Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal TT 30438 Ammendment 2 - Destination Dvlpmnt (Stone Eagle)/A. CarverCITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT ADDENDUM REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal to a decision of the Planning Commission approving a request by DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. for approval of Amendment No. 2 to Tentative Tract Map 30438 (Stone Eagle) to adjust the approved pad elevations on certain lots shown on the tentative tract map including, but not limited to, certain residential lots and the golf maintenance facility. APN's 652-020-001 through 004, 652-070-002 thru 004 and 006 through 010. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: Destination Development Corporation 74-001 Reserve Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 APPELLANT: Antoinette Carver P.O. Box 4447 Palm Desert, CA 92261-4467 CASE NO: DATE: CONTENTS: Recommendation: TT 30438 Amendment No. 2 April 14, 2005 April 6, 2005 letter from applicant. That the appeal of the Planning Commission decision relating to TT 30438 Amendment No. 2 be denied and the Planning Commission approval and conditions be affirmed. Discussion: Attached is a letter from the applicant withdrawing the request to raise the maintenance building pad by two feet. This was the central concern expressed in Mrs. Carver's appeal. The issue on appeal appears to be moot. The City Attorney advises that the matter must still be acted upon by the City Council. Report Addendum TT 40438 Amendment No. 2 April 14, 2005 Submitted by: Department Head: / %!i Steve Smith it Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Appr v : Approval: Omer Cr Carlos L. O a ACM for lopment Services City Manager /dq CITY COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED * By Minute Motion, received the Appellant'sRECEIVED OTHER %,* letter of withdrawal. 5-0 MEETING DATE ( ' AYES: �K� ' { NOES: rl ABSENT: Tql& 4J ABSTAIN: VERIFIED BY: 'original on File w City Clerk's Office 2 STONty tAGLt-= April 6, 2005 Steve Smith City of Palm Desert 73-150 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Steve: .RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT We are writing concerning the appeal of Antoinette Carver of the planning commission's decision Case No. TT 30438 Amendment #2. Mrs. Carver's appeal is based on our request to raise the maintenance building pad elevation by 2 '. While meeting with our flood control engineer recently we questioned the absolute need to raise the pad by 2. His response was that leaving the pad at elevation 629 and not raising it 2' to elevation 631 would afford us the flood protection we need, Based on this information we withdraw our request to raise the maintenance building pad from elevation 629 to 631. If you need further information, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, r zillunson Sr. VP Construction BM1bk cc: Ted Lennon 7-+-001 Re.seme, Drive, InJian Wells, CA ?2210 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal to a decision of the Planning Commission approving a request by DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. for approval of Amendment No. 2 to Tentative Tract Map 30438 (Stone Eagle) to adjust the approved pad elevations on certain lots shown on the tentative tract map including, but not limited to, certain residential lots and the golf maintenance facility. APN's 652-020-001 through 004, 652-070-002 thru 004 and 006 through 010. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: Destination Development Corporation 74-001 Reserve Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 APPELLANT: Antoinette Carver P.O. Box 4447 Palm Desert, CA 92261-4467 CASE NO: TT 30438 Amendment No. 2 DATE: April 14, 2005 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Draft Resolution Background & Discussion March 15, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report Planning Commission Resolution No. 2327 Plans & Exhibits Recommendation: That the appeal of the Planning Commission decision relating to TT 30438 Amendment No. 2 be denied and the Planning Commission approval and conditions be affirmed. Background: October 24, 2002 City Council approved a series of applications and a development agreement for the project known as "The Crest" and now as "Stone Eagle." The project is an exclusive gate -guarded residential village and golf course comprising 44 single family lots, a 15,000 square foot clubhouse and 18-hole golf course located west of Staff Report TT 30438 Amendment No. 2 April 14, 2005 Highway 74 with access from a new road across the Palm Valley Channel opposite Homestead Road. August 17, 2004 Planning Commission approved Amendment No. 1 to TT 30438 which adjusted several lot lines while retaining the total lot count at 44, and adjusted the approved pad elevations in the area west of the storm channel opposite Somerset. Generally, the lots at the northwest corner of the map were lowered by up to 15 