Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0919 MINUTES Now PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. II1. ROLL CALL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Van Tanner r.. Dave Tschopp Members Absent: Jim Lopez, Chair Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manger Tony Bagato, Associate Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the September 5, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the September 5, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent September 14, 2006 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 No VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 05-15 -CHARLES MILLER AND PATTY DOHERTY, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to consolidate Lots 155 and 152 consistent with precise plan approval for Enterprise Rent-A-Car at 73-088 Highway 111. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Chairperson Lopez was absent). Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising .rr 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. CUP 06-10 - THE ROCK CHURCH/PASTOR EDDIE ELGUERA, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a 5,748 square foot place of worship at 75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 109-112. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed conditional use permit, subject to conditions. He noted that the applicant was present to answer questions. Vice Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. EDDIE ELGUERA, 1644 Smiley Heights Drive in Redlands, California, came forward. woo 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Elguera had anything to add to the staff report. Mr. Elguera said they were from The Rock Church in San Bernardino, California, and a lot of their members were commuting to San Bernardino and they wanted to come out to this area to facilitate their needs instead of them leaving this area. Also, he and his wife and family would be relocating to this area and they were excited about it and looking forward to being part of the desert. There were no questions for the applicant. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one. Vice Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Chairperson Lopez was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2417, approving Case No. CUP 06-10, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Chairperson Lopez was absent). B. Case No. PMW 05-12 -BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC,Applicant Request for approval of the transfer of 4,443 square feet of land from "Lot X of TT 25296-6 to "Lot 12" of same tract on Canyon Crest within "Canyons of Bighorn." Mr. Joy reviewed the staff report, noting that with the proposed conditions of approval, staff was recommending approval of Case No. PMW 05-12. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on the pad height of the adjacent homes in relation to this lot. Mr. Joy said this home was approximately three or four feet below those adjacent to it. The house had a proposed pad height of 53 feet. Commissioner Tschopp clarified that he was more interested in the proposed swimming pool and how far the encroachment area was above the home in Ironwood. How far above this grade was the nearest home in Ironwood. Mr. Joy said the Barna residence 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 has an elevation of 55.5 and the new house would be at 53, so that would be a 2.5 foot difference. The new house pad would be 2.5 feet below the pad level of the adjacent houses. From Ironwood, Commissioner Tschopp asked if they were looking up at this proposed lot transfer, how many feet would they be looking up at. Mr. Joy said they would be looking down at it from Ironwood. Mr. Joy further explained that this house was going to be north of the Heather Court section beyond the gates of Ironwood Country Club. Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that the area being transferred was below the nearest home in Ironwood. Mr. Joy said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were any landscaping plans proposed or any kind of landscaping restrictions proposed on this piece of property. Mr. Joy said no, the only restrictions were that it be used for open space purposes and no structures, as well as the height limit on the house itself. Mr. Drell said they could place a condition that the house go to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and adjacent Ironwood residents be notified. Mr. Joy said there were plans and copies of photos that were included with the Commission packets. One photograph looked in the northwesterly direction and showed a berm and there were a couple of trees behind the spa area and a berm behind the trees with a line of shrubs. So the existing berm out there on the edge of the .rr pad was to remain as the edge of that property. There was no landscaping proposed to the east of the existing berm out there. Directly to the south was the McAllister residence and there was no additional planting proposed at this time. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if planting was proposed if that would come before the City's Landscape Committee for review or what body would approve it. Mr. Drell said that landscape plans are reviewed by staff unless conditions were put on this approval. It could also go to the ARC. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if the house complete with landscape plans would normally go to ARC. Mr. Drell said that staff has approved plans if they have been approved by the Homeowners Association if nothing was of issue to a non Bighorn resident. If staff is at all concerned, it is referred to ARC. He asked Mr. Joy for the maximum height of the proposed home. Mr. Joy replied that a couple of peaks go up to 19 feet. Mr. Joy indicated that when they referred to the landscaping, for the area he was referring to in Canyons, there was nothing being proposed there right now. He asked if Commissioner Finerty was asking about something being proposed in the future. Vice Chairperson Finerty said that was correct. Mr. Joy said that would necessitate a change and they could condition that to be before the City's ARC. ■w 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that when Mr. Joy gave his staff report, he mentioned that the maximum height of the building was 12 feet, yet Condition No. 4 said 14. She asked for clarification. Mr. Joy said he meant 14 feet. This area of the house would encroach 12 feet to the east with a maximum height to 14 feet within that 12-foot area. With the old lot line, the house would have to stay 12 feet to the west of the old lot line. Because of the lot line adjustment, it could possibly move 60 feet to the east. That was staffs concern. Instead of moving 60 feet to the east, it was only moving 12 feet and in that 12-foot area, the maximum height of the house would be 14 feet per staffs condition. Vice Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MS. KRISTI HANSON, 72-185 Painters Path in Palm Desert, came forward. She explained that she was the architect for the project and wanted to run through their thought processes. She handed out some updated exhibits that she thought would help give an idea of what the people from Ironwood would be looking at and their thought process in trying to address concerns. She indicated that the area in question was the additional property being transferred from the landscape easement. The area was identified in the photos. She went through a description of each photo. (Copies of photos on file.) She pointed out the area that would typically be required to be landscaped by the City, but it wasn't visible by anyone other than Lot 12 and those people immediately adjacent from Ironwood. It was her understanding that Bighorn intends to landscape this area and would be sensitive to the neighbors. The landscaping would be consistent low shrubs and ground cover. There was no intention to add additional trees. She said the view from Lot 5 was really not impacted by their proposal. Additionally, looking back from what would be their proposed garage or potentially their entry area, the wall heights from Lot 5 appeared to be quite lower than the required six feet from higher property levels that is typical around Palm Desert, which created a privacy issue for Lot 12 as evidenced in her photographs. They could look directly into their yard, which was a privacy issue for them, as well as from them toward the Bighorn lot. