Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1003 ��•�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - OCTOBER 3, 2006 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chair Cindy Finerty, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Van Tanner Members Absent: Dave Tschopp Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manger Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner 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 19, 2006 meeting minutes. On page 31 Commissioner Finerty had a correction and changed the word "condition" to "resolution" and on page 31 after the word resolution added "for adoption this evening" at the end of the comment after the motion. Commission concurred. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2006 ..r Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the September 19, 2006 minutes as amended. Motion carried 3-0- 1 (Chairperson Lopez abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent September 28, 2006 meeting minutes. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 06-03 - MC PROPERTIES, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to consolidate previous parcel map waivers to comply with city street requirements. .r Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Tschopp was absent). Vlll. 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 Nos. PP 06-10 and TT 34927 - STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan and tentative tract map to subdivide Lot 8 of TT 30438-2 for condominium purposes to allow construction of three residential units at 48-280, 48-294 and 48-308 North Ridge Trail. .r 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report in detail and recommended approval, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. CHRIS SHULTZ, Lowe Development, 74-001 Reserve Drive, thanked Mr. Drell and Mr. Smith for their help. He said it was a pleasure working with City staff. He said they reviewed the conditions and they were fine as written. He asked for any questions. There were no questions for the applicant. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Tschopp was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2419, approving Case Nos. PP 06-10 and TT 34927, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Tschopp was absent). B. Case Nos. PP/CUP 05-20 and DA 06-01 - VILLA PROPERTY DEVELOPER, LLC, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council for approval of a precise plan / conditional use permit and a development agreement to allow a new 12 unit, 36 keys, boutique hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street. Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report and background of the case and recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of PP/CUP 05-20 and DA 06-01 as presented. Commissioner Finerty asked about the height limit in that district. Mr. Bagato replied 24 feet. Commissioner Finerty asked about the height of the existing buildings currently in the neighborhood. Mr. Bagato said that on Shadow Now 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 ur Mountain there are some buildings that are two stories and some already around 30 feet. They were built in the early 1980's when the height limit used to be 30 feet. The other two-story buildings that were approved after the height limit changed were around 24 feet. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Bagato addressed the density. Mr. Bagato said yes, they looked at it and went over the overall design and from a lot percentage standpoint they are at 41%. The key issue wasn't a concern from staff's standpoint because as a hotel it meets parking, it meets the. requirements, and the development agreement gives them the right to have the extra keys. The parking would be the same for condominiums and it meets those standards as well. Commissioner Finerty asked if the density as reported in the City Council Staff Report in May is 18 units. Mr. Bagato said under the code that was correct. They are proposing 36. Commissioner Finerty asked for and received confirmation that they were requesting double the density. There were no further questions for staff and Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. WILLIAM DELEEUW, Villa Property Developers, 75-656 Via um Serena in Indian Wells, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present this project again. To quote a little from the staff analysis, he said the Planning Commission previously approved this project at the same time that they approved the hotel overlay zone due to its high quality architecture and the site planning design. The proposed changes would reduce the view impacts of the adjacent neighbors and contrary to the one letter they probably didn't receive in their packets (from Susan Myrland), they have worked diligently with all the property owners in the area and he wasn't sure why, and he didn't want to address each thing with the Commission, he would do that in a letter to the Council, but once again they were here today to talk about the development agreement, not the project per se. The project was approved by the City Council as amended, slight amendments from when it was approved by the Planning Commission. That was mostly due to the height that the staff indicated. He was happy to answer any questions. The development agreement was worked out with the staff to address the problems and a zoning change was not required. He asked for any questions. There were none. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty clarified for the record that although the Planning Commission vote was 4-0 on May 11, she was not at that meeting and did not vote on it. Secondly, she took some exception to the comment of Council having approved this because if they look at the Council minutes dated June 8, it was to be sent back to Planning Commission and Councilmember Benson felt it wasn't in the right location and too much was being crammed into a small space and that it would set a precedent for others in the area. She didn't feel that hotels of this size would impact El Paseo one way or the other. Additionally, Mayor Ferguson had asked the developer, the applicant, to take Councilmember Benson's comments to heart. So she didn't see that it was approved. Mayor Ferguson also went on to say that the Council, after the development agreement was put into place, the applicant was urged to meet with the residents and to take Council members' comments to heart and then he would be in a better position to make a final decision once the development agreement was returned, along with the residents' comments. So it was far from approved at the Council level. Having said that, she thought it was really important to protect the residential ... character of the neighborhood and also honor our zoning ordinance. As she pointed out in her questions with Mr. Bagato, the applicant is requesting double, 36 units, where normally only 18 would be allowed. With regard to the height, there are height exceptions anywhere from 2'6" up to 7' and when an applicant comes to them and wants to put something of this scale into a residential neighborhood, she thought it was incumbent upon the applicant to be within the zoning and to honor the height requirement and not to be asking for exceptions in height and in density. Therefore, she would not be in favor of this application. Commissioner Campbell said that at the meeting when they approved it 4-0, since Commissioner Finerty was absent, they all approved the project. Seeing from the changes that have been made, as well as the average footage in that area that Mr. Bagato stated was 24' to 30', this went right into it. The developer made quite a few changes from the previous application he made. Also from the Council minutes, Councilmember Benson disagreed and she didn't approve it, but it seemed like Mayor Pro Tempore Kelly agreed with Councilman Spiegel that it wouldn't be detrimental to anyone's property, it wouldn't detract from anyone's property value and it had its own underground parking which was another plus, so the vehicles wouldn't be parked outside on the street. Even at that time it was Mayor Crites that 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OQTOBER 3. 2006 .r stated at the beginning that he wouldn't be in favor of it, but from the physical characteristics that were approved by the Planning Commission, he was also in favor of everything. So her vote stands. She approved it the first time and she would approve it the second time. Commissioner Tanner concurred with Commissioner Campbell. He said they looked at this project, looked at it hard, and decided at the time that they would send it to Council. Seeing that there have been some additional concessions made by the applicant, he too would move for approval and send it back to Council. Chairperson Lopez also concurred. The applicant worked on lowering the height and concurred to send it back to Council for consideration. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no, Commissioner Tschopp was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner low Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2420, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. PP/CUP 05-20 and DA 06-01, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no, Commissioner Tschopp was absent). IX. MISCELLANEOUS Chairperson Lopez stated that he would be abstaining from discussion and vote on the first matter. He was unable to review the tapes, although he read the minutes, so he would not be able to participate in the discussion and asked Vice Chairperson Finerty to lead the discussion on this item. A. Case No. HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1 - HAGADONE FAMILY TRUST, Applicant Presentation of a resolution recommending to City Council approval of an amendment to a Hillside Development Plan / Precise Plan to expand the approved graded area from 38,000 square feet to 61,110 square feet for a residence located at 706 Summit Cove in the foothills of the Canyons at Bighorn Golf Course. 00 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 Mr. Bagato explained that at the last meeting staff was directed to prepare a resolution of approval, which was before the Commission tonight with two basic standard conditions put on every application. Going back to the original approval of the project and what staff was anticipating for the mitigation measures for the home and the design, and the public testimony, staff presented some additional conditions that the Planning Commission could add at their discretion if they felt they were necessary for the amendment to the original plan. Since the applicant was asking for amendment to the original plan, staff felt these conditions could be added at this time. Some of the issues identified through the public testimony were related to some of the stuff seen in the photo presented in the Commission packets. The visibility of the office, the textures and colors of the rocks, the expansion of the infinity edge pool--right now it was flat where the infinity edge of the pool was going to be, the appearance of the roof structures above the ridge line. There was lighting discussion relative to landscaping and the pool and staff identified some other potential light concerns. With regard to the office, staffs major concern was that the mitigation measures put up don't necessarily blend into the hillside well enough, as it should. The rocks around the office are kind of straight and long where the hillside has rocks that are short and rounded and the terrain didn't match the rock formation designed around the office. The coloring was an issue as well. It appears darker than the natural hillside. The hillside is kind of a sandy color with the rocks being a darker brown and in this case it was designed all as rocks so it's all appearing dark brown and is kind of standing out and not blending into the hillside as well as they thought it could. So there was a mitigation measure being proposed that the applicant redesign the rocks around the office to match the hillside with shape and color of the hillside. That was to address one of the office concerns. Mr. Bagato said that the original pool that was approved was about 70 feet wide on the original grading plan and there was a break in between the pool of a concrete pad where about 45 feet of the infinity edge would have been exposed. This new pool was 190 feet long and approximately 180 feet would be exposed along the ridge. Right now there was a plastic covering around it so they couldn't really tell, but there's a dark line in the picture that's the infinity edge that will now be seen and put a flat line across the mountain which was not natural to the terrain. A condition that could be added that they were proposing was a berming or mounding in front of the infinity edge on the hillside. That was done on Eddie Babai's house to break up the flat forms of the house and the narrowness of the straight edge of his house. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 Wo That mitigation worked well, so staff was looking for something similar that could be proposed or designed in front of that infinity edge. Mr. Bagato said that for the roof structures above the ridge line which were visible, there was no way to screen that and their concern was related to the coloring of the ceiling which would be under the roof. Right now he talked to the architect and looked at the material samples originally submitted and it was a natural wood material and they wanted to make sure in the final staging that there's a condition that makes sure that the ceiling is done with a material and coloring that blends with the hillside to the best of its ability given that it would be seen. The last issues related to the lighting for the project. He said they looked at architectural lighting for the home, the pool, the pavilion, landscaping, sports court and the office itself. For the home, there was about six uplights on the south side of the building. It wasn't visible from Ironwood, but could potentially be visible from the south side of Bighorn and within Bighorn itself. Those were uplights casting lights onto the building and the rocks on the entryway. Staff was concerned about glow that might be seen from it. The Hillside Ordinance's goal is to blend this house into the hillside and they don't want it lighted up at night. That was staffs concern and the mitigation proposed was that no architectural uplighting be allowed on the building illuminating any features of the building or the rocks themselves. For the pavilion, the roof lines could be seen above the ridge and with that ceiling there would be some ceiling lights. The applicant told staff that the original plans have been modified and there were a lot of lights approved in the ceiling under the construction plans and they reduced them themselves to try and cut down some of the lighting. Staff was still concerned. Until it's built, staff was asking for a condition that the pavilion area lights be prohibited so that no lights will be seen glowing from the ceilings. On the pool, there was some fiber optic lighting around the edge of the pool underneath the tile. He understood it was covered and only illuminated the tile, but there would potentially be a glow from it. Hopefully by proposing the mounding in front of the edge, that would mitigate any glow seen from the pool. Staff was just requesting that no uplighting / decorative lighting come up from the pool as part of the conditions. Another condition was landscaping. Staff reviewed a landscape lighting plan that was submitted for the first time two weeks ago. A concern with landscape lighting was not to have any light fixtures too tall or too bright ..r 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 where light could be seen throughout the project. In the report, Mr. Bagato recommended a condition that it be no higher than two feet. In speaking with the applicant, he thought they could agree with 3'6" being the max. Based on the design, staff felt it could be mitigated and there was another condition that kind of addressed all of the lighting. So staff proposed no higher than 3.5' for any landscape lighting. In various locations that couldn't be seen, they could potentially have taller fixtures. Staff just wanted to make sure they couldn't be seen once the temporary structure was removed since they didn't know what kind of lighting would be visible. Since the office itself was right on the ridge and there were still portions of the glass exposed, staff felt there needed to be some kind of shading device, either blinds or something the applicant could propose that could be installed inside the office and that the blinds would be shut and closed pretty much after 8:00 p.m. When it gets dark, they didn't want light from the hillside that could potentially be seen not just in the city, but throughout the valley because that was a pretty prominent ridge. Lastly, Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant indicated that there was no lighting proposed and staff was putting a condition on it that no lighting be ... put on the sports court so if there was lighting in the future, the plan would have to be amended. Due to the unforeseen deficiencies and issues that came up with the original plan, they just wanted to address any unforeseen lighting issues and a final condition being proposed was that any approved lighting and illumination plan be modified by the City of Palm Desert to mitigate light impacts from the project. That was to adjust all lighting concerns. With those conditions, Mr. Bagato said that staff was recommending approval of the amendment and that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval with the conditions proposed in the report. Mr. Hargreaves stated that the ability of the Commission to condition the particular amendment before them, the sports court, and go back and incorporate conditions that refer to the project as a whole is somewhat in dispute. He had conversations with the attorney for the applicant and he thought they both could agree that they are in a gray area. Mr. Hargreaves' interpretation is that there were two reasons. Coming back for an amendment to the