feet, while those in the southeast area were raised three to five feet. The six lots at the south end were lowered one to two feet. The elevation of the maintenance building pad was not adjusted as part of Amendment No. 1. In January, 2005, Destination Development Corporation submitted a request to adjust pad heights in the area of the 44 residential lots and to raise the maintenance facility pad two feet at the west end and lower it eight feet at the east end. March 15, 2005, Planning Commission approved Amendment No. 2 adjusting the pad elevations as requested, subject to conditions. Condition No. 2 reads: That the plans for buildings, structures and landscaping in the maintenance area shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda for review and comment once approved by the Architectural Review Commission. March 29, 2005 this timely appeal was filed by Mrs. Carver, a property owner north and west of the maintenance building. Mrs. Carver indicates that the pad for the maintenance facility should not be raised by.two feet without first having detailed architectural and landscaping plans which confirm that the view from her residence will not be impaired and thereby devalue her property. The Planning Commission action reverses that and allows the increased pad height, subject to the applicant obtaining approval of an acceptable design solution. A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: HPR / vacant South: PR-8 / condos East: PR-8 / condos West: County / vacant B. GENERAL PLAN: Hillside Reserve. FA Staff Report TT 30438 Amendment No. 2 April 14, 2005 DETAILS OF CURRENT PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to alter approved pad heights in the area of the maintenance facility and on some of the 44 residential lots. MAINTENANCE BUILDING The pad in this area was originally shown at 629 on the August 17, 2004 amendment. The proposal at this time is to raise the west part of the maintenance area two feet to 631 and lower the southeast corner eight (8) feet to 621. The applicant advises that the increase in pad elevation is necessary in order to be adequately protected from flooding. Natural grade in this area ranges from 635 at the west end to 610 at the east end. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, staff had been contacted by two property owners adjacent to the maintenance area (Bill Carver at elevation 680 and Janice Wood at elevation 670). Both expressed concern with the location of the maintenance building in general and specifically its appearance, odor and noise. In response to those concerns, the applicant changed the layout of the maintenance facility by moving the building to the north side of the site so that it will help screen the operations and eliminate the view into service bays. During the ARC review of preliminary plans for the maintenance facility, the applicant assured ARC that the area would be completely screened from the adjacent properties. Of course, raising this area two feet will make that commitment more difficult to achieve. Preliminary plans and a photo simulation prepared by the applicant shows a system of berms and intense landscaping being installed to the north and west of the maintenance building. This is potentially an acceptable solution but additional detail is needed before it can be presented to the Architectural Review Commission. LOTS 1 -10 This north area of lots originally had four lots which were set above natural grade. August 17, 2004 the area was lowered 2-15 feet which put all ten lots below natural grade. It is now proposed to raise these lots 2 to 3.5 feet. All lots will continue to be at or below natural grade. LOTS 11 - 20 This area, south of the previous group originally had seven lots above natural grade. The August 17, 2004 approval raised these pads so that eight lots were above natural grade. All of these lots will now be above natural grade. 3 rifle,; s.',+Wvi.,�";}:K.`;:', Staff Report TT 30438 Amendment No. 2 April 14, 2005 The applicant notes that these lots need to be above natural grade due to the height of the lake which provides drainage to much of the area. LOTS 21 - 27 In this next group of seven lots, six were originally above natural grade. The August 17, 2004 amendment resulted in all seven lots being above natural grade. The present request would increase the height of these lots an additional 1.5 to 2 feet. This increase in height is necessary to make the area consistent with Lots 11 through 20. LOTS 28.29 AND 30 These three lots were originally below natural grade, then lowered three to four feet on the August 17, 2004 map. Now they will be raised three feet and still be below natural grade. LOTS 31, 32. 