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 rrrir The next photo showed Lot 6. There were two layers of existing shrubs surrounding the existing wall. This house had a viewing tower which was actually not allowed in the city of Palm Desert, which created a major privacy issue for them. The sixth photograph showed Lot 7. The shrubs had grown up and as far as she knew, had not been an issue and completely blocked the view from Lot 7 looking into the property in question. The 7th and 8th photographs showed Lot 8 and Lot 7 and the same sort of situation applied. Going from Lot 5 up to Lot 8, they got much taller and were significantly above the Bighorn property. Ms. Hanson said that Exhibit A showed what could have been possible. They were asking for a lot merger with this additional property, but what was really possible were two much larger homes. Within those homes they were given boundaries which they could have built to at an 18-foot height limit, which was allowed by Bighorn. In that case, if they looked at Exhibit B, at the bottom of the page a section of Lot 6 looking toward the guest house showed the wall and the shrubs and they could see that their small little guest house was significantly smaller and further away from Lot 6 than the 18-foot high boundary that they could have done if they had done two homes. There was also the guest house on the right and the tennis court which had been recessed seven feet into the ground. So if they figured seven feet with a six-foot high wall, they were essentially 13 feet below any of their neighbors. With the main house, they blocked out the 18-foot high boundaries they could have done and did quite a bit more open space as it affects Lot 6 because of the tennis court. The next series of "C" exhibits showed from Lot 5 where they took their perspective looking back toward the guest house and how that was created. The photographs also showed the view as a 5'5" person showing the walls as they exist and the edge of their guest house garage. The second photograph was of the existing wall at six feet because they assumed it would be six feet with the guest house beyond any landscaping. C-2 showed it with landscaping and the mountains beyond. C-3 was just a colored version of the same thing which she said gave them a feel for the views they were maintaining. Ms. Hanson said they did the same thing for Lot 6 since that was the one that would probably be the one most effected. D-1 showed how they established it. D-2 showed the site section. The second part of 00 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 D-2 showed it without any landscaping. The bottom part of D-2 showed landscaping. They could see that the existing landscaping as it exists on the Ironwood side and the Bighorn side basically obliterated the view of the house altogether. D-3 was a colored version. Ms. Hanson said she realized there was some opposition to the merger, but she thought they had been thoughtful in their building placement and that their landscaping took into consideration peoples' views and were particularly sensitive in the size and height of the structures and the potential mountain views that Ironwood neighbors might continue to enjoy. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Ms. Hanson was able to share this packet with any of the neighbors at Ironwood prior to this meeting. Ms. Hanson said no, because it was just finished. Commissioner Tschopp asked if she had met with any of the Ironwood neighbors at Ironwood prior to this meeting. Ms. Hanson believed there were members from Bighorn who had met with them. There were no other questions. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There was no response. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. BOB McALLISTER, 120 Heather Court in Ironwood Country Club within the Estates at Ironwood Association came forward. He said his house is Lot No. 5, which looks down on the proposed project. He has also been President of the Association and tonight he was representing himself, as well as some members of the Association. He said a number of their people don't live here year around and were unable to attend. He tried to contact each of them and asked them to contact the City to let them know their particular opinions. It was his understanding that Bighorn made some changes from the original plans and reduced the height down to 14 feet, which was in his opinion an attempt to show some good faith on their part to try and be neighborly with regard to their situation. John Barna's house was *AM 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 greatly impacted; more than his. But he wrote to staff and expressed his views in writing and perhaps staff could elaborate on Mr. Barna's views. Also present tonight was John Hinds and he is perhaps more affected by this situation. Mr. McAllister wanted to commend Bighorn in being willing to make changes in terms of the 14-foot height restriction, plus they told him that they would be interested in trying to be as neighborly as possible with the open space and would see that some of their views were protected to the best as is possible. That took a lot of definition, but he was trying to explain that they tried to be cooperative. He had a lot of meetings with Mr. Drell, Mr. Joy and so forth. One thing he wanted to mention, and he thought it had been said, but he wanted to be involved and notified on the Architectural Review Committee when that time came so they had input. Also, he commented that the tennis court is sunken by seven feet or so, which was a nice way of doing it, but he strongly suggested that there be no lights on the tennis court. That would be very very terrible from his point of view. So no lights on the tennis courts. He again thanked Bighorn for trying to act as a good neighbor. He thought everyone had a right to build on their property, but if they could do it in such a way that they are cognizant of other peoples' feelings, situations and values of property and so forth, that would be very helpful. MR. JOHN HINDS, 126 Heather Court, Lot 8 on the chart. He said he wasn't speaking in opposition to the proposed action. He was not troubled by it. It was acceptable to him. He submitted an e-mail to Mr. Drell which probably raised issues which were probably more appropriate for ARC having to do with the wall between themselves and the adjacent property. He had a chance to review the drawings in detail a couple of days ago. He thought it was a very complete, very well done set of drawings. The building itself was very attractive and he was not opposed to it. It was a matter of being a civil engineering issue that needs to be addressed and taken care of. The plans clearly indicated that there are no lights on the tennis courts, but he thought it was very important, whether it was Planning Commission or ARC to make sure that continued to be the case in the future. He also raised the question of the shrubbery heights between Lot 12 and Lot 13 and the adjacent properties: Lots 8, 7, 6 and 5. Bighorn has been very cooperative over the last four or five years in working 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 with them to control the height of those shrubs at a level adequate to protect the privacy of the Bighorn side, but did not unduly interfere with their sight lines. He was very hopeful, whether it be ARC or whomever, to work with them and ensure that situation continues, whether Bighorn has control of that property or a private owner. He wasn't sure who was going to own those shrubs when all the dust settled. If his serious civil engineering concerns were addressed, he did not object to the proposed action. MS. BEVERLY WILLIAMS, 73-132 Monterra Circle North in Palm Desert, thought this was a sacrilege and she wanted to know who was paid to allow for the developer to build that house in our mountains. Vice Chairperson Finerty explained that the case she was referring to was the next item on the agenda. The issue before them at this time related to a lot line adjustment. She thought her testimony would be fitting for the next case and thanked her. There was no one else wishing to speak. Vice Chairperson Finerty invited rebuttal comments. Ms. Hanson said she would like to leave as an option, if possible, the ability for them to provide a photometric study on the potential of tennis court lights. Since they are seven feet below with a six-foot wall around them, any of their lights would be below that wall level and they would be happy to have some sort of demonstration showing that the lighting level isn't any more significant than landscape lighting. She said they would meet city standards for the lights. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if Ms. Hanson had any comments about the structural integrity of the wall. Ms. Hanson said she would look into it and promised that they would not do anything to damage that wall in any way. It would be addressed with their civil engineer. Commissioner Tanner mentioned the sight lines from Ironwood and asked if Bighorn would maintain them. Ms. Hanson said the idea is that the shrubs would be maintained so that the privacy for both lots, yet the sight lines would be maintained without imposing any lack of privacy. She thought that Lot 5 was .r 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19. 2006 Now probably the one least affected and that Bighorn already said they would provide a landscaped area drawing so they could see what would be done in that regard. It had nothing really to do with their proposal because that property is to the right of them and isn't affected by the proposed project. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked Mr. Drell for the City's policy on tennis court lights in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Drell said that they are permitted and the standards were in the Lighting Ordinance. He pointed out that during the season, it gets dark about 4:30 p.m. That was one of the reasons staff prefers depressed tennis courts. Lights are generally 10 feet high, but the Ordinance addresses trespass light standards and the zoning ordinance says tennis courts can be lit. With that, Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp said that although the proposed transfer is 66 feet in width, staff limited the setback to 12 feet. He thought the architect did a wonderful job of combining what could be two homes that could be very obtrusive to the development to the south, the Ironwood residents, and put in one home with tennis courts that would be much lower and would protect some of the viewshed of owners of Lots 5, 6, 7 and even 8, so he thought they did a very good job that way. He wanted to condition it that the tennis court lights be limited to meeting Palm Desert's existing requirement for lighting and that the landscaping that would occur in the proposed transfer lot be approved or reviewed and approved by ARC. That would give the neighbors a chance to look at it at that point in time and not be surprised by something else. Other than that, he was in favor and thought it would work out to the benefit of everyone involved. Commissioner Tanner concurred with Commissioner Tschopp and encouraged Bighorn to make sure that they do the photometric study and eliminate the potential problems that could be created if there is spillover light into the backyards of Ironwood. They were certainly not there to do any encroachment or infringement and thought that had been displayed with what has been proposed to them tonight. He heard that with certain conditions and certain things that Bighorn needs to work with lot owners and the homes themselves are perfectly okay. They are aesthetically good and he didn't think would hurt the values of homes in Ironwood. But again, with conditions that are in place with Architectural Review, with getting the studies 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 and with living up to the structure of the walls and sights to be maintained. With that, he was also in favor of the project. Commissioner Campbell also concurred. She thought the architect did a wonderful job. The encroachment she saw in this area was Lot 6 to have a terrace in the middle so that they wouldn't be encroaching on the neighbors. As Architect Hanson stated, they really didn't allow anything like that and she was also in favor. Vice Chairperson Finerty appreciated the cooperation of the neighbors being willing to work with Bighorn and the Bighorn architect being amenable to the neighbors' concerns. They do have standards for tennis court lights. It is an approved use and those standards would be adhered to. She thought with notice to the residents when the project goes to ARC, they could look at the house, they could look at the shrubbery, look at the landscape plan and make their determination. Also taking into consideration the integrity of the wall, she thought the architect, Ms. Hanson, addressed the concerns of the neighbors and concurred with her fellow Commissioners. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Chairperson Lopez was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2418, approving Case No. PMW 05-12, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0 (Chairperson Lopez was absent). C. Case No. HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1 - HAGADONE FAMILY TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a Hillside Development Plan / Precise Plan hillside development increasing the graded pad area for a residence located at 706 Summit Cove in the foothills of the Canyons at Bighorn Golf Course. Vice Chairperson Finerty stated that when the Commission arrived at the meeting they received a packet of information which they had not had adequate time to review and it was important that they be able to review all w 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19. 2006 w information in order to make an informed decision. Therefore, she was asking the Commission if they would want to take a 15-minute recess to review this information. Commission concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, calling for a 15-minute recess. Motion carried 4-0. The Commission recessed at 6: 53 p.m. AT 7:12 P.M., VICE CHAIRPERSON FINERTY RECONVENED THE MEETING. Vice Chairperson Finerty explained to the audience that the Planning Commission receives their packets on Friday and when they walked into the meeting they received additional correspondence to review. They needed to either take a recess or ask for a continuance and since there were so many in attendance, they opted for the recess. She thanked the audience for their patience while they reviewed the additional information and asked for staffs report. Mr. Bagato addressed the Commission and reviewed the staff report, noting , that at this time there were no lights proposed for the sport court. And for the reasons stated in the staff report, Mr. Bagato recommended denial of the proposed expansion, but did recommend that given the confusion with the pool and the error with the rough grading plan, that an "as-built" plan be submitted totaling 47,941 square feet, so it would allow the pool to remain and any grading that was miscalculated in the original plans. For the additional area for the sports court, landscaping and water feature, staff was recommending denial. He asked for any questions. On the problems with the grading plan, Commissioner Tschopp asked if staff independently calculated the square footage when they receive plans from a developer. Mr. Bagato said that when they are identified on the cover sheet, typically staff didn't. It was identified at 38,000 square feet and they trust that the application and the applicant is submitting accurate information. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it was correct that the pool was permitted. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp summarized that what the Commission was requested to deal with now was the 16,240 square foot property addition. Mr. Bagato said it was the 13,091 minus the pool, because the pool wasn't on the original plan, so they were kind of approving the pool, but minus it was 13,091 square feet. Commissioner Tschopp said that was what they were dealing with tonight. Mr. Bagato said that was 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 correct. Commissioner Tschopp said the pool would remain and asked if there were any plans or suggestions for screening the pool to the north. Mr. Bagato said that was something that would have to be looked into. It wasn't part of the application tonight. There were no other questions for staff and Vice Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JOHN BARLOW,Trustee for the Hagadone Family Trust, owners of the Hagadone residence, 3403 Fernandhill Road in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, stated that he was present to request approval of an amendment to the hillside development plan and precise grading plan for the previously approved residence at 706 Summit Cove. The approval of the precise grading plan submitted by RCE Engineers was sent in on July 1, 2006. It involved the addition of 13,169 square feet as Mr. Bagato alluded to, to be used for landscaping and features including a sport court and adjacent flower beds. He stated that he would like to give a chronology of what occurred to get them to this point. The rough grading plan that was prepared by Feiro was sent into the City of Palm Desert on October 15. The r. square footage was noted, as Mr. Bagato indicated, the accurate square footage as measured was the amount he said as well. The precise grading plan prepared by Feiro was approved by the City on January 20. In early 2005 they retained RCE Engineers to act as their civil engineer to help them with the discrepancies and the conditions they had with their previous engineer. During that time when the pool drawings were submitted, RCE, working with the City, received direction. Due to these discrepancies, the City would like to have them prepare an as-built drawing condition of what was actually built and they proceeded accordingly. The pool permit drawings were approved by the City in October of 2005 and the pool as revised was constructed per the approved and issued and amended pool permit at that time. At the request of the City's Public Works Department after the completion of the checking process, RCE submitted the final precise grading plan on mylar on January of 2006 for signatures. When the mylar was submitted to the Planning Department for signature, the Planning Department raised the issues of concern. As a result of that, in February of 2006 at the suggestion of Planning, a meeting was held .r 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 at the City offices with representatives of Public Works, Building and Planning. The direction from that meeting was to prepare the documentation, present it to the Planning Commission tonight, as well as the request for them to continue to work with the representatives of Ironwood on the look of the office. Even though the issue of the office was not before them tonight, he thought it was important to go over what they have done in that regard. Prior to this time, they heard from folks at Ironwood via their President, Mr. Ron