original approval opens up the whole original approval. The other one is that with any particular project they can require conditions that mitigate the effect of that project. In this case, they were asking for an woo 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 No expansion to the disturbance of the hillside, so they were conditioning on mitigating some existing disturbances to the hillside in the same way when someone comes forward and wants to disturb endangered species habitat, they require them to mitigate somewhere else. That kind of a nexus. But he wanted them to be aware that the applicant didn't necessarily agree with the City's ability to go forward and condition, but Mr. Hargreaves didn't think they were going to strenuously contest that this evening. The hope was that based on the comments and concerns of the community between now and when this gets to the City Council there would be some dialogue where some of these issues can be addressed and they can figure out what is realistic in terms of dealing with the issues that are of concern to the community and hopefully not end up in a big dispute on this. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that this wasn't a public hearing, but since Mr. Bagato gave a staff report, she thought she should ask Mr. Barlow if he would like to speak. Mr. Hargreaves said that was correct and thought she could open it up to the audience, too. Under the Brown Act that has been our policy. Even though it isn't a public hearing, people can speak with respect to items on the agenda. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. MR. JOHN BARLOW came forward and thanked the Commission for sorting out the issues in the public hearing and the approval focusing on the 13,169 feet that was the area of question in front of them. Their approval motion appropriately pointed out two areas of concern that they also feel are appropriate. As to the landscaping, which was one of those concerns, they were very comfortable in stating to the Commission that they would not see any landscaping in the area in question. This was primarily due to the design that the Hagadones have elected for the entire site of oasis of flowers, lawn and water. The original landscape plan that was presented and approved with a building permit had numerous palm trees. All of them have been removed. So that portion of the request that was in the approval two weeks ago he believed was easily accommodated. As to the lighting in the new area, all the landscape lighting was low as Mr. Bagato indicated and less than four feet. He had a photograph of a custom bollard that they actually designed. It was essentially a piece of art and they made a full-scale model and it was sitting on a pallet at the job site. The only lighting within it was the down light. It am 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 mom was a very low-key fixture that sits back far enough away from the pool edge, about 20 feet, to where with the geometry of the pool edge straight out they would have to be somewhere between Highway 111 and Country Club to even be able to see it because of the angle of the sight line. That fixture did not provide any direct light that they would see because all the lighting they reviewed with staff is down lighting in the landscape areas. They submitted the landscape plan he had with him to staff in August. They talked about it before the public hearing and met again yesterday and reviewed it again. He believed they have adequately demonstrated that none of the lighting in the area in question is visible. As to the landscape lighting, they had presented the lighting also to Bighorn and received their full approval of the lighting, including everything on the landscape. So he had that as a submittal to turn in tonight. (The letter was submitted and is on file.) He stated that the Bighorn letter said, "The Bighorn architectural and landscape control committee has reviewed the landscape lighting plan submitted on ... behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Duane Hagadone. The lighting plan appears to be consistent with Bighorn's design guidelines and is therefore approved as submitted." He said it was signed by Joyce Wilkie, coordinator for the Bighorn Architectural Landscape Control Committee. Mr. Barlow said that in addition to the areas that he just pointed out that accommodate the two conditions that were in the motion, he wanted to talk to the Commission about other commitments that the Hagadones have made that he believed would help ease some of the concerns that have been raised. As he said, all of the landscape lighting is of the same type he just described in the new area and it is essentially down lighting lighting flower beds, pathways and walkways. The number of lights in the ceilings of the office and pavilion that are part of the building permit that they received, and are shown, have been substantially reduced and eliminated. In the office, for example, the building permit plans show over 50 light fixtures and there were somewhere near half that in the final design. In the pavilion, it was closer to over half that have been eliminated. But the staff comment that all of the lights in the pavilion be eliminated would eliminate the 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 no use of that area which is a substantial part of the home that was already permitted in the prior building permit in the prior approvals. They believed that would not be appropriate to have an area with no function since there was no light and it would be an extreme safety hazard. But the lighting that they utilize in all of their design light objects in spaces (i.e., the top of a table) rather than the entire area. That was one reason they have fewer fixtures. But when they light objects and not spaces, there is a lot less ambient light that spreads out beyond that. It just happened to be the way the Hagadones like to live and was how this home was designed. So it eliminates a great deal of lighting that has been approved in the previous permits and he believed helped