Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-08 Draft Minutes MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY – SEPTEMBER 2, 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 (arrived at 6:05 p.m.) Russ Campbell Connor Limont Members Absent: Mari Schmidt Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner (arrived at 6:08 p.m.) Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner R. Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the August 5, 2008 meeting minutes. Staff submitted revisions to the Staff Present section of the draft minutes. Commission concurred with the corrections. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, approving the August 5, 2008 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried 3-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent August 28, 2008 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 08-138 – COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment to accommodate a new office building development at 75-515 Hovley Lane East. B. Case No. PMW 08-190 – GOLDIE HAWN AND KURT RUSSELL, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two existing lots into one at 535 Mesquite Hills. C. Case No. PMW 08-268 – SACRED HEART CHURCH c/o DUDEK, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge an existing vacant parcel with the existing school parcel to accommodate an approved school expansion between property at 43-775 Deep Canyon Road and 43-710 Florine Avenue. Commissioner Limont asked if Consent Calendar Item B was simply to allow the applicants a larger lot and no exceptions were being requested. Ms. Aylaian said that was correct, no exceptions were being requested for a larger development; it would possibly be for construction of a separate guest house. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0 (Commissioners S. Campbell and Schmidt were absent). Chairperson Tanner noted for the record that Commissioner S. Campbell was present. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 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/CUP 08-251 – PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council for approval of a Precise Plan of Design and Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a new four-story, 128-room Holiday Inn hotel that will be LEED certified with silver rating, including a height exception to allow a maximum height of 54 feet. The subject project is located at 36-400 Technology Drive. Chairperson Tanner noted that there was a proposed change to the conditions of approval. Staff was requesting the addition of Public Works Department Condition No. 21 to read, “Retention basin shown in public right-of-way adjacent to the overpass is not allowed and shall be relocated. No public right-of-way shall be used for retention.” Mr. Swartz reviewed the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and the Planning Commission resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Case No. PP/CUP 08-251. Commissioner Limont read the projections for parking and asked if there were any other hotels where staff had similar data they could look at that included a restaurant, a conference center, and where they discounted the parking spaces because they thought they were normally hotel guests. Mr. Swartz replied the Candlewood Hotel, which was the last hotel approved with a reduction for the restaurant. Commissioner Limont asked if there was something from a couple of years ago so they could see. She looked at this and questioned where staff was going to park. Were they going to be upsetting Starbucks? Were they going to run out of parking? Mr. Swartz stated that the applicant was doing a reciprocal parking easement with Starbucks, but the requirement was for 174 parking spaces and they were providing 198 stalls. Commissioner Limont knew from a personal level that she attends meetings that are held in hotels in Palm Desert and elsewhere, and was using up their parking stalls. She thanked him. Chairperson Tanner pointed out that the conference room is also parked by the number of chairs. He asked for clarification: the conference room 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 would have 104 chairs and they were only requiring 35 spaces. Was it really one car per chair? Mr. Joy thought it was probably one parking space for every 35 square feet of area for a conference room. Commissioner Limont asked if there was covered parking being provided or any shade structure. Mr. Swartz indicated that they would be providing landscaping for the shade; staff never worked with them on covered parking. There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JOHN VUKSIC with Prest Vuksic Architects, 46311 Goldenrod Lane in Palm Desert, mentioned on the parking that the project met the shading requirement. They have a lot of landscaping on the project; it was very generously landscaped with drought-tolerant trees and plants. He said they continued to work on this project since it had been submitted to continue to get comments and make a good project better. They designed it to LEED Certified Standard as Kevin mentioned, which includes things such as drought-tolerant plants, bike racks and bike storage, which might be especially useful here because it is close to the university campus and could actually see bikes coming, students visiting parents at the hotel, and things like that. They were using material with recycle content and beyond what was in the LEED calculations, they were still looking at using alternative energy as well. They couldn’t commit to that yet because they were waiting on the cost, but a couple of systems they were looking at were photovoltaic panels, as well as a hydrogen cell to create energy. Another idea that was brought up that they would like to incorporate was a pet park; they have a retention area where they thought they could get some grass for a pet park. Also, they talked about signage a little bit and something he wanted to mention, which was not part of the submittal package, but he wanted to mention that they showed the signage on the building and he was comfortable in saying for the record that it was their intent to have it look as shown on the plans. He thought it was understated and not what they would expect of a hotel. It worked nicely with the architecture and was of proper scale, so it blended in and didn’t draw the eye in in an obtrusive way. He also wanted to mention that they would have art that is part of this project that is part of the Art in Public Places Program. They recognized that this is an important off ramp, the Cook Street off 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 ramp, which is about 30 feet above the building pad. He thought it was the highest in the city. But they could see the top level of the building clearly from Cook Street and they recognized the importance of that and really worked to make that an appropriate architectural statement and wanted to incorporate art on the building which was an idea brought up because it would be the most visible and would add another layer to the building. He said he was present to answer any questions, as was the owner of the project. He thanked them. Commissioner Limont noted that Mr. Vuksic said when he first brought this project to Palm Desert it was three-stories and asked what the height was at that point. Mr. Vuksic said it was a story lower, so it was probably 12 or 14 feet lower, something like that. Commissioner Limont asked if it had pretty much the same design. Mr. Vuksic said there was no design; they were just interested in concept at that point. She didn’t want to brush past what Mr. Vuksic was saying as far as the elevation for the Cook Street ramp and that type of thing, but thought it would fly in the face of the height ordinance. They received a letter from one of the neighbors saying they came in with their project and were told no, there are height limitations, so they stuck to it and that’s how it