Dahl, and their concern was focused on the office and the form of the artificial rock placed on top of and around the new structure. A number of representatives from Ironwood, himself and representatives from Bighorn met to review and discuss their concerns. In fact, they met several times. They were always proactive and wanted to be good listeners. Part of the issue was they (themselves)weren't happy with the look of it as well. These meetings took place in November of 2005 which was well before the meeting that was held with the City by some three months. So they had already started that process and were involved with trying to make some corrections. Ulm These meetings were monitored by City Planning as they were directed by Planning to do the following: Work on the office to get the shape of the rock more natural looking, which they concurred needed to be done; Prepare photos of the then existing condition, have them computer generated to show corrections that they would propose and get approval prior to doing any corrections. And then also submit a revised precise grading plan for the additional site disturbance area which was the technical and objective purpose of their meeting tonight. This they did. He showed several photos that he said were submitted at that time to the representatives of Ironwood. They included actual photos taken from various locations, views of the proposed improvements they felt they could do to make the rock more natural, and actual photos taken last week. Another photo was taken from the direction north by northwest, the next a similar view. They could see from the original the shape of the rock was very vertical and unnatural, and an actual photo that looked considerably better than the proposed photo. One photo was from Bighorn as they were not happy with it as well. Another view was similar from the Ironwood direction. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 He noted that all this was done at their expense. They spent an additional $350,000 with this additional rock. They wanted to be good neighbors. There are portions of the office that now don't have a view that it used to have to the northeast. At the same time they completed the revised grading plan and submitted it to the City in July. Mr. Barlow stated that the sport court is 1,500 square feet, 30 x 50, the rest was flowers, sidewalk and water features. As shown on the contours of the map, all of the grades were extensively higher than this location, so there was no view from any direction other than the home itself that would visualize this area. During this process, as pointed out and as requested by Planning, they had been asked to continually communicate with Ironwood and in January they were asked to do so via their attorney. They have correspondence that indicated their position such as, at this time, Ironwood's Homeowner Association's concern with the high visibility of the separate office structure. Further that communication indicates the Ironwood Homeowners Association does not take issue with any other features of the project. WOO There were some comments from audience members. Vice Chairperson Finerty stated that they needed order and the applicant has the opportunity to make his case and then the Planning Commission would listen to each of them, so they needed to please show respect to all parties. Mr. Barlow stated that they continued from March and on into June. In March they had correspondence back and forth indicating the sport court and the other landscaped area. They had every reason to believe that they were familiar with what they were doing. They had several meetings with the Ironwood people onsite showing them the area and the fact that it did not have a visual impact and again, it always focused back on the office. They were very proud that what they said they would do they did. They got their blessing before they did it and they thought it looked substantially better than it did at that time. Mr. Barlow said they agree wholeheartedly with the Planning staff that the way to handle the finalization is an as-built drawing where the improvements are. They were here to say in effect that the drawing in front of the Planning Commission that was part of the application is an as-built because it is a complete detailed plan that they hoped n 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19. 2006 to build to that does in fact have every item that has been discussed. So technically the as-built has already been completed. The next drawing he said was one also shown by Mr. Bagato indicating the area in question tonight at 13,169 square feet. He showed a landscaped plan for the benefit of those interested in the use, that showed the types of materials to be used. The flower beds were all designed by designer Bill Shinkle, a world-renowned flower botanist who did all the work at the Bellaggio and at the Wynn Resorts.There were no trees. One of the Ironwood residents they met with in January who lives immediately below the office said the only concern he had was that he didn't want to see any trees. So there was a lot of discussion that took place and a lot of people in Ironwood, and obviously they couldn't meet with all of them, but they started with their President and representatives. Whenever they wanted to meet, they were happy to do so. Finally, Mr. Barlow wanted to point out that in spite of the request, a part of the original approval from the City included the deeding to the City in the form of a conservation easement of 4.13 acres. That would remain exactly the same. Referring to the map, he showed the area of improvement and the conservation easement area,which remained exactly the same. So they formally and respectfully requested approval of this amendment to revise the site disturbance plan and the approval plan for the additional 13,169 feet. Commissioner Tschopp said that Mr. Bagato pointed out that the pool was not part of this hearing, but Commissioner Tschopp was interested to hear the plans what plans they had to screen the pool to the north, if there were any. When he looked at it from below, there was a lot of plastic up there, so he questioned if it was a misleading view at this point in time. Mr. Barlow said yes, the pool itself has the same edge detail as the pool as it was originally approved. It has an infinity edge and about 30 inches of exposed structure on the north side, the Ironwood side. That edge was all done in a bevel creek material that will match the color of the hillside. Up to and below that they already placed natural rock and recolored the rock to put it back into its natural state. Here in the desert, it gets very warm and the pool on the interior is all tiled and they were required not to allow the temperature to exceed 90 degrees. So to work through the summer, they built a temporary structure over the pool and have large air-conditioning equipment Now 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 there to cool that area so they could install the tile. What they see now is a temporary structure that is within a week or so of being removed. It would be gone forever. The amount of area that would be eventually seen is the small area where the infinity edge comes over and the rest blends into the natural rock. Commissioner Tanner asked when the Feiro group did their original plan, if they were held accountable for the additional 6,000 feet that really was encroached on. If they went through the process and granted 38,000 square feet of grading and it actually ended up being 44,000, he asked if there was accountability on their part. They couldn't to go back and get that back now. Mr. Barlow stated that the drawing was correct, as indicated by the model. It had the appropriate amount of area. For some reason, and they didn't know about it until a week ago when Mr. Bagato and staff found out, that it had the wrong square footage number on the plan. That was one of the reasons they were removed two years ago. But it was because they had other errors where the building didn't fit the site exactly right and it had to be nestled in. But the plan they approved was accurate and the same. The label of the square footage was incorrect. The part of the approval, from his Wei understanding two years ago, was for the plan the Commission saw in front of them and that was correct. There were no other questions. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked for any testimony in FAVOR of the project. There was no response. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked for testimony in OPPOSITION. Before starting, Vice Chairperson Finerty stated that she understood that there was a lot of emotion and asked speakers to limit their comments to five minutes and please not repeat comments that have already been made and thanked them. MR. GUNNAR HAASE, 73-203 Ribbonwood Court in Palm Desert. He stated that he looked at this project from the beginning almost like a comedy of errors. One of the things in the meeting they had back in December with certain people from the City was that there was going to be mediation for the office. He could see the pool, but they weren't supposed to be able to see any roof lines from the Ironwood property. If they go out there now, what they see are roof lines from the Hagadone residence. NA 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19. 