accommodate the concern they had. With respect to the pool, Mr. Bartow said that most of the cover was removed yesterday as part of their plan for when the weather finally broke they could take it down and it was removed. They spent time today looking at the site from below from many different angles and the pool edge was really not very noticeable at all. But they would like to volunteer that they will be able to put at the back edge of the pool some larger stone as they complete the backfill that they believe will break up that straight line that some people have talked about. So with that, that concern should be taken care of and they feel very good about it from both sides. Also, the staff reported that there was edge lighting on that pool and he said there is no edge lighting on the pools at the edge of the site. The only edge lighting are in interior pools that are well within sight of the structure. The only lighting of these pools is horizontal, standard pool lighting that lights the water. There was no vertical pool lighting from the bottom up, so it was their belief that there would be little if any light emanating from those pools from below. Mr. Barlow said they believe they have addressed the two issues requested and placed upon the 13,169 feet approved two weeks ago. They feel they have also demonstrated additional mitigation efforts not to mention as discussed in the hearing all the time and effort they have put into the office and the office rock. They looked at the office again today and looked at it the day after the hearing and frankly, they do not agree with the assessment that it is a different color. They think it is very close and they were with their architect and have a lot of confidence with him and know what they saw. It did not have a different appearance. They also studied it from The Reserve, from 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 many locations, and they didn't agree that it isn't blending in. That was for voluntary mitigation at a cost of over $350,000 that they feel greatly improved the image and they were done at their cost on behalf of themselves and those that live in the neighborhood. Mr. Barlow said they also believe that the office is as permitted and is as approved in this hearing two years ago. So finally, they would like them to please allow the project to be completed before it gets assessed as to color and shape. All of the building features they see, they could now get a good idea from the Bighorn side their colors that naturally fit the pallet of that hillside, the coppers, the copper colored stone, the pink in the pink of the hills, there are oranges, and they were all in this building. They went to great lengths to do that and blend it in. Naturally today they see plywood, plastic, edges that haven't been covered or completed and haven't been coated and he thought it was unfair to judge the project at that early stage when they know how it will look. Again, if they go to the tournament at Bighorn next week, they could see from the inside what it will look like because most of that side is completed and they would see how it blends into the hillside. And actually they hoped at the end that they would be as proud of it as they are because they think it will be a fine addition to this community. He asked for any questions. There were none and he thanked them. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak. MS. MARIE MACK, Attorney for Ironwood Master Association, stated that she submitted a letter before the opening of the hearing just reiterating the Association's stated position that they oppose the approval of this project expansion; however, at that time she was unaware that staff had proposed these very important mitigation measures. Having seen them, they support all of them and urge the Commission to adopt these mitigation measures all as proposed by staff, which they thought would hugely alleviate the problems created by this project. She didn't think if they went and looked at the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing and the City Council hearing in 2004 with their staff report where very express representations were made by the applicant about how well this project would blend into the mountains. That wasn't what they saw today and she didn't think they could take the applicant's voluntarily representation that they are going to cooperatively make sure that happens through project completion. They had an opportunity now to condition it and didn't 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 no hear the City Attorney saying they couldn't and she would just urge the Commission to do it. She thanked them. MR. JOHN NICHOLSON, representing the owner, stated that he was the attorney Bob Hargreaves spoke about earlier. He said they viewed their role to be a cooperative one and thought they had demonstrated that they are trying very hard. They worked with Ironwood, worked with Marie Mack, the attorney for Ironwood, on submitting plans for the voluntary mitigation. They were told they look good and that's why they proceeded with them. Yesterday they spent a good amount of time talking with staff. They plan to continue to do that. He said Mr. Hagadone is committed to making this project as compatible with the community as he can and Mr. Nicholson thought the middle ground, instead of adding new conditions, relying on the administrative ability of staff to go forward with the owner because there are codes that apply to things such as lighting and they were working with staff to comply with those codes. So they didn't believe there was any need or actual ability of the City to go ahead with additional conditions, but their bottom line position is they are going to work with staff to complete this project consistent ..r with applicable codes and regulations. He hoped that could help alleviate some of the concern to the Commission. MS. KIM HOUSKEN, 73-237 Somera, said she was actually present for the Larrea hotel, but what she found so interesting was coincidentally she was here two years ago the night at least three of the Commissioners presented tonight voted on this project and what she recalled about the night was how little discussion there really was. Everyone was truly impressed that this was a huge house but would blend in so well. She believed the one concern was the reflection of the light and remembered it being said that there would be big overhangs and they would not see the light and so on. She lives down by Ironwood Park and even from where she lives she can see this house on the hill. She just wanted to pose the question of how they got to this point. What happened and where was the flaw in all of this? She heard the applicant claiming the voluntary mitigation. She recalled that they were going to be building on the rocks, not adding rocks. She thought there were rocks there that were going to be built around. So she could certainly share the sentiment of the attorney from Ironwood. 