was approved, and now these guys are coming in asking for an exception and she felt if they were going to grant exceptions, they should be for very specific reasons, not just because every other hotel in the neighborhood has received an exception. That means there is something wrong with the ordinance. Mr. Vuksic agreed. Where this project differed from that one is that this one is next to the Cook Street off ramp, which is an ominous mass, a huge mass. So 90+% of the people were going to view the building from that side and it’s in a deep hole. Really, at four stories, the part above them is a one-story building. Commissioner Limont asked if at three-stories he just didn’t feel from an architectural standpoint there was something he could come up with that he felt would really present his client properly. Mr. Vuksic said they wouldn’t be catching the building at a good level; they would basically be looking at the top line of the building 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 and at first he was a little concerned that they would have a four- story building and it would be harder to get approved, but as he started designing it and really thinking about it, he was actually pleased it was a four-story building because it is a long, narrow site and it’s a long, narrow building. The building is 300 feet long; that’s as long as a football field. As a four-story structure, it really composed much better as a piece of architecture. It looked more to scale and allowed them to do some things as far as creating a play of masses they couldn’t do nearly as well as with a three-story building. Commissioner Limont thanked him. Commissioner Campbell asked if it was right that the roofline of the building was not really 54 feet, it was just the enhancement on the front of the entrance and had nothing to do with the rest of the building. Mr. Vuksic said that was right; the huge majority of the building was at 48 feet; that 54 feet was just to enhance it and break up that line. Commissioner Limont asked how seriously Mr. Vuksic was thinking about solar panels. Mr. Vuksic said they were actually thinking about doing part of it in solar panels; the cost to do it all was astronomical, so they were looking at what part they could do. Commissioner Limont encouraged him to go down that route, especially with the way the City is going. Mr. Vuksic said they would like to do that, it was a good thing to do. MR. CODY SMALL, one of the owners of the Holiday Inn project, 2621 Bayshore Drive in Newport Beach, for the record, reading the conditions for the first time in the last 30 minutes, he stated that there is a condition, a Special Condition No. 19 in the staff report which relates to stabilization of an overpass slope area. This condition, No. 19, at the beginning they had a concern about the cost being price prohibitive being a 35-40 foot slope and the stabilization of it and trying to get quantification of the cost. They had a meeting with the City Manager, Carlos Ortega, and they discussed the issue to the point where he understood their condition, meaning the burden it would place on the development, and they received a call about two weeks after their meeting and Mr. Ortega mentioned that the condition had been taken care of; they would not be responsible for the slope stabilization. So this 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 was catching them off guard being a written condition from staff. It was something that was brought up on the design review level and that’s when they did meet with Carlos and wanted to make that a note for them when they go to the next level. Aside from that, he thanked them for having them number one on the agenda. That had never happened before in 28 years of development, so that was nice. He complimented the staff; they enjoyed the professional relationship that was there working with the entire staff moving through to get to this point. It had been about a six-month process, it didn’t happen overnight, and he wanted to compliment those people who were part of guiding, directing and giving them good insight as to where they needed to go for approval. He thanked them. For the record, Chairperson Tanner pointed out that under Special Conditions there were two number 19’s and the first 19 referred to a public easement required for a bikepath along the easterly property line to connect with the existing pathway to the south and extend to the north property line. He said that would be 19a. 19b would be the one the applicant was referring to, and that was, “Project is required to landscape/stabilize the Cook Street overpass slope.” They heard that the City Manager has comments on that and asked for clarification. Ms. Aylaian was unaware of that conversation, but a representative from the Public Works Department might know something about that. Mr. Joy was also unaware of that discussion, but noted that this project would be going to City Council and clarification on that matter could be obtained at that time. Ms. Aylaian said they could leave that condition in the resolution, subject to clarification at the City Council. Chairperson Tanner asked if the conditions would be renumbered since there were two 19’s. Staff concurred. Chairperson Tanner asked if they should be separate conditions. Ms. Aylaian concurred and clarified that they should be numbered consecutively. She also recommended that Condition 19b stay in subject to clarification prior to going to City Council. Chairperson Tanner asked for any testimony in FAVOR of the project. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner asked for any testimony in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Limont thought it was great that they were doing a LEED Silver project. She thought that was wonderful that they were shooting for that; it definitely helped everyone. She thought architecturally it was a nice building. She wasn’t really good with that type of thing, but she really liked the curves. More specifically, she just thought that they as a City needed 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 to stick with our ordinances. She felt they weren’t playing a fair game when they said to one developer that they could have four stories, and to the one that just came before them that they could only have three. She hadn’t made a decision on her vote just yet. She also thought there needed to be a little more work with regard to the parking and the shade. She thought there should be shade structures. She didn’t know if anyone tried to find parking this summer in our parking lots in Palm Desert, but our trees haven’t filled out the way we wanted them to, so she was a little bit hesitant to rely on the landscaping to provide shade. Commissioner R. Campbell liked the building itself, especially on the sides; they’ve stepped it down to help soften the height of the building. He agreed that they had to be careful with height, but if he understood it correctly, City Council has approved height variances. They chose the lowest hole, and staff determined that people coming down, if they left it at three, would probably be seeing the air-conditioning ducts and other things on top of the building, which would not be all that attractive. There was also the chance it would be a little hard to find the sign. So at this point in time he would support what they were doing. Commissioner S. Campbell was also very much in favor of the project, even though it was a four-story hotel. Location had everything to do with it. It was in a hole and Council already approved the Candlewood Hotel at 52 feet. This being 54 feet, she didn’t think it would be a detraction to people coming down the freeway down the slope and would actually be more attractive than having a boxy building the first thing they saw. It had nice flowing lines and hopefully they would stay with the colors presented. As Mr. Vuksic mentioned, the signs would not be obtrusive and would be nicely done, and quietly done. It was a great location and she was in favor of the project. Chairperson Tanner stated that after looking at the project and visiting the site several times and coming in off of Cook Street, he thought this would be a nice addition to the gateway of Palm Desert. Cook Street would continue to be a gateway into Palm Desert. He liked the colors, the softness of it, the rooflines were not hard, and they rolled a bit. With proper landscaping along Cook Street, the entranceway, it would do nothing but enhance that part of Palm Desert. So he, too, was in favor and asked for a motion. Commissioner Campbell said she would move for approval, subject to clarification of Public Works Department Condition No. 19(b). 