2006 He really felt that when going through this process there have been a lot errors and omissions by people, both probably in the City and from the Hagadone people. They talked about 38,000 square feet that grows to 44,000 square feet and now they want 47,000 square feet to be approved. They grade before they have approvals for that. They put in pools larger than what was authorized. It seemed to be once something is approved, once something is done, it gets approved. What would they do if they had a homeowner that was only supposed to build 20 feet high in the roof who built his house 30 feet high? Would they then say they'll approve that because it is an exception and he already has it built? It's already in place? Why did they get grade before they got approvals to grade? Why do they do things? In other words, he assumed there was an inspector that went up there and looked at the grading and would be able to then say this isn't 38,000 square feet, it's closer to 47,000 square feet. They allowed them to destroy the ridgeline that was pristine to Ironwood. It's gone. It can't be recaptured. They can't tear out the pool, but they're approving a pool that was larger than what was originally on the plans. That's what he was hearing. From his standpoint he couldn't see the sports court, he couldn't see anything else, but his feeling is enough is enough. The plan should only go to what the Planning Commission approves or what was recommended, 47,000. They should take the land they have graded and put it back into natural conditions, forget about a squash court and only allow them to have the additional area for the pool that has been completed. To him that was giving them something because if somebody else had done this, maybe they would have them modify the pool to make it smaller to fit within the grading plan. So he appreciated what they've done for the office, but to him the City allowed them to destroy the ridgeline. MR. JOHN GODFREY, 49-771 Canyon View Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he is the President of Ironwood Country Club. In all due respect to the statements made earlier, he has been the President for the last eight months and he has had no communication at all from any Hagadone representatives. Ironwood Country Club presently has 800 members. With their spouses that totals about 1,500 people. The Board of Directors of Ironwood Country Club on behalf of their members vigorously object to the petition by the Hagadone Family Trust to expand the approved graded area of the project from the approved 38,000 square feet to over 61,000 square feet. The 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 expansion is in conflict with the Hillside Development Ordinance. They feel strongly that the City of Palm Desert should start enforcing the Hillside Development Ordinance with more strength to protect their hillsides from such intrusive developments. Ironwood homeowners and club members have had their hillside views seriously compromised by the development of the Hagadone property. Denying the current request for expansion would prevent further compromises to the hillside and their views. He thanked the Commission for their consideration in this matter. MR. LAURENCE SUTTER, 49-220 Quercus Lane in Ironwood, stated that he is a full-time Ironwood resident, President of one of the Homeowner Associations that has 89 homes very close to the Hagadone property. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Ironwood Master Association which represents 1,100 homeowners including the HOA's for central facilities. They were here to also object to this extension. He said they couldn't really talk about this extension without talking about where they are today and he thought some of the frustration from the people present is they feel they didn't have a forum. He just learned about the project when they saw the crane one morning around a year ago. He was part of the team of three or four people who visited with John Barlow and Hagadone development people last December. He said that John's description was correct. They were very accommodating and listened to their concerns, which were primarily the office and the pool. They were responsive and did make efforts to minimize the impact on the hillside. They were also told, as mentioned earlier by someone else, that they would not see any of the roofs, but they would just see a little foot and half or two feet of the pool and some version of the office. They really appreciated the effort they made and they were responsive, but if they looked at it today, it was still a major major intrusion on the hillside. It was sure not what they expected. He said he talked to Bill Ebert from The Reserve the other day and Bill asked him to come by tonight with photographs and things. (Note: The letter and photos referenced were submitted by Marie Mack later in the meeting and are on file in the Department of Community Development.) The President of the Reserve wanted to be present, 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 but it was off season and he wasn't around and didn't have a chance to respond. He thanked the Planning Commission people who he assumed were responsible for mailing notices on this petition to individual homeowners in Ironwood. There was a big mystery last time about notification and individual homeowners were never notified. This time someone took it upon themselves to notify 200 of them and they really appreciated it. Mr. Sutter said he had four quick points. Serious errors have been made with this project before, one after another. They feel the City of Palm Desert made a very serious error in approving this project and the development standards should have been applied to be in harmony with the stated intention and that didn't happen. He was going to read his four points, but Mr. Bagato referred to some of them. He would highlight one or two. The intent and purpose says to encourage only minimal grading in the hillside area and it talked about blending with the natural terrain and retaining and protecting viewsheds and natural landmarks. In their opinion, all of these provisions were greatly compromised. They felt the expansion should be stopped. The ordinance talks about Now 10,000 square feet. If they were to okay this, it would expand it to 61,000 square feet which is a huge amount and they think it is grossly excessive and unnecessary. They also felt that if they stretch these development residential standards beyond their intention, that creates an exception that will devour the rule and become a very bad precedent for future projects. Mr. Sutter said they request that they provide some protections. Should the Planning Commission in their wisdom elect to approve this, they have concerns about the sports court, the water features and landscaping. Right now they don't appear to intrude on Ironwood views, but if they add lighting to a sports court or to a landscaped area, he didn't want to look up at the hill and see some unnatural lighting up there. They were concerned actually as it stands that once the compound is occupied, there will be lights in that office and that will further intrude on their situation. If they should decide to approve this, they requested a condition of approval that such elements are forbidden. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 They thought the Commission really needed to strengthen the standards of compliance. This project already has had the benefit of great indulgence from the City for what is an architecturally challenging and unique project. They have an opportunity now to prevent needless disturbance of the mountain terrain and set a standard for stricter compliance now and in the future for hillside development. Therefore, the Ironwood Master Association representing 1,100 home owners in Ironwood respectfully requested that the Planning Commission deny the application for amendment to the Hagadone plan to expand the previously approved area. MS. MARIE MACK, 74-399 Highway 111, Suite M in Palm Desert, stated that she is the attorney retained by the Ironwood Master Association to assist in interfacing with the project applicant concerning this project. The Commission had her letter on her firm letterhead concerning her points, so she wouldn't reiterate those. She did want to talk a little about the interactions she has had with the applicant concerning the project up until this point. When the members of Ironwood realized what appeared to be the scope of this project and how it would truly be impacting their mountain viewsheds and vistas from the north, they became quite alarmed and retained her to interface with them, particularly with regard to the office. She put up a picture of how the office looks now from The Reserve, the neighboring community. The Reserve also asked her to speak up on their behalf tonight in opposition to the project. Nobody seemed to have a great picture showing quite, from Ironwood, how prominent the office is. She showed the office now with the rockwork that has been done. She commended the Hagadone people for responding to their concerns. When this office was first built, they called it the flying saucer. There was just a large glass structure up there that was transparent and completely not naturalized with the surrounding mountain and it was quite quite a mar upon the natural scenery. She met up there with some Ironwood representatives and they all expressed that they would like to see some serious rockwork to blend that in with the natural rock up there. If they had ever been up there, 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19. 