33 AND 34 These four lots have always been above natural grade and will remain so on the new map. LOTS 35, 36 AND 37 These three lots were raised on the August 17, 2004 amendment and will be raised again on this amendment, but will still remain at or below natural grade. LOTS 38 THROUGH 44 These seven lots are at the south end of the project. The grades on these lots were lowered on the August 17, 2004 map and will be unchanged on this proposed map. CLUBHOUSE PAD The clubhouse pad has remained at the natural grade (650') on all three maps. Analysis: The applicant advises that changes to onsite flood control facilities necessitates raising pad levels in several areas of the map. Also, since the August 17, 2004 amendment they have learned to better anticipate soil shrinkage and subsidence in this area. Consequently, they are better able to balance the E Staff Report TT 30438 Amendment No. 2 April 14, 2005 "cut" and "fill" areas in the map. This will limit the amount of dirt that would need to be imported or exported to or from the site. In the maintenance area, the basic pad is proposed to be raised two feet from 629 to 631. This increase is needed to provide adequate flood protection. As of the review by Planning Commission and the writing of this report we did not have detailed plans for buildings, structures and landscaping in this area. The applicant was cooperative in amending the site plan of the maintenance facility and agreed to meet with the appellant once detailed plans were prepared. The final building and landscape plans still need final approval by the Architectural Review Commission. Condition No. 2 of the Planning Commission approval requires that the plans for the maintenance facility be placed on the Planning Commission agenda for review and comment once they are approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Conclusion: The Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission are aware of Mrs. Carver's concerns. The applicant still requires final approval from the Architectural Review Commission. If Mrs. Carver is not satisfied with the design solution which is eventually approved by the Architectural Review Commission, thatdecision is appealable to the City Council. Staff recommends that the current appeal be denied and that the Planning Commission approval and conditions relating to TT 30438 Amendment No. 2 be affirmed. Submitted y: Steve Smith Planning Manager Appr al: Homer Cro ACM for Devel(p rent Services /dq 5 Department Head: u. t I-Ilelo, Phil rell L ell, Director of Community Development Approval: ZW4,��� Carlos L. Ortega U City Manager ANTOINETTE CARVER March 21, 2005 City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Committee 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Stone Eagle (Destination Development Corporation) Dear Sir or Madam: mAR 2005 JIfMtiNITY DEVRLOPMIE,:�T E;4PARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Ted Lennon of Destination Development Corporation promised my neighbors and me that he would submit for our review Ariel photographs with superimposed drawings so that we could clearly see the structures and their layout prior to his company moving any further forward with the proposed maintenance yard. To date we have seen none of the items promised. At the most recent Planning Commission hearing approval was given to raise the maintenance facility pad higher than it is at present. The site photographs used at this hearing to illustrate the view from my property were outdated, taken from a useless vantage point, and did not in any way show the full extent of the negative impact on my two properties; particularly 72-275 Upper Way West, which abuts the proposed maintenance yard. I am concerned that you, too, may have been supplied with these less -than -accurate photographic representations of the site. Before you make a determination about the building's architecture, the roof style, or the type of materials to be used, I urge you, please, take a moment to come to my home, which is now in the final stages of construction. Stand on my property — right where my house sits. Step inside. Take a loop at Stone Eagles' pad from my living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom, courtyard, driveway court, and guest casita. See for yourselves (at its current elevation) the devastating impact this facility has on my only down -hill view; on any peaceful mountainside living experience I had hoped to realize; and on the future value of my property. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this matter. Antoinette Carver Upper Way West Homeowner P.O. BOX 4447 • PALM DESERT/CA • 92261-4447 PHONE: (760) 568-4464 • FAX: (760) 773-5374 ANTOINETTE CARVER March 21, 2005 City of Palm Desert 3C City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, C.A. 92260 Re: Stone Eagle (Destination Development Corporation). Dear Sirs or Madams:�ea I am writing to the ruling of the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission based on their €allure to disclose all of the parcels to be discussed for possible amendment at the public hearing, which took place Tuesday, evening, March 15, 2005. The City's Notice of a Public Hearing stated that Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by Destination Development