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Limont voted no, Commissioner Schmidt was absent). It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2484, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP/CUP 08-251, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Limont voted no, Commissioner Schmidt was absent). B. Case Nos. PP 07-13 and CUP 07-16 – CRAIG SMITH, FOUNTAINHEAD INDIO, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit to construct a 6,100 square foot tire store located at 78-018 Country Club Drive. Chairperson Tanner noted that staff was requesting a revision to Public Works Department Special Condition No. 19 as follows: “12’ public easement is required for a bikepath along west and north property lines with any landscaping within this area subject to removal upon construction of the bikepath precluding installation of any trees. Provisions for vehicular access shall also be provided through this area.” Mr. Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report and recommended adoption of the findings and the draft Planning Commission Resolution approving Case Nos. PP 07-13 and CUP 07-16 with deletion of Community Development Department Condition No. 6; he stated that the fee was already paid when phase one was developed. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. CRAIG SMITH, Fountainhead Development, 3636 Brook Street in Newport Beach, stated that he was present with the development team to answer any questions the Commission might have on the project. It was the third phase in the project they have been working on for about three years now. Chairperson Tanner asked if they were currently working on Phase 4 and if there were any plans for development of Phase 4. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 Mr. Smith stated that the property is available, but there was no interest at this time. He confirmed that they own the entire four acres. As interest and market conditions allow, they intended to develop. Chairperson Tanner asked about his experience in this industry. He stated that the only things he did out of school were shopping centers, either brokerage or development. He’d had two jobs, one was with CVRE in Los Angeles for ten years and the second was starting the company in 1995. He thought their company had developed 48 shopping center developments. Chairperson Tanner asked if Mr. Smith had experience with this particular tenant. Mr. Smith said he hadn’t, although they did their homework (it was a Firestone franchisee) and they have 12 locations and have been in business since 1965, the same people, so they had a very good operational track record. Commissioner R. Campbell asked if they thought it would be a problem having Goodyear on the corner diagonally across the street. Mr. Smith said they accepted that as part of the competition and were prepared to compete. There were no other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Tanner asked for testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this project. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Limont stated that she wasn’t crazy about the building. She knew it would supply tires and brakes and they weren’t looking to bring folks in other than with their cars. The only objections she had, and she knew they met all the criteria and that type of thing, but from the pictures, she thought it looked stark and straight up. She asked Chairperson Tanner if that was down by his office and if buildings were taller around there. Chairperson Tanner said they were two stories. Commissioner Limont said it met all the criteria, but to her it was not a real wonderful building. Commissioner R. Campbell said he was a little stunned because he thought the building would really dress up that neighborhood, so she surprised him. He liked the flow and the different colors and that they broke it up. He said he lives very close to there and could walk, except he would want to take his 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 car. He thought where it was situated located near the railroad tracks, the building would fit in there just fine. Commissioner S. Campbell concurred with Commissioner R. Campbell. She thought the location was right. Washington Street and Interstate 10 were there. They are Planning Commissioners and the project goes through the Architectural Review Committee and there are architects there. If they would approve something like this, she thought the Planning Commission should stand behind them also. She thought it was nicely done. Chairperson Tanner concurred and asked for a motion to approve the project as presented with the amendments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner R. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt absent). It was moved by Commissioner R. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2484, approving Case Nos. PP 07-13 and CUP 07-16, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt absent). C. 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. Ms. Aylaian explained that the case before the Commission represented a request for a variance in side yard setbacks for a golf cart barn. By law, a variance requires that very specific findings of fact be made by the Planning Commission. The findings and the request in this case are very straight forward; however, the issue is interwoven with layers of peripheral issues that are of importance to both the property owner and the neighboring property owner, but did not bear strictly on the findings that need to be made. Staff asked both the applicant and the neighboring property owner to focus their comments and focus their issues on the findings that need to be made for a side yard setback variance by the Planning Commission and when public testimony is open, asked that members of the audience who are 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 concerned about the matter also focus their comments on the issue directly in front of the Planning Commission. Mr. Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the findings and adoption of the resolution approving Case No. VAR 08-261. Commissioner S. Campbell read that some of these homes have a zero lot line and some are cottages that are separate. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Swartz replied that was correct. Commissioner S. Campbell asked if the Toia home and the Pride home were both sold as cottages or if they had a zero lot line. They didn’t have a zero lot line from the looks of it, so they were cottages with a side yard of five feet on each side of the property line wall. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Commissioner S. Campbell indicated that they now have a zero lot line on Mr. Toia’s side, but Ms. Pride still had the five feet on her side, but they were originally sold as cottages, like individual homes. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Referring to the slide where the gutters were added, Chairperson Tanner asked if a small pitch to the roofline was being requested. Mr. Swartz said yes and explained that the Architectural Review Commission placed that as a condition. Chairperson Tanner clarified that the pitch would actually bring it up and the gutters would be off of the wall. Mr. Swartz said yes, it would have to be moved. Referring to the drawn approval by the City, Commissioner Limont noted that the golf cart barn roof appeared to be level with the wall, yet the end result was taller. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Commissioner Limont asked if that was adjusted as it was being built or if it was part of this whole difficulty they were facing right now. Mr. Swartz confirmed it was part of this whole difficulty. Commissioner R. Campbell stated that if he understood after doing some questioning, that anything that’s approved there’s permits that have been pulled and it was basically like starting from scratch and architectural drawings had to be made and the whole process would have to be gone through as if it wasn’t there at this point in time. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Commissioner Limont asked if the variance would simply keep them from having to tear the whole thing down. Mr. Swartz replied that the variance allowed the applicant to build within the setback, but the applicant did have approval for the gate enclosure. Commissioner Limont noted that they pulled the permit, did the gate enclosure, and that was where we sort of lost touch with them and they continued to make it a full garage. Mr. Swartz said yes. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 Commissioner Limont asked if this had just come to our attention since about April. Mr. Swartz said yes. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. AND MRS. MICHAEL TOIA, 46020 Burroweed, came forward. Mr. Toia stated that he had a couple of pictures that showed the before and after pictures of the cart barn and he could pass them out or dispense with them, either way. As stated in the Background Section II of the staff report, the present cart barn replaced the old dilapidated one. They initially applied for a permit for an enclosed golf cart barn. They were told by the City Permit Specialist that they could get a permit for the front wall, but they would have to abide by the setback for the aluminum roof and he told them this was really not their desire, that they would like to do an enclosed barn, and they added at that point that they had discussed this matter with their next door neighbor and she was fully on board with getting rid of the old structure and replacing it with something newer. He noted that this thing was built about two years ago and for two years there were no complaints on it and everything was fine. Then in the January timeframe, his neighbor lodged a complaint and the rest was kind of history. He knew the Planning Commissioners all read the staff report, but to them (he and his wife) it was compelling between Sections II and V of the staff report it referred at least five times to the fact that many of the homes in the neighborhood were built directly on that property line and they share common walls without a setback on one side. They felt this use was compatible with that. It went on further to state that the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of that specified regulation would deprive them of privileges enjoyed by the other neighbors in that community. It was already pointed out that if this variance is approved, it still allows a four-foot plus setback from the common wall to Ms. Pride’s home on her side of the wall. Mr. Toia stated that nearly all of the people in their immediate area have signed a petition in support of the golf cart barn as shown in the staff report. If it were not for three homes: one was vacant and two were under construction, the petition of 41 signatures would nearly have been unanimous. Everyone in the neighborhood and up into the corner houses on Ironwood had signed the petition in favor. In addition to this petition, 11 of the neighbors took it a step farther and wrote testimonials, but only 6 of those testimonials appeared in the 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 staff report, so his wife just passed out the other five; they were written in the January timeframe for submission this evening. He indicated that Ms. Pride’s objections to their golf cart barn have covered many topics over the past eight months. They tried and thought successfully in the past to address her concerns, but as they have addressed one concern, it seems to switch direction into a new area of objection. In attachments his wife was distributing to the Commission, in attachment A-1 and A-2, her initial complaint was simply the five-foot setback code. He thought upon realizing that the City had the ability to grant a setback variance, in attachment B-1, her attorney made a new objection based on an obscure set of CC&R’s that were put in place in 1969 which were intended to protect the original developer and should have expired in 1985 were it not for the fact that all of the homeowners forgot about the restrictions and just didn’t execute the paperwork. So when this 39 year old CC&R was applied to their case for these 13 homes, all 12 of the other homeowners met and annulled and recorded the cancelation to the CC&R’s, which were recorded on March 27 of this year. Upon elimination of this article, the objection shifted to the “illegal structure” which would adversely affect Ms. Pride’s property, impact the sale or transferability of her property, and would have to be disclosed to a home inspector. She stated that in a letter to the neighborhood, which was attachment C-2 and -3, as well as in the notes of the meeting with the ARC (Architectural Review Commission) on March 11. Chairperson Tanner explained that they were here to discuss the ordinance (variance) and not the complete description of what had happened in the past. They were here to decide what to do moving forward, so if he could keep his comments to that, the Commission would appreciate it. Mr. Toia thought they have made the case, thought the staff report made the case, and he would come back and speak in response to anything that came up. Chairperson Tanner asked if the Commission had any questions for the applicant. Commissioner S. Campbell asked about the workshop Ms. Pride spoke about and the noise coming from that workshop. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 Mr. Toia said this was the first time he had heard about noise coming from it, but he keeps power tools in there, all of his battery-operated power tools. There was a sander that has a standard cord that plugs into a 110-volt plug, a saw, and those were never operated past five o’clock at night, so he wasn’t so sure what the objection would be to noise. They already existed in his original garage before he put them into the golf cart barn. They could go back to his original garage if that was an issue. He clarified that they were handyman tools. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that they weren’t used past a certain time in the evening. Mr. Toia said never, he was too tired after five o’clock. Commissioner Limont had a general question. Mr. Toia went to his neighbor and he discussed it with her that he had an approval for a gate closure; however, he wouldn’t meet the City’s conditions with regards to the tin roof with regard to the setback. But he talked it over with his neighbor and she said yes. Mr. Toia said yes. Commissioner Limont asked why he didn’t turn right back around and go over to the City and say the neighbor said it was okay, why not an exception so that two years later it wasn’t an issue. The point being that it’s great, especially when you get your neighbors to agree, but now they were all there. Mr. Toia said he had two regrets on this whole program: one, that he didn’t get the agreement in writing; and two, that he didn’t realize at the time that this process was available to them. Commissioner Limont asked why he didn’t go back to the City; he knew it wasn’t within the guidelines of the City ordinance. He knew he had to comply and why not go back to the City, because he knew if he continued, even if his neighbor said yes, it wasn’t in line with the City. Mr. Toia said he was regretful. Commissioner Limont said she drove by it and it looked nice, she would give him that; it was a huge improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Toia said if he had known at the time that he had this Commission and the variance process available to him, he would 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 have pushed it through that way. Ignorance was no excuse, but they learned a lot in the last eight months. Commissioner S. Campbell asked if Mr. Toia was the original owner of that lot, or that home. Mr. Toia said they have only owned it six or seven years. Commissioner S. Campbell indicated that Mr. Toia was familiar that it was a smaller lot than the rest of them; that he only had 6,900 square feet. Mr. Toia said he knew what they bought, but he had no idea it was smaller than other lots in the neighborhood. It had the ten feet on the side of the house that none of the other lots on the street had. It just seemed like an ideal place to put a golf cart barn. Chairperson Tanner asked for public testimony in FAVOR of the project. He noted that he had two Request to Speak cards; one from Richard Kelly and one from Mary Helen Kelly. He asked them to come forward. MR. RICHARD KELLY, 46100 Burroweed Drive, stated that he realized being a City Councilman, that there might be a question of conflict of interest here. He reviewed that with the Attorney who assured him that he had the right and privilege to appear before the Planning Commission. He understood that if this did go to City Council, he would have to abstain. He heard it said that he is a close friend of the applicant and he isn’t. Before this happened, he didn’t even know his name. He just said hi and he went by and saw him work in the yard improving his property. Mr. Kelly was always pleased with what he saw. Mr. Toia took out all the grass and put in drought- tolerant landscaping. He actually turned a bad piece of property into a very nice piece of property. Mr. Kelly understood that the Commission was dealing strictly with the lot line, but he wanted to also express that the folks that live around there are interested in more than the lot line, they are interested in what their neighborhood looks like and he said that everyone sitting there, one of the most important things to them is what their neighborhood looks like, whether the guy next door waters the lawn or doesn’t water the lawn, whether he pulls the weeds or doesn’t pull the weeds. He thought most of these homes were originally designed to be second homes or vacation homes, so the lots were considerably smaller than the surrounding neighborhood. They also heard that there are about 30 houses or so on Burroweed Drive; over half of them have zero lot lines, his included. He understood that he bought 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 a smaller lot when he bought there and wanted less yard work to do and so there was a certain price to pay for that and one price was a zero lot line. Mr. Kelly said he certainly was not condoning anyone building without a permit, but he thought as they heard that there were some permits drawn and there was a misunderstanding along the line. It seemed to him that all of the hoops the applicant had to jump through and all the expense he’s gone through, he guessed Mr. Toia spent $5,000 or $6,000 already because of this problem and the fact that he did make several contacts with our Building Department and discussed what he was working on, that golf cart shed, there well could have been some misunderstanding. Although he didn’t condone doing building without a permit, on the other hand it seemed like there is some kind of a misunderstanding and when a person pays the price, there ought to be some way to come to a conclusion that was pleasing to the whole neighborhood and something that was fair. As far as influencing the Planning Commission, in his 25 years on the City Council, he didn’t think he ever tried to influence a Planning Commissioner ever, not that he could influence any of them. But it had always been his policy that the Planning Commission did their business and then when it got to City Council he would do his business. He wasn’t there to influence them, he was just there to state some of the facts in their neighborhood. He thanked them. MRS. MARY HELEN KELLY, 46100 Burroweed Lane in Palm Desert, stated that she was just there to talk about the lot line. Ms. Campbell asked about the cottages and some of them were like duplexes, but many of them on their side of the street were separate homes, but some were with zero lot lines, the others might have some space on it and there might be one or two with zero lot lines on both sides. It was already there and she was there to speak in favor of doing whatever they could do to help the applicant. Chairperson Tanner thanked her. MR. MIKE PETERS, 46160 Burroweed, stated that he and his wife Paula have been there five years. They have seen the before and after, not just pictures, and they were very thankful the change had been made. They knew there were some things going on afterward, but it certainly improved the look of the neighborhood and they feel the value of the neighborhood because as they come into their street, which is a cul-de-sac street at the end, it is the first house seen coming in on their side of the street and it certainly looked much 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 better today than it did five years ago when they moved into the neighborhood. He had a few more things to say, but they were much more eloquently spoken by Mr. Kelly. He thanked them. MR. CONRAD KAUBLE, 46080 Burroweed Lane, stated that when they moved into Burroweed in 2000, the house the Toias now own was an eyesore. It went through receivership and was run down, the grounds were a mess and the pool was black. Since Mike and Marianne purchased it, they have done nothing but work on it and improve the beauty of their street. Their new cart garage was a continuance of that drive to excellence. Also, as a member of Shadow Mountain Golf Club, he appreciated what the Toias have done on the golf course side of their house. Situated where they are, they are not only the gateway to Burroweed Lane, but also to Shadow Mountain. Their efforts have improved both. There was no other testimony in favor. Chairperson Tanner asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MS. SUZANNE PRIDE, 46040 Burroweed Lane, presented pictures. She stated that in 1972, the Shadow Mountain Fairway Cottages on Burroweed Lane were built before the city of Palm Desert was incorporated. Thirty-six years ago the developers had integrity and the wisdom to maintain legal setback codes of adjacent properties in the same vicinity and under identical zoning classifications for safety, privacy, aesthetics and not to depreciate a property’s value. On Burroweed Lane, sharing a common wall, have the privileges enjoyed and are not deprived of safety, privacy, aesthetics and the property value for the legal setback code has been maintained and enforced. There are two sets of cottages on Burroweed Lane that share garage common walls and there are eight sets across the street that share common living room walls. Mr. Toia’s home that is the first home on the street is a single family residence. Yes, as they speak of their homes, which number one is not affected, there isn’t anyone on Burroweed Lane that is affected by the building structure, the illegal building structure of Mr. Toia, except her home. Mr. Richard Kelly does not share a common wall on the garage or living room. Neither does Conrad Kauble, and neither do the Peters. She showed pictures of her home and her neighbors’ home, the garage wall they share and pointed out the setbacks and privileges they enjoy. She stated that the home at 46060, the neighbor on the other