2006 it was completely pulverized up there. They have done a serious amount of work to blend it with the mountain and she understood it cost in excessive of $300,000 to do it. They also understood that it was always Mr. Hagadone's intention to have this sort of rockwork and they may have been reacting to a preliminary or first stage look of that office when they were so unhappy. Having said that, and her pictures might not make it crystal clear and she would submit the rest of the photos for the record, the work that has been done while expensive and extensive was not blending. If they looked at it from Ironwood, it was not blending in texture, it was not blending in color and was still very obviously an artificial imposition on what was formerly a beautiful undisturbed view. She was wondering whether the Commission doesn't have the ability at this point if they wanted to approve this application to condition it that they do some further softening or mitigation or something cosmetic with the rockwork that has already been done. She wasn't proposing that it be demolished and understood it was permitted, but possibly something could be done to better integrate the look. Far be it from her to say what that might be, but they have some great experts on their staff and maybe it could be further blended. Ms. Mack said those were her comments about the office and she submitted her photos (and The Reserve letter). She stated that they have the concern that although in the future the sport court was not proposed at the present time to have lighting, who knows five years down the road someone could decide that's a good idea. They don't ever want to see lighting up there. They were hoping that the landscape plan she understood had been proposed wouldn't involve any lighting that would be intrusive from the north. They wanted to make sure that Ironwood was fully involved in weighing in on that and also weighing in on whether or not there are ever any trees that artificially intrude above the ridgeline. Those were concerns they had. They understood that the project proposed tonight did not include those elements, but if they were inclined to approve it, they would love to see those sorts of conditions attached. In general they didn't favor the project, notwithstanding their attempts to be responsive. She thought everyone felt it was just one step too far and they would like to see the line drawn somewhere to enforce this ordinance. It was more than just a matter of principal. These are our mountains and grading and disturbance that happens up there is 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19. 2006 forever and they needed to get busy enforcing that ordinance. She thanked them. MS. SUSAN PAULL, a home owner in Monterra, stated that she is a past President and HOA Board of Director acting right now. She was here on behalf of herself and members of her Homeowners Association and the entire Palm Desert community for people who live out as far as Portola and out on Country Club who can see this project. She was sure some of them come down the street and can see it too. She said it was ironic that the last time she was in this building was begging for access to the mountains because it was a CVAG hearing and they were restricting hikers' access to these beautiful mountains as pictured on the wall behind them. The goal, she felt and which the City of Palm Desert was a signature of, was CVAG's ordinance on mountains and the protection of them. Ms. Paul stated that she was really disappointed. She felt that if they as a Planning Commission had actually made a visit to the site prior to the development, it never would have been developed. She pictured these beautiful mountains as pictured on the wall and asked how they would if she walked up there with a black marking pen and on the ridgeline drew a big house and that's exactly what they look at when they're in their car driving up Portola toward the mountains or Monterey. It is a blight. But they weren't here to discuss the past mistakes. As far as the expansion is concerned, they weren't happy with what has happened already. They feel it was done irresponsibly. Give an inch, take a mile. They didn't properly oversee what was being developed. It just kept going on and on and on. It was give an inch take a mile. She was disappointed and was afraid if they didn't put a stop to it right now what they would be looking at is even more destruction and disaster to our mountains. She thanked them. MR. RICHARD SEARLE, 73-380 Poinciana Place in Ironwood, stated that he supported all the officials of their corporation, membership committees and other speakers. As an individual he supported what they had to say. He thought what has happened here has caused a blight on the mountain top. He wouldn't add anything new which they haven't already said; however, one point he did notice was a comment on the map regarding renaturalized areas. If the renaturalization of the area was similar to what they've done to the . r 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19. 2006 .o office, that wasn't really going to make the appearance like it is today. He thought this should not be approved to go forward. He thanked them. MS. CONNOR LAMONT, 72-720 Bel Air in Palm Desert, stated that to say they made a mistake was an understatement. They all agree with that and all they have left is to ask them to please stop it now. They were all that was standing between going forward and continuing the mistake. She asked on behalf of the residents that they please vote no on this. She thanked them. MR. PAUL BLUME, 73-155 Crosby Lane in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He said pretty much everything had already been said. The important thing is the future. He just found out tonight that there's no law saying that they have to inform the residents surrounding such a structure as this except within 300 feet and obviously this is beyond the limit for Ironwood Country Club. But for realism, the entire Coachella Valley has been affected by this structure and he thought there should be something in the future for them to do to inform them, the constituents that put them in office, to keep them informed as to what this is going to be like. He thought they would find a lot more people objecting to what has been done already. He thanked them. There was no one else requesting to speak. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Barlow would like time for rebuttal comments. Mr. Barlow said that they were obviously sorry that so many people were upset with the house that's there today, but he thought it was important to remember that they went through due process. Two years ago they came to the Planning Commission and City Council with full disclosure of what they were going to build and got approval. In fact, unanimous approval. And again, he couldn't change that and who was noticed then and who wasn't noticed is not really their responsibility. They liked to be good neighbors and wanted to be good neighbors and thought they would find them to be excellent neighbors. He hoped that none of these people were upset with them personally. The roof lines being said that they would not be visible was not an accurate statement. They never represented that at all. The majority of the building is not visible, but there are a handful that are. All of 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 those that are are covered with the copper material they bought from Germany that comes precolored with the color of that mountain. He wanted them to at least wait until it is completed and see the finished product and then be a little more objective in their decision because they have done a lot to try and blend this into the mountain. Stone on the siding that blends into the mountain was brought in from India. All of this was part of why they approved this in the first place is because the construction and design presented to them and what they have built was to be able to blend into the hillside. There had been discussion about minimal grading in the hillside and not allowing any more per the ordinance. If they read the ordinance, it says minimum grading in the hillside areas that relate to the natural contours of the land, avoiding extensive cut and fill slopes that result in padding or staircase effect within the development. None of that is what they were proposing. There was no padding or staircase effect involved. In fact, none of it was visible from anybody. So it is not in conflict with what the ordinance says. Mr. Barlow noted that there was a comment that they graded before approvals which was not true. The project like any project has to have access and lay down areas to be built. Those same areas if not approved would