garage up against the wall of the other house, but he built two structures; one was not being discussed here. One was a bedroom and bath addition and he was not paying taxes on either one of these. He is a lawbreaker; he is a thief. He could not believe that the Council or the Commission would even consider granting this man a variance. He thanked them. There were no other comments. Chairperson Tanner invited the applicant to readdress the Commission with rebuttal comments. Mr. Toia stated that he and Ms. Pride spoke four or five times since the agreement yesterday. They agreed, and it was in everyone’s best interest, to call people they felt were going to speak on their behalf and tell them they had resolved it and not to churn the water. He didn’t know if this gentleman was here at her continued request, or just that he wasn’t notified that this was not appropriate because there were a lot of other terms and points, in fact, that he would have liked to have presented tonight but thought that this matter was resolved and decided to take the least painful way for everyone and not have ten more people speaking on their behalf. So he didn’t know that Suzanne was even aware that Mr. Hunsacker was here or that she wanted him to speak on her behalf in that respect. He thanked them. Chairperson Tanner closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner S. Campbell stated that her vote still stands as it was at the previous meeting and her motion was to deny the variance. Commissioner R. Campbell seconded the motion for discussion purposes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, denying Case No. VAR 08-261. Chairperson Tanner asked for any discussion. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 Commissioner Schmidt asked what would happen with the structure if they denied the variance. Ms. Aylaian said that if the variance was denied, it was likely it would be appealed to the City Council. If the City Council were to uphold the denial, then the structure would have to be demolished. Commissioner Schmidt noted what is permitted is the fascia / new cart entrance and door. Ms. Aylaian said that was correct. It goes all the way to the common wall. That was legally constructed. Chairperson Tanner asked for confirmation that that was basically in existence. Mr. Swartz showed a picture of the existing structure when the applicant purchased the home. He said the applicant did get a permit to put in a wall. He showed a picture of the common wall and said there is a wall abutting it. Chairperson Tanner said the original structure was… Commissioner Limont said a lean-to. Commissioner Limont asked for confirmation that they were permitted on the drawing shown. Mr. Swartz concurred. Commissioner Schmidt asked if there was a roof structure permitted for the existing door and wall. Mr. Swartz said no, the roof and garage door were not permitted. It was just a gate enclosure. Chairperson Tanner said it extended to the common wall. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Commissioner Schmidt said the gate was removed and a new electric door of some kind was put in, but the door was not permitted. Mr. Swartz said no. Commissioner Schmidt said that the roof over it was not permitted. Mr. Swartz said no. Chairperson Tanner said that the old gate attached to the common wall was. Mr. Swartz stated that the old structure was never permitted. They couldn’t find any permits on that structure, but noted that the structure was there for 25 years. Commissioner Schmidt asked if there were any existing structures that have been permitted and built in this community since it has been in the city of Palm Desert, or if they were all prior construction. Mr. Swartz said some of them had been constructed in the city. Commissioner Schmidt asked if they were constructed with permits. Mr. Swartz said yes; Mr. Toia brought up that a couple of other golf cart barns, he wasn’t sure on the addresses, but that they were built without permits and then they came and did get permits after that. Chairperson Tanner asked if they also requested a variance for the five-foot setback. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. He said the applicant had photos if they would like to see them. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 Commissioner Limont thought this went into the conversation they were having regarding setting a precedent. There are multiple residents out there that feel they can convert golf cart carports into enclosed structures and then come back. So they’ve already established a pretty poor path for people to go down. They were not talking one, they weren’t talking two, they were talking several now. Based on that, she thought they made a mistake that they shouldn’t continue. She agreed with her colleagues. Commissioner R. Campbell stated that he went over to talk to Ms. Pride on Saturday to take a look at it and spent some time with her. It didn’t take very long to notice that this lady has been beaten down. She was very nervous, she was flighty, and she basically told him that if she didn’t get the variance denied, she was going to have to give up, she couldn’t take this anymore and she would just give it to her attorney to handle. As he looked at the different things that have been discussed, and he had several comments that he wasn’t going to bore the body with, but he felt that even though there was maybe no coercion, maybe there was coercion through the back door because she is by herself and didn’t really have anyone close by to lean on; she had her son-in-law, but he wasn’t close by, and it wasn’t easy. He was prepared to vote against it and he hadn’t changed his mind. Chairperson Tanner stated that his vote originally was to approve the variance and that hadn’t changed. One of the things that he was looking at is that it, even though the permit process was not done correctly, the Toias have shown that they are willing to work to get the permitting process done correctly and also to conform with the codes, and now they have a letter that has been presented to them by the neighbor who complained about the project, and he was looking at this from that standpoint. They had a denial on the floor, and they did with a motion and a second, and he would be voting against that motion. He called for a vote. Motion carried 4-1. The motion to deny the variance carried 4-1 (Chairperson Tanner voted no). Ms. Aylaian explained that staff needed to prepare a resolution of denial to bring back at the next Planning Commission meeting (December 2). Mr. Hargreaves suggested continuing the hearing until the next meeting. Commissioner S. Campbell indicated that they closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schmidt didn’t understand why they would continue the public hearing. Commissioner S. Campbell thought they would just have it under Miscellaneous to vote on the resolution of denial. It wasn’t a public 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 hearing for the next meeting. Mr. Hargreaves said that was fine. Commissioner S. Campbell said that was correct. Mr. Hargreaves said there was a motion to continue the item to the next meeting. Chairperson Tanner said for Miscellaneous purposes only. Commissioner S. Campbell said it was just for the purpose of adopting the resolution, but it wouldn’t be under public hearings. They weren’t opening the public hearing. Just the resolution under Miscellaneous. Chairperson Tanner asked if that was her motion. It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, directing staff to prepare the resolution for adoption under the Miscellaneous section of the December 2 agenda. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner S. Campbell reported that the next meeting would be November 19, 2008. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont also reported that their next meeting was November 19, 2008. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt noted that there would be a meeting in December, but offered the opportunity to Commissioner R. Campbell to serve as the liaison. Commissioner R. Campbell agreed. Staff advised making a minute motion changing the Planning Commission liaison to the Project Area 4 Committee to Russ Campbell. Commissioner Schmidt offered to serve as an alternate. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2008 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Chairperson Tanner, appointing Commissioner Russ Campbell as liaison to the Project Area 4 Committee. Motion carried 5-0. D. PARKS & RECREATION Chairperson Tanner reviewed the discussion items and actions of the last meeting. He also noted that there would be a joint meeting with the City Council and the Parks & Recreation Commission to study the aquatic center in December. XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, adjourning the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. ___________________________ LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST: ____________________________ VAN G. TANNER, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 18