side of her home, has a setback and then there is a golf cart trail. The 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 original designers 36 years ago never intended for someone that was sharing a common garage wall or living room wall to not have setbacks obviously for safety, privacy and aesthetics. Chairperson Tanner reminded Ms. Pride that she had five minutes and requested that staff help Ms. Pride with displaying her pictures. Ms. Pride showed a picture of an aerial view of 46040 and her neighbor at 46060. They could see on the right hand side where the setback is. To the left hand side of her home, because of the illegal structure that has been built, there is not the same privileges enjoyed. She showed the other side that shares the garage wall. As they could see, as the two-sets only of the Fairway Cottages that share the garage wall, there were 46310 and 46340, they could see the golf cart trail and their setback, they could see their garages attached and then they would see the setbacks between the homes 46340. These homes enjoy the privileges of maintaining the setbacks from 1972 when they were originally constructed. The aluminum roof that Mr. Toia speaks of is not legal and was not there in the origin, nor was the gate legal either. In the origin, the only gate was attached to the back of the garage and the space was open without roof or gate. Ms. Pride said many people have asked her why she didn’t see the golf cart barn being built and stop it. She stated there was a juniper hedge growing and she could not see anything being done and when she removed the juniper hedge, which was very dense, there was Mr. Toia’s pipe coming from his swamp cooler over the garage, over the illegal golf cart structure, draining onto her property. She showed pictures of the views she sees from her bathroom slider mirror, which devalues her property. Mr. Toia has a table saw and high-powered tools, high voltage tools in his workshop, which he doesn’t mention on his variance. On January 3, 2006, Mr. Toia got a gate enclosure permit only, stucco to match existing yard wall. After that, he built a bedroom and bathroom that was not permitted. On 2/10/06 Mr. Toia got a permit to add 72 square feet, which was permitted. At that time he submitted a site plan that showed the bedroom and bathroom. Mr. Toia in the year 2006 built one legal structure and four illegal structures: bedroom, bathroom, workshop, cart barn. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 Chairperson Tanner requested that the discussion be limited to the ordinance (variance) itself. Ms. Pride stated that the letters from the neighbors that Mr. Toia gathered were dated 1/10/08. An article came out in the Desert Sun disclosing that Mr. Toia did not have a permit. She wrote a letter and included the article and spoke with many of the neighbors; many of them who had even had dinner with Mr. Toia said they never would have signed anything if they knew this was not permitted. When Mr. Toia said he spoke with her in regards to his building plans, he never explained his intention; he never explained to her that there was a gate enclosure. There was so much building structure going on the year of 2006; one legal and four illegal. It was very overwhelming. He never mentioned that he was going to…that he had a permit for the gate enclosure and that then he was going to turn around and build an unpermitted structure. She never in her right mind would ever imagine that he would spend so much time and so much money and try to say she approved him building illegal structures, especially attached to her wall, overlapping. If the hedge was taken down prior to Mr. Toia building all these structures, she would never have permitted this, she would have come right to the City and requested a stop of such building. She was asking them as the only property owner affected by this illegal structure and the manner in which Mr. Toia has ignored the legal procedures in building so many unpermitted structures that have affected her property value, that affects the aesthetics of her property as they could see looking out her bathroom. At some point she did intend to sell her home and this greatly devalued the property of her home. Mr. Toia had an attorney, Mr. Robert Stewart, send her a letter. Chairperson Tanner asked if this related to the ordinance (variance). Ms. Pride said yes. She stated that Mr. Toia had an attorney, Mr. Robert Stewart, send her a letter with threats of blackmail and indicated “that the City of Palm Desert has already indicated a willingness to grant the setback variance based on the results of the property line determination.” She had a copy of page two from the lawyer. Chairperson Tanner requested that Commissioner Limont read it into the record. Commissioner Limont read the highlighted portion: “As I stated earlier, the City will drop the need for a survey and planning commission 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 appearance if you withdraw your complaint. If not, the Toias are committed to the costs associated with the pursuit of this matter to their successful conclusion. The City has already indicated a willingness to grant the setback variance based on the results of the property line determination.” Chairperson Tanner thanked her. Ms. Pride indicated that the first survey that was submitted by Mr. Fitch’s company stated that the property line was on the north face of the stucco wall, which meant that the wall was hers. The City rejected that survey and had a second survey done. She spoke with Mr. Page Garner and he told her that the second survey indicated that there was a half an inch difference. She wrote Mr. Garner a letter requesting that a second survey be done. She didn’t feel comfortable with the fact of how the survey was done. At one point when she picked up the first survey, Kevin Swartz told her as line 3 and line 4 contradicted each other, that Mr. Fitch had been “iffy” in the past and the City might have to pull his license. That made her very uncomfortable because she said to him and the origin of the survey, was there any way that the survey that came in could be underestimated or done improperly. He said no, it had to be a licensed survey company. Then that survey was rejected and a second survey came in that said it was a common wall by a half of an inch. Having the letter from the lawyer stating that the City was willing to grant setbacks with determination of the property line, this whole mess had been so convoluted. It was really unfortunate that Mr. Toia at the time that he did get his gate enclosure permit that he didn’t then come back to the City as Ms. Limont said and get the permit. But then there wouldn’t be enough room for the golf cart barn. She had a picture at the end of their cul-de-sac of the home that has a golf cart barn. To the right there was a lot of bush that had grown over, but there is a five-foot setback there. All the other neighbors are following the setback laws. She showed a picture of another golf cart barn on Grapevine on the Shadow Mountain Golf Course and they could note that they were following the setback law. Chairperson Tanner asked Ms. Pride to bring her comments to a close. Ms. Pride showed one other picture of the setbacks. She stated that she brought these pictures to demonstrate that all other neighbors are following the legal setback law. She showed a picture of Mr. Toia’s home. It is a two-car garage and he never puts the second car in the garage. She made a drawing over the top and was asking the 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 City why it is that Mr. Toia cannot follow the same setback law that all the other neighbors in the neighborhood follow and that she might enjoy the privilege of having the original setback that was in 1972 as originally built. She thanked them. Chairperson Tanner explained that the applicant now had the opportunity for rebuttal comments and asked him to keep