be renaturalized, but in order to have access to build the building, those areas were graded. So they didn't believe that to be an accurate statement. The pools as they knew were already approved and that was a matter that has been taken care of previously. And contrary to the opinion of what was said, they were directly told in writing to deal with the attorney, Marie Mack. And as she testified, they have. Even beyond that and after they were told that, he made several calls to the only contact he had to Mr. Ron Dahl and indicated that he wanted to make sure that if there were any questions, they still had an opportunity to meet with him. The last time he talked to him he indicated that he was no longer President and he asked Mr. Dahl to please pass along that invitation to anybody else that's appropriate. Mr. Barlow thought they went out of their way as has been testified on their side that the communication was wide open. And this was all with respect to the office, which as they knew tonight was not even part of what the request is regarding. The request in front of them tonight dealt with this 13,169 square feet. It wasn't visible to anybody 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 but the Hagadones. That was the question in front of them. And that is their request to the Commission. If they would like to, and they'd already made comment to staff, the Commission could condition that there would be no sport court lighting. At one point in time they had intended to do so and Planning had great concern about that. His initial response was that they would put it in in a mock up condition and they would look at it and they could decide if it was offensive or not. And later, as they reconsidered, they decided it wasn't. They just wouldn't do it. So if they wanted to condition it, there would be no lighting for the sport court. Mr. Barlow said there had been comment made regarding that they were running amok without any contact with the City. Nothing could be further from the truth. They have had constant contact with the City. They had with all departments. The Building Department is up there virtually every day. They had many meetings with the Planning staff when they had their original concerns. There were meetings with the Public Works Department when they dealt with the pool and got the pool permitted. Whenever they had a discrepancy, they talked to them and asked what to do. That's where the conclusion came that it was suggested that an as-built drawing be done to clarify exactly for the record where the grading limits were and where they would be eventually and that's exactly what they did. So they felt like they have been as responsive as they could. They realize there are people who are not happy with what they see and they really are sorry about that. They'd like it to be judged when it is completed and would like them to realize that they did go through due process and got the proper permits and went through the proper hearings and it had the proper legal notice and had built this building accordingly. So again, the question tonight in front of them is if it is okay for them to extend the landscaping and the sport court into the area 13,169 square feet that is not visible to any other party but the Hagadones. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the sports court was always part of the original plan and if the additional water features that are part of this 13,000 feet they were talking about now, if they were on the original plans. Mr. Hagadone said the water feature that came out of the hillside in that area was always a part of the plan, but not in that location. It wasn't that far away from the structure. The fish pond it comes out of 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 is new. So that was not part of the original plan. The sport court has always been in the owner's plan, but it was not in the plans submitted to the City. It was a desire that the owner had and talked to their architect about. Schematic design plans they had almost three years ago still showed the note of the trail that goes to the sport court. It never got designed, it never got included and was never permitted. So that's why they were here tonight. It was a desire they had and something they wanted, but was not part of the original submittal. He said it's a very complex site if they had seen it. It was not like a developed, graded flat piece of ground that they do a drawing on and they layout what they want to put on it for improvements. It's very irregular. It has little crooks and nooks, hills and rocks and to nestle a structure into that site on a piece of paper, even to survey it, was nearly impossible. So that was part of how some of this came to be at a later date because once it is nestled in and they see how it fits with the lay of the land, there was an area that could be developed that was just sitting there. Commissioner Tschopp said that when he walked the project site, he remembered the area where the sports court would go, where the water «. pond would go, was relatively flat and very unattractive. If they had to renaturalize it, he asked what they would be doing exactly. Mr. Barlow said they would be putting native rock back into that location in random patterns and locations. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it would remain relatively flat as it is now. Mr. Barlow said yes. Commissioner Tschopp said that basically they would be adding some desert plants and some rocks. Mr. Barlow said not much plant grows on that hill naturally. There were no other questions. Vice Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked the Commission for comments. Commissioner Tschopp said this was certainly difficult. Concerns and frustrations he heard had to do with the existing house and the office that are on the ridgeline. The errors that have been made on it have been done. It's ..r�r 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 too late to change that and what they see is what they are going to get now, hopefully with some better modification to it to hide the pool and some other things a little bit better than they are. But the piece of property in question is situated next to the home such that no one else can see it. No one else has access to it and in essence when you walk around up there, it basically is a side yard to a single family residence. A very large single family residence that is not seen, not impacting anyone else, and no one else can get to it. A couple of questions he asked Mr. Barlow had to do with if they renaturalized it, what it would look like. Well, it would look like a flat piece of desert with some rocks and a few extra plants on it. Nothing they would ever see and nothing that would impact them. Although the sheer magnitude of the grading up there seemed excessive, Commissioner Tschopp said this piece impacts no one else, no one else has access to it and he thought to deny this tonight would be a punitive measure on their part to say they don't like the house, they don't like the office so they were going to take this as a matter of standing in saying this to take a shot at them for what else has gone up there that they maybe errored on. So he was going to have to say at this point in time that he is in favor of the 13,169 square foot area to be used for the court and water features. Primarily for the reasons he stated. It is not impacting them, it won't change anything up there right now, no one else would have access to it and it served them no purpose to deny it at this point in time because what they see right now is still what they are going to get. Commissioner Tanner said he wished he had a little more time to digest this whole issue. From purely a standpoint of Ironwood and what they've gone through and what they would continue to go through as residents there, they couldn't fix that. They didn't have a way to fix the views they had. They are sitting there today and deciding on whether or not they grant an additional 13,000 square feet of pad. He heard their cries and concerns about what happens if they do this and are they opening the floodgate on more and additional areas growing in the mountains. He was here to tell them that he is new to the Commission, and he was not going to say he would not have approved the original Hagadone designs, he was just here to tell them that if this does go through, and he was inclined also to say that they should go ahead and let it happen, and maybe it wasn't beautifying the mountain, but at least it wasn't affecting Ironwood from a site standpoint. He was here to tell them that something that comes in front of him at this Commission will be explored thoroughly and with due diligence not to allow this to happen again. Whether it is Feiro at fault for designing the pad and 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 giving them larger area to expand on, he didn't know, but with the conditions that the Hagadones are willing to grant them with no lighting, and he would also suggest that they minimize or eliminate all lighting in the landscape area as a condition to approve. He would have to go along with his fellow Commissioner here and say that with the conditions that have been presented, he would approve this. But he wanted them to know, these kinds of things were not going to happen in the future. Commissioner Campbell said that what is in front of them is just the 13,000 square feet that already has been graded and they could not change the appearance of the house and that has gone through its due process and everything that has been done to that has been legal about it. (A couple of audience members called out comments as they were walking out.) Commissioner Campbell said she was speaking and continued. She said after visiting that area, since the land has already been graded, to her it looked like it was anybody's residential sideyard. It was a private area and it is a flat area. They would go ahead and have the sports court that would not be seen by anyone, either Ironwood or Bighorn. It is going to be private for only the residents. The rock formation and the landscaping that will be put back to normal again in the areas not used for the flower beds or stream will be very natural. In due process also, the roof of the house will probably be changing in color just because of the environment. Again, as far as Ironwood was concerned, she felt for them, but again, Planning didn't need to send notices out for more than 300 feet. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that one of the speakers tonight talked about a comedy of errors and that was clearly what has happened. She understood that when Feiro came out there was a plan submitted and the actual plan showed approximately 44,000 square feet. However, the calculation they were told was 38,000 square feet. That was error number one. Error number two was when City staff did not check that calculation and if they learn anything from this experience, it is that from now on, regardless of what's on the front sheet, City staff needs to recheck the calculation of the engineer. Then they come to the pool. The pool was permitted before City staff looked at the actual plan. So they learned that a permit should not have been issued until the plans were thoroughly inspected. That is staff's job. Now they have a pool that is built, more grading than what they thought, and those conditions exist. They have an area by the office where there is work that has been done in an attempt to camouflage and blend into the mountain that outcropping and .err 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 the office. It was her understanding that members of Ironwood participated and said that this would be a better thing to do in an attempt to camouflage it. But from what they were hearing tonight, what they saw on paper has really not improved to the extent that we had hoped with regard to camouflaging the office and having it blend in. She didn't know if there was any more work to be done in that area. She didn't know if that was the final project. From what they were hearing about the pool, there is still more to be done. So they have had error upon error and now they are faced with the situation to allow further grading. They heard the fellow Commissioners talk about this being an area that does not affect anyone else. But the testimony they heard tonight, despite it not affecting anyone from Ironwood or anyone in Bighorn, their wishes are still to deny it. She struggled with that because it doesn't affect anyone else. It is not going to right the wrong. By denying this it did not correct these errors. Vice Chairperson Finerty stated that it is important as Commissioners that they view specifically what is before them. What is before them shows that nothing will be effected. The ordinance states that they are not to have the views impacted. That is the spirit of the ordinance. What is before them tonight shows that it has not been and will not be impacted. Nevertheless, in reading all of their concerns, it was apparent that they all already understood that. What's in the phrases are that nevertheless they feel it should be stopped. They still feel this should not be allowed. She couldn't in good conscience go along with that knowing that this is not going to impact the view. Their correspondence is relevant in saying when will this stop and she very much had concern with the hillsides. She did not want them impacted. And this project has not turned out as they had hoped when they looked at the office area. They have some minimal issues with the pool. But her duty tonight is to look at the application before her. And that application was not going to affect anyone's view. Therefore, she was going to concur with her fellow Commissioners. At this time, they have only been presented with a resolution to deny the project. It is their job for the Commission then to direct staff to prepare a different resolution. She asked if there was a Commissioner wanting to do that. Action: Commissioner Tschopp made a motion directing staff to draft up a resolution of approval adding that any water features and landscaping proposed for the extended graded area, make sure that the lighting and landscaping elements 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19 2006 do not impact any surrounding areas. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Vice Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0 (Chairperson Lopez was absent). Vice Chairperson Finerty said there would be no resolution for adoption tonight. Mr. Haase spoke up from the audience.Vice Chairperson Finerty understood that the public hearing was closed; however, because of the concern she would allow him to come up to the lectern and speak into the microphone so they have it for the record. MR. HAASE stated that he understood the position they took. It doesn't impact Ironwood. But he wished the Planning Commission would put, and their report states and he would read from it and he was the one who said in the meeting they had that there would be no ridgeline or no houseline shown and also said that the rough grading was done without...it says in their own report that the expanded area for the sports court and landscaping that has been rough graded will need to be renaturalized. To him, what the report was saying was that someone went ahead and graded it. Now he might be mistaken and if that was the roads going up there, that was something different. But he hoped that the Planning Commission would put two companies under a lot of scrutiny when they submit plans. One is Feiro Construction and the other is RCE Consultants because to him it was their errors and submissions and things that were put around he thought that created all this havoc. He thought that if they did that, and he understood that he would never see the landscaping over there and that didn't bother him. But it did bother him that their own report said that the rough grading was done prior to any approvals and he thought those two companies really created a lot of errors. They submitted grading plans they knew that the pool was outside the 38,000 square feet and went ahead. He thought those things, and if he was a contractor and did something like that, that was almost an act that maybe the City Attorney should look into, is to say why did they do it before they had approval to build it. If they knew it was 38,000 and it was calculated wrong, why didn't when they found out bring it to the City's attention and say it is 44,000 but we're going to need 47,000 and now we want 61,000. He thought those were the things that bothered him the most about what happened. Vice Chairperson Finerty agreed with him and that's why in her comments she said that from now on she believed that staff needs to calculate all of 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 that regardless of what's on the front page so they don't have the further error and before any pool permits or any other permits are issued that the plans need to be looked at and approved. She regretted the errors that have been made by all parties. Mr. Haase said that was all he had to say and thanked them. MR. JOHN BARLOW stated that he really knew how unorthodox this was, so he would make it quick. He said the problems were Feiro Engineering. The problems were corrected by RCE. If it hadn't been for RCE, they wouldn't have found any of this. Their drawings have been accurate to the tenth of an inch. He thought the staff could support that. So for the record, if that went into the record, that was not accurate. He thanked them. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that there was no meeting. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Vice Chairperson Finerty stated that the landscape meeting would be tomorrow. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Vice Chairperson Finerty stated that the Project Area 4 was informational. D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner reported on the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 XI. COMMENTS Vice Chairperson Finerty stated that the next meeting would be October 3, 2006. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Vice Chairperson Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Chairperson Lopez was absent). The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. PHILIP DREL , Secretary TTEST: CI DY FINEAfY, Vice Chair rson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 33