00 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2006 They were all told this would be a wonderful project and they wouldn't see it, they all agreed and look what they had to look at today. She certainly thought it was absolutely a great idea to condition things. Ms. Housken heard Mr. Bagato mention changing of the pool. She was just curious how things could grow in length. They were doing a small addition at her house and wanted to add four more feet and had to jump through a lot of hoops here at City Hall to add four more feet. She didn't see how a pool triples in size and no one seems to notice and now they have this huge infinity line of a pool that they will now have to disguise with rocks. So her concern was how did we get here, which they could probably be here all night trying to find that, and how can they prevent this from happening again? Where was the flaw and how can they resolve this? She was sure they tried their best and could certainly sympathize with the Ironwood residents because they weren't present at the meeting that night. This was supposed to be a beautiful thing, it would blend into the hill and no one would see it. She thanked them. There was no one else wishing to speak. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that at their last meeting in September this project was approved 4-0 with Chairperson Lopez absent. The only condition that was imposed at that time was by Commissioner Tschopp adding that any water features and landscaping proposed for the extended grading area, make sure that the lighting and landscaping elements do not impact any surrounding areas. That was the only condition imposed at that time to be added. Since there wasn't a resolution prepared for them, she would go ahead and move to approve Resolution No. 2421 conditioned the same as their September meeting and disregard any conditions imposed by staff at this time because as they could see from the developer, Mr. Barlow stated that they are working with staff to make some of the proposed changes compatible with the area right now. That was her motion. Commissioner Tanner agreed that they passed it 4-0. His question at this point was the City Attorney made the comment that they might be doing this in vain. He asked if that was correct. Were they really in a position to make that and vote that resolution if in fact they were operating in a gray area? Are they there to approve that resolution? Mr. Hargreaves believed they were able to do that. It fit into his understanding of the law, but he acknowledged that there is a disagreement and a gray area. Also, what the Planning 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 .w Commission was doing was a recommendation. It goes to the City Council and what the City Council does is what is going to count. So in a sense, he wasn't going to say what they did was in vain, but they were advising the City Council and that's where the real decision will be made. Commissioner Tanner said in that light, as Commissioner Campbell said, there was one condition, and he applauded Commissioner Tschopp in suggesting this and that was the lighting. That was an issue. That expanded grade, if Ironwood and surrounding areas were able to see any lighting coming from it, any type of intrusion, then they were definitely not for that. Apparently the mitigation process is well in hand and they are doing what needs to be done, so he would be in favor of approving the resolution as it stands before them. Vice Chairperson Finerty said the morning after their vote to allow this increase for the sport court and extra landscaping, she had gone back and got the actual minutes, the verbatim minutes when the City Council approved this project back on September 23, 2004. She wanted to read a few things from it. A statement was made by Mr. Barlow that, "Mr. Dryer, the architect, has very successfully, in our opinion, achieved both ends of the spectrum from the standpoint of what's important to the Hagadones. They have a .r home that has open features, the water features, the living spaces, that they want to enjoy and at the same time because of the setting, because of the way it is designed, it's hardly noticeable to the public."A little further down he talks about the community design and views, the spirit of the hillside ordinance that we have to protect these views. And lastly, Mr. Barlow talked about it being nearly invisible. Her concern, as she said two weeks ago, isn't what they can't see, it's about what they can see. This house was approved 5-0 at Planning Commission and at the City Council because they believed what they were being told and what they were being told is that it's nearly invisible. But today what they have is very visible and the hillside has been disturbed and they look at the office. She understood the Hagadones' willingness to put up the faux rock to try to cover up the office and she goes back two weeks ago when Mr. Barlow showed them the pictures before the faux rocks and after the faux rocks. She thought that evening that he had taken a bad situation and made it worse. So she was trying to figure out what they can do when what they actually voted for is not what they got. At least a portion was not what they got. So she asked staff to look at conditions because she felt that what they voted for has been very disappointing, not only to her but people from South Palm Desert, Ironwood, The Reserve and other developments. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION QCTQBER , 2O Vice Chairperson Finerty felt strongly that they need conditions, and it may be because they've never had a house built this big before, and someone asked how did we get here? Well, they got here based on certain representations that they thought, which were in large part lived up to, but they've got a couple of glaring representations that were not lived up to. They got here because of a grading plan that was submitted at 38,000 square feet and in reality was 45,000 square feet, but that was not caught. They got here because a pool permit was issued before the plans were reviewed. And they got here in large part because they believed that this wasn't going to be visible. She understood that the Hagadones were willing to work with them and she understood from their attorney, their counsel said they are willing to work with us and with staff. And that's precisely what these conditions are for. It's to insure that they do work with staff and that they do have some recourse for when a project is represented and then what we get is different. The faux rock around the office needs to be addressed, She didn't know what the answer was and was comfortable to try the condition as suggested by staff, but she did know that it was anything but natural and it was anything but blending into the hillside and anything but visible. She would move that they adopt all of the conditions and recommend them to City Council. vim Commissioner Campbell said they now have two motions. Mr. Drell asked if there had been a motion and a second yet. Vice Chairperson Finerty and Commissioner Tanner said no. Mr. Drell said that until there is a motion and a second, there's no motion. Commissioner Campbell again said there were two motions. Mr. Drell noted that there was no second and suggested trying one motion at a time. Vice Chairperson Finerty indicated that Commissioner Campbell's motion was first. Action: Commissioner Campbell stated that her motion was to go ahead and just to condition the project as stated by Commissioner Tschopp at their September meeting and disregard any conditions imposed by staff at this time because Mr. Barlow, or the developer, was working with staff to go ahead and make some of the changes proposed and to go ahead and make the changes that would be compatible with the mountains, the lighting and everything had to be approved by staff anyway with the ordinance. So she didn't feel that any of these conditions should be imposed on the developer at this time if he is working with staff. Commissioner Tanner asked if that was her motion. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Tanner seconded the motion. Motion carried 2-1-1 (Vice Chairperson Finerty voted no, Chairperson Lopez abstained and Commissioner Tschopp was absent). 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 so It was also moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2421, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment#1, subject to conditions as amended above. Motion carried 2-1-1 (Vice Chairperson Finerty voted no, Chairperson Lopez abstained and Commissioner Tschopp was absent). Chairperson Lopez resumed being chair of the meeting at this time. B. Request for initiation of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Commercial and Residential Condominium Approvals. Mr. Drell explained that in the last six or eight months staff has had either inquiries or applications for conversion of probably 15% to 20% of all the apartments in the city.That probably included the best apartments in the city. So given the fact that we have absolutely no regulation whatsoever relative to condo conversions, staff thought it would be worthwhile to at least look into that and into setting up some sort of regulation or process to deal with how tenants are treated, when and if they should occur, etc. Mr. Smith said the only other matter staff was possibly going to consider was with respect to parking and making it consistent with apartment projects and looking at some clearing up some existing deficiency as to whether it's a conditional use or an outright permitted use. The current ordinance is silent on it. So there are lots of things they could clean up with this and asked that Commission direct staff to so proceed. Commissioner Tanner said it was tough to comment on something they don't know about. Mr. Drell reiterated that all Commission was being asked to do was direct staff to initiate the discussion and it would come back to the Commission as an amendment with a hearing and they could vote it up or down. Commissioner Tanner asked for and received clarification that Commission would have time to review this. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion directing staff to set the matter of commercial and residential condominium approvals for public hearing. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Tschopp was absent). ..r 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006 X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell noted that there was no meeting. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that there was a meeting and it was informational. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty indicated that Project Area 4 meeting was also informational. D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner briefly reviewed subjects discussed at their meeting. aim XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Lopez noted that the next meeting was October 17, 2006. Mr. Smith indicated that it was a significant agenda. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Tschopp was absent). The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. STEPHEN R. SMITH, Acting Secretary ATTEST: JAMES PEZ, Chai r on Palm D e Planning C m ission AM 19