it to five minutes. Mr. Toia stated that the survey Ms. Pride referred to and the comments made by anyone at the City, and Kevin might need to speak to some of the things that she just stated that he said, he didn’t know that he said it or anything about the work being “iffy”; and the comment about the half an inch, he talked to Mr. Garner and his point about half an inch was that the first survey was done without a monument located at the sound end of the street and when a tie line monument was given to Mr. Fitch, which gave him the opportunity not to do two record angles, two 90° angles, and actually do the triangulation, it put the property line at the center of the wall as they found it and Page was quite happy with that. Mr. Toia said they did a count of all the houses on the street and clearly 70% of the houses, some of these pictures were distorted; some of the ones she showed with setbacks, it’s a single 48 setback which they were seeing, which was all he was asking, is to have a single 48-inch setback. She has it on her side of the wall. Seventy percent (70%) of the houses on their street have either a zero setback or a 48-inch setback. Clearly the minority, 30% of the houses, had a double 48-inch setback. He hated to respond to these petty points one by one, but the pipe she drew going over the wall never went over the wall. It was a precautionary pipe for his swamp cooler that went along his side of the common wall, then turned a right angle and drained onto his wall, not down her wall. He didn’t know where she got four illegal structures out of one, but that was the way she liked to count. This thing about the junipers being cut down and suddenly seeing it, every time she drove by his house to leave the neighborhood, which everyone on the street had to do, they could see the structure. She has been in the structure at least four or five times while it was being constructed. She hired the guy that helped him build the structure to build out her bathrooms for her. She talked about 90% of the people wish they hadn’t signed the petition, but in the letter she wrote to the neighborhood, she asked them to remove their names. He checked with Kevin that morning and not a single person called to have their name removed from that 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 petition. So clearly 41 people in the neighborhood stand behind what they’ve done with the structure and for the neighborhood. As he said, her objections have whip sawed around quite a bit. This letter he was going to talk about earlier, in this one letter… Chairperson Tanner asked if this was specific to what they would be voting on tonight with the ordinance (variance). Mr. Toia replied that it was specific to some of the issues she already made here, and he felt that even though they weren’t pertinent to the setback, he felt that he needed to rebut them. Chairperson Tanner said wanted to keep this pertinent to the actual ordinance (variance) itself. Mr. Toia said he would rest his case then. He thought they heard a lot of testimony over the last 15 minutes that was not accurate and somehow they needed to read through that. He thanked them. (Ms. Pride spoke from the audience and asked to speak again. Chairperson Tanner said no and explained that only the applicant had the right to rebut.) Chairperson Tanner closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Limont stated that this isn’t architectural, it’s procedural, and it’s a neighborhood, which makes it even more difficult, so they’ve got a situation where it’s plain as day procedure wasn’t followed, it’s plain as day that there are disagreements with regard to how it architecturally came out and how it imposes on one neighbor over another. The difficulty is that she didn’t think personally it helped anyone to say they needed to tear everything down, but on the other side of it, as was pointed out, they didn’t want to condone building without permits. So they were really in a quandary here. They wanted to do the right thing for both people and they don’t want to send out a message that it’s okay in Palm Desert to go ahead and build without permits because all they had to do was be persistent and they would get it through the Commission. But she thought that what they had to do was try to come to some sort of conclusion to fix as best they could what was wrong from Ms. Pride’s side of the property line and also to make whatever corrections to the building. It was her understanding in talking to staff that if they grant this variance that the applicant, the Toias, would have to come in to the City of Palm Desert and apply for permitting and go through all the procedures at that point. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. They would apply as if the structure never existed. Commissioner Limont said that if based on 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 that they weren’t going to permit it, where were they at that point? If they do recommend approval and the applicant comes in and presents drawings and it doesn’t meet code, it doesn’t meet variances, then where is the applicant? Mr. Swartz explained that the applicant would either have to meet the code and build it per code or tear it down and bring it back to the original permitted gate enclosure. Commissioner Limont asked if we had that ability as a City to enforce that. Ms. Aylaian said yes. Commissioner R. Campbell read through all the material more than once and listened to the testimony and hadn’t really heard anything new that wasn’t in the five pounds of paper they were presented. Mr. Toia touched on it, but it didn’t clear it up totally for him. The question he had was Ms. Pride wrote a letter asking people to disavow their approval on the petition they signed, but he asked if any of the people were asked to come to the meeting to support her, because he didn’t see anyone. He asked if she just asked them or if she just wrote the letter and let it go at that. Ms. Pride stated that she did not ask them. She was hoping the City of Palm Desert law would support her. She could have brought many people here and they could possibly have been here much longer. She was asking the City of Palm Desert to enforce the law. No other neighbors are affected by this structure except for her. Commissioner R. Campbell thanked her for her answer. Commissioner S. Campbell noted that the case in front of them is talking about the property line on an existing single-family home. Since these are existing single-family homes, they don’t have a common wall or a zero lot line. These happen to be single family homes. And it would be like her home, she has five feet on one side and five feet on the other. She would not be very happy to have her neighbor build an addition to his home that is right on the wall that impaired her view and the value of her property. It should have a setback. It was built without a permit. It was beautiful, she drove by it and thought it looked very nice, but it was not allowed to be there in the first place. So she was going to have a problem voting on this one. Chairperson Tanner stated that taking a look at this whole situation, this whole scenario, they look at what was there prior to the Toias putting in an enclosed cart barn or cart garage. He looked at it and thought to himself that had he been the neighbor on the other side or even a neighbor on the street, he thought he would have a very difficult time accepting an eyesore, and that’s exactly what it was, but at the same time understanding we do have rules and regulations that we have to abide by. He was in favor of granting the variance with the stipulation that the two neighbors get together and decide on what it was going to take, within reason, to make her happy: the pitch and keeping things underneath that common wall, because from what 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 he understood, it is a common wall and there are other neighbors on the