Corp. for approval of Amendment No. 2 to Tentative Tract Map 30438 to adjust pad elevations in the area west of the storm channel opposite the Sommerset Community. This notice specifically names Assessor's Parcel Numbers 652-020- 001 and 652-070-002 through 652-070-010. There was no mention in the notification of any discussion surrounding the maintenance facility site (parcel number 652-020-003 or 652- 020-004), or parcel number 652-020-002, for that matter. The site photographs that were used at the this hearing to illustrate the view from my property were outdated, taken from a useless vantage point, and did not in any way show the full extent of the negative impact on my two properties; particularly 72-275 Upper Way West, which abuts the proposed maintenance yard. It appears, with the exception of Sommerset, that notifications were sent to only three property owners in the area. We all hope to hear, from you concerning this matter. Sincerely, Antoinette Carver Upper Way West Homeowner P.O. BOX 4447 • PALM DESERT/CA • 92261-4447 PHONE: (7b0) 568-4464 • FAX: (760) 773-5374 i OF PALM DESERT, CAIHORNIS APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE QQ roto'n.r V7-7 mA'� I �� > �—`'� Name of Committee f Commissionf m Case No. 3 Meeting Date: y»„�qC,/ Name of Appellant �7411e �1'' ✓' Address �°(�_ ���C - 'i�%%e017,�, Cw 9Z26I Phone: Q� 0)�`��� � Description of Application: Reason for Appeal: Pc/ f ''� -f�J ,Ya'd l�C��7 r �G1 Seri 6 ej Ind PLOS l.n ^ r Pic � <'- 4 an d Pw Q� o!' IA-114(eS � Signature of Appellant—Z V �d/may Date�4-70 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Appeal Filed: ` 3 Treasurer's Receipt #: r Public Hearing Set For. 2, Action taken by the City Council: Fee Received:,® c Received by: Date: Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 15, 2005 CASE NO: TT 30438 Amendment No. 2 REQUEST: Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the approved tentative map to adjust the approved pad elevations in the area west of the storm channel opposite the Somerset community. APN's 652-020-001 & 002, 652-070-002 thru 010. APPLICANT: Destination Development Corporation 74-001 Reserve Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 I. BACKGROUND: October 24, 2002 City Council approved a series of applications and a development agreement for the project known as 'The Crest" and now as "Stone Eagle." The project is an exclusive gate -guarded residential village and golf course comprising 44 single family lots, a 15,000 square foot clubhouse and 18-hole golf course located west of Highway 74 with access from a new road across the Palm Valley Channel opposite Homestead Road. August 17, 2004 Planning Commission approved Amendment No. 1 to TT 30438 which adjusted several lot lines while retaining the total lot count at 44, and adjusted the approved pad elevations in the area west of the storm channel opposite Somerset. Generally, the lots at the northwest corner of the map were lowered by up to 15 feet, while those in the southeast area were raised three to five feet. The six lots at the south end were lowered one to two feet. A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: HPR / vacant South: PR-8 ! condos East: PR-8 / condos West: County / vacant B. GENERAL PLAN: Hillside Reserve. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. TT 30438 AMENDMENT NO.2 MARCH 15, 2005 II. CURRENT PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to alter approved pad heights on the 44 residents lots and in the area of the maintenance facility. LOTS 1 -10 This north area of lots originally had four lots which were set above natural grade. August 17, 2004 the area was lowered 2-15 feet which put all ten lots below natural grade. It is now proposed to raise these lots 2 to 3.5 feet. All lots will continue to be at or below natural grade. LOTS 11 - 20 This area, south of the previous group originally had seven lots above natural grade. The August 17, 2004 approval raised these pads so that eight lots were above natural grade. All of these lots will now be above natural grade. The applicant notes that these lots need to be above natural grade due to the height of the lake which provides drainage to much of the area. LOTS 21 - 27 In this next group of seven lots, six were originally above natural grade. The August 17, 2004 amendment resulted in all seven lots being above natural grade. The present request would increase the height of these lots an additional 1.5 to 2 feet. This increase in height is necessary to make the area consistent with Lots 11 through 20. LOTS 28.29 AND 30 These three lots were originally below natural grade, then lowered three to four feet on the August 17, 2004 map. Now they will be raised three feet and still be below natural grade. LOTS 31.32. 