street that share that commonality with other neighbors. He hoped that if the Commission decided to grant the variance, that the two parties get together and work this thing out to a way where everyone can exist on that street with some pleasures. Had it been constructed with permit in the way it was constructed today, they wouldn’t be sitting there. So they were going to have to go through the same process if the ordinance (variance) was granted. They would have to bring back to them, after meeting with the City, the plans to make the structure acceptable to the Commission. And at that time, again, if the ordinance/condition (variance) was passed here, goes to Council, when it gets to Council she would have an opportunity to discuss what she wanted, again, when the plans are submitted. So with that said, he was in favor of granting the ordinance (variance) or condition to the ordinance to allow the process to go forward. Ms. Aylaian clarified that if the Planning Commission approved the variance, that would be the last the Planning Commission would see of this issue. It could be appealed or called up by the City Council, but it is not something that would return back, unless the Planning Commission chose to continue it for one reason or another. Chairperson Tanner asked if they would not have an opportunity to review the actual remodel of the structure or the rooflines. Ms. Aylaian said that was correct, that was done administratively by the Department of Building & Safety. If there was a question of aesthetics, it would go to the Architectural Review Commission, but it would not come back to the Planning Commission. Chairperson Tanner reiterated that would be because they conditionally accepted the ordinance change, or they have accepted the variance. Ms. Aylaian said the Planning Commission’s area of purview is really the variance from the required five-foot setback for the side yard. Once that issue was decided, the Planning Commission’s involvement was complete. Chairperson Tanner thanked her. Chairperson Tanner said based on the point of order, he thought they would have an opportunity to review. Mr. Swartz said that the Planning Commission could put a condition on it that the structure would have to go back to the Architectural Review Committee if he would like them to review it. Action: With that said, Chairperson Tanner stated that he would restructure his motion and make a motion that they approve the variance and send the actual plans back to Architectural Review for their review and approval of the existing cart barn, but make it acceptable to the conditions of the City and staff. Commissioner R. Campbell seconded the motion. Chairperson Tanner 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 called for the vote. Motion failed on a 2-2 vote (Commissioners S. Campbell and Limont voting no, Commissioner Schmidt absent). Mr. Hargreaves explained that a 2-2 vote is a non-action and failure to act, a failure to approve. In this case, it constitutes essentially a no vote. The applicant would not have the ability to appeal that to the City Council. Chairperson Tanner asked if that was the next step, an appeal to the City Council. Mr. Hargreaves said what they might do is just continue it until they have a full Planning Commission. He said it would also take a motion to continue it to the next meeting and the absent Planning Commissioner would have to review the record and then at that point they could act. Chairperson Tanner asked if they would have a public hearing on it or just the review and a motion. Mr. Hargreaves stated that he would reopen the public hearing and then continue it to the next meeting. Chairperson Tanner made a motion to continue it to their next scheduled meeting on September 16. He asked for a second. Commissioner R. Campbell seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt was absent). Mr. Hargreaves stated that the record should reflect that the public hearing has been reopened and continued to that meeting. Chairperson Tanner concurred and reiterated that the public hearing was now open and they would hear it on September 16, 2008. Mr. Toia spoke from the audience and said that he would be out of the state on September 16. Chairperson Tanner asked Mr. Toia to give them dates that he would be available and they would put it on the agenda. Mr. Hargreaves advised that it needed to be continued to a date certain or it would have to be renoticed. It would be better if they had a specific date. Chairperson Tanner said the thst October meetings were the 7 and 21 and the November meetings were scheduled for November 4 and 18. Mr. Toia said November 4. Chairperson Tanner asked if that would be good for both parties. Ms. Pride stated that she has been waiting for a long time. Ms. Aylaian agreed that if it was possible to hold it sooner, it has been a prolonged issue already and in fairness to both the applicant and the neighbor, a sooner resolution would be better if Mr. and Mrs. Toia would be in town any time between now and November. Mr. Toia asked her to repeat what she just said. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 Ms. Aylaian stated that if he was in town between now and November, it would be in the best interest of the neighbors and him to get this resolved, so if one of the October dates would work for him, staff would recommend not prolonging this issue further. Mr. Toia stated that he made financial commitments that couldn’t be undone. Ms. Aylaian said it was up to the Commission as to the date they wanted to continue it to. Mr. Toia asked if there was a meeting before September 16. Ms. Aylaian stated that a special meeting would not be scheduled for this issue. Chairperson Tanner asked for suggestions from the Commission. He noted that staff was recommending that this get done prior to November 4, but he would entertain a motion or entertain comments. Commissioner Limont said that Commissioner Schmidt could simply listen to the recordings here and read the minutes to come up to speed on that. Commissioner S. Campbell th pointed out that it was Mr. Toia who couldn’t be here on the 16. Commissioner Limont wasn’t certain if they were going for another vote if Mrs. Toia could be here. In fairness to both parties, Chairperson Tanner thought this needed to be presented as opposed to listening to a recording and reading minutes. Commissioner Limont stated that her only concern is that the Toias are out of town until November and Commissioner Limont said she was gone the first meeting in October. Ms. Aylaian said another option would be to, as they did with the hillside application with Mr. Kuykendall, to send the issue to City Council with no recommendation from the Planning Commission. Chairperson Tanner said that was his first thought. Commissioners S. Campbell and Limont agreed with that. Chairperson Tanner stated that he would entertain a motion. He closed the public hearing and asked for a motion to move this to City Council. It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, sending Case No. VAR 08-261 to the City Council with no recommendation. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt was absent). 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner S. Campbell stated there was no meeting. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont summarized committee discussion items. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Ms. Aylaian advised that the Project Area 4 Committee has not met since the last Planning Commission meeting. D. PARKS & RECREATION Chairperson Tanner provided an update. XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner R. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner S. Campbell, by minute motion adjourning the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. LAURA AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST: _____________________________ VAN G. TANNER, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 28