33 AND 34. These four lots have always been above natural grade and will remain so on the, new map. K STAFF REPORT CASE NO. TT 30438 AMENDMENT NO.2 MARCH 15, 2005 LOTS 35.36 AND 37 These three lots were raised on the August 17, 2004 amendment and will be raised again on this amendment, but will still remain at or below natural grade. LOTS 38 THROUGH 44 These seven lots are at the south end of the project. The grades on these lots were lowered on the August 17, 2004 map and will be unchanged on this proposed map. MAINTENANCE BUILDING The pad in this area was originally shown at 629 on the August 17, 2004 amendment. The proposal at this time is to raise the west part of the maintenance area two feet to 631 and lower the southeast comer eight feet to 621. The applicant advises that the increase in pad elevation is necessary in order to be adequately protected from flooding. Natural grade in this area ranges from 635 at the west end to 610 at the east end. Staff had been contacted by two property owners adjacent to the maintenance area (Bill Carver at elevation 680 and Janice Wood at elevation 670). Both expressed concern with the location of the maintenance building in general and specifically its appearance, odor and noise. During the ARC review of plans for the maintenance facility, the applicant assured ARC that the area would be completely screened from the adjacent properties. Of course, raising this area two feet will make that commitment more difficult to achieve. CLUBHOUSE PAD The clubhouse pad has remained at the natural grade (650') on all three maps. III. ANALYSIS: The applicant advises that changes to onsite flood control facilities necessitates raising pad levels in several areas of the map. Also, since the August 17, 2004 amendment they have learned to better anticipate soil shrinkage and subsidence in this area. Consequently, they are better able to balance the "cut" and "fill" areas in the map. This will limit the amount of dirt that would need to be imported or exported to or from the site. K, STAFF REPORT CASE NO. TT 30438 AMENDMENT NO.2 MARCH 15, 2005 In the maintenance area, the basic pad is proposed to be raised two feet from 629 to 631. This increase is needed to provide adequate flood protection. As of this time we do not have final plans for buildings, structures and landscaping in this area. Once said plans have been approved by ARC, it is staffs intention to return to the Planning Commission for review and comment. IV. CEQA REVIEW: The proposed amendments are within the scope of the previous CEQA review and the EIR which was prepared for the project. No further environmental review is necessary. V. RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Commission adopt the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. approving Case No. TT 30438 Amendment No. 2, subject to conditions. VI. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Plans and exhibits Prepared by: Rev' wed and Approved by: Steve ith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Review d Concur: Homer Croy ACM for Develo nt Services AM 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ADJUST THE PAD HEIGHTS WHICH WERE DELINEATED ON THE STONE EAGLE TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT NO. 1. CASE NO. TT 30438 AMENDMENT NO. 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of March, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (Stone Eagle) as described above; and WHEREAS, the City Council by its Resolution No. 02-137 originally approved TT 30438; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2288 approved TT 30438 Amendment No. 1; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its actions, as described below: 1. That the amended map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, as amended. 2. That the design or improvement of the amended subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the density of development. 5. The amended design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the amended design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the amended design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. S. That the amended design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar access to the property. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the planning commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to pad elevations are within the scope of the Environmental Impact Report which was prepared and certified for this project and the Director of Community Development has determined that no additional environmental review is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That Case No. TT 30438 Amendment No. 2 adjusting the approved pad heights per the amended map are hereby approved, subject to conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1 th day of March, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 DAVE TSCHOPP, Chairperson PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 30438 AMENDMENT NO. 2 1. That all conditions of approval imposed on the original TT 30438 approval shall be conditions of this approval. 2. That the plans for buildings, structures and landscaping in the maintenance area shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda for review and comment once approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 9 STONE f-AGLE February 24, 2005 Mr. Steve Smith City of Palm Desert 73-150 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Stone Eagle Lot Elevations Dear Steve: 4005 !`0x4MI ': ii- rARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT I am writing to explain our need to adjust the lot elevations at Stone Eagle. Our original tentative map was approved and then in August of 2004 we submitted a map for approval with adjusted lot elevations. In January of 2005 we submitted another map with further adjustments to lot elevations. This third submittal is pending approval and will be on the March 15, 2005 Planning Commission Agenda. Designing a hillside development is out of the ordinary and much more difficult than working with a flat site. Initially, we had to work with a restraint that we had little to no control over, which was flood control. This restraint controlled the elevations of certain lots that had to be above the flood hazard. Once these lot elevations were established the relationship of adjacent lots had to be maintained to meet City requirements such as grade restrictions for city streets and driveways. Once the flood controlled lot elevations were established and the remaining lots sited in relation to the flood controlled lots the next issue to address was balancing the cut and fill on the site. A balanced site is one that uses the cut dirt to make the dirt fills within the limits of the site and no dirt is moved on or off the site. This is desirable from the City's standpoint as large earth moving trucks are not transporting large quantities of dirt through city neighborhoods. The obvious nuisances are noise and dirty streets. Upon completion of a grading plan we measure the quantities of cut and fill to determine the site balance. These measurements and calculations are done with computer software programs. On Stone Eagle we have commissioned these balance calculations from our civil engineer, golf course designer and grading contractor to make sure we are getting 74-001 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210 760.568.9800 Fax 760.779.1469 Steve Smith February 25, 2005 Page 2 accurate data. We have seen wide fluctuations in the balance calculations from the various grading plans (many which the City has not seen) we have designed. The first lot elevation changes we made in August of 2004 were designed to produce more cut to balance the site. In January the changes submitted were to slightly reduce the cut quantities by raising the the lots generally from 1 to 3 feet to reduce the cut and balance the site. This raises the question why did we make adjustments to increase the cut in August of 2004 and then in January of 2005 make adjustments to reduce the cut. This is explained by a factor for shrinkage and subsidence used in the balance calculations. The shrinkage and subsidence factor is different for every site depending on the characteristics of the soil. It can range from 0 to 25%. When grading hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of dirt, 0-25% can be a large quantity. We gathered data from our civil engineer, geotechnical engineer and grading contractor to develop a shrinkage and subsidence factor to use in the balancing calculation. After our August 2004 adjustments we learned more about the actual shrinkage and subsidence on our site by grading the golf course portion on the site. Using the actual factor from the golf course we re -calculated the balance for the residential grading and learned we needed to make adjustments. Hence the January 2005 submittal. Another issue you asked me to address is our thoughts on screening Stone Eagle from our neighbors at Sommerset. The grading plans submitted show a berm along the channel separating Stone Eagle and Sommerset. The height of the berm is limited to the horizontal area available to build the berm. For example to build a berm 6 feet tall with 2:1 slopes requires 24 feet of horizontal area. Once Stone Eagle is graded and the berm built between Stone Eagle and Sommerset we will add plant material, garden walls and/or fences to better develop the screen. In the past we met with Sommerset representatives and offered to plant additional oleanders to complete an oleander hedge between Sommerset and Stone Eagle. They were adamant that they did not want more oleanders blocking their views. I believe if a poll were taken from Sommerset residents some would want to see Stone Eagle others would want a screen between Sommerset and Stone Eagle. The maintenance building pad was originally submitted at elevation 629. Our flood control designer advised the pad had to be at elevation 631 to be protected from flooding. We raised the maintenance building pad to 631 and lowered a portion of the pad not in the flood hazard to elevation 621. Attached is table A showing natural grade of lots and the elevation of the lots based on the first submitted design, August 2004 submitted design, January 5 submitted design and the difference between natural grade and the latest design. As you can see from the attached table the majority of lots either stayed the same or were lowered from natural Steve Smith February 25, 2005 Page 3 grade. Of the lots that were raised, numbers 11-20 were raised for flood control and lots 21-27 were raised to maintain a reasonable relationship with lots 11-20. Attached is a map identifying the lot locations and elevations. If you need further information please do not hesitate to contact me at 674-2232. Sincerely, ill Munson Sr. VP Construction Attachments cc: Ted Lennon Nizar Farhat 1 TABLE A Elevation Difference Lot Number Natural Grade First Sub -total August 2004 January 2005 From Natural Sub -total Sub -total to January 2005 Submittal 1 700 695.0 695.0 698.0 -2 2 705 700.0 695.0 698.0 -7 3 695 700.0 690.0 693.0 -2 4 695 695.0 685.0 688.0 -7 5 690 695.0 680.0 683.0 -7 6 685 695.0 680.0 683.0 -2 7 696 693.0 685.0 688.0 -8 8 690 682.0 680.0 683.5 -6.5 9 650 650.0 645.0 647.0 -3 10 655 648.0 645.0 647.0 -8 11 636 644.0 645.0 647.0 +�. +11 12 637 645.0 645.5 647.0 z +10 13 641 645.0 645.5 648.0 r'; +7 14 642 645.0 645.5 648.0 +6 15 646 646.0 646.0 648.5 +2 16 647 647.0 650.0 652.0 +5 17 650 649.0 652.0 654.0 +4 18 652 650.0 655.0 657.0 +5 19 654 652.0 658.0 660.0 +6 20 656 655.0 660.0 662.0 +6 21 690 658.0 675.0 677.0 +7 22 662 665.0 670.0 671.5 +9 23 655 665.0 665.0 667.0 +12 24 654 663.0 665.0 667.0 +13 25 647 661.0 660.0 662.0 +15 26 650 657.0 660.0 662.0 +12 27 648 656.0 658.0 659.5 +11 28 675 655.0 667.0 669.0 -6 29 678 670.0 674.0 676.0 -2 30 680 670.0 676.0 678.0 -2 31 683 670.0 684.0 686.0 +3 32 675 690.0 690.0 692.0 +17 33 693 693.0 696.0 698.0 +5 34 705 700.0 695.0 697.5 -8 35 715 680.0 705.0 709.0 -6 36 694 676.0 690.0 694.0 0 37 698 665.0 675.0 679.0 -11 38 661 665.0 665.0 665.0 +4 39 667 667.0 666.0 666.0 -1 40 668 670.0 668.0 668.0 0 41 670 672.0 670.0 670.0 0 42 675 676.0 673.0 673.0 -2 43 678 680.0 676. 676.0 -2 44 683 683.0 682.0 682.0 -1 PEA /� Pit �j 177"MAIL, i -01 toice. NOR 19 I1Y 0f P81M OESEI► 73-5 to FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6i I FAX: 760 341-7098 info* palm -desert. otg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 30438 AMENDMENT #2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. for approval of Amendment No. 2 to Tentative Tract Map 30438 to adjust pad elevations in the area west of the storm channel opposite the Sommerset community. APN's 652-020-001 and 652- 070-002 thru 010. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary March 4, 2005 Palm Desert Planning Commission CIIY OF P 0 [ M 0 [ S I P I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6i 1 FAx:76o 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 30438 AMENDMENT #2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal to a decision of the'Planning Commission approving a request by DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORP, for approval of Amendment No. 2 to Tentative Tract Map 30438 to adjust pad elevations on certain lots shown on the tentative tract map including, but not limited to, certain residential lots and the golf maintenance facility. APN's 652-020-001 thru 004; 652-031-002; 652-070-002 thru 004 and 006 thru 010. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 14, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk April 2, 2005 City of Palm Desert, California ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES to make it part of the architecture. Commissioner Lopez wanted to make sure that they've provided a place for the trash cans so that they're screened. Mr. Smith stated that landscape plans have been submitted and Ms. Hollinger has submitted her comments to the landscape architect. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans for both commercial and residential elevations. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: CUP 04-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS'): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN BERNARDINO, 1201 E. Highland Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92404 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:, Request preliminary approval of elevations forSacred 'Hearf" parish' hali/gymnasium and expansion of school. LOCATION: 43-775 Deep Canyon ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambel for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-2-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Hanson abstaining. 5. CASE NO.: TT 30438 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 74-100 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:, Preliminary approval of elevations for the sales building, homes, maintenance facility, golf cart storage building and gatehouse for the Stone Eagle. LOCATION: 48-099 Highway 74 ZONE: HPR Mr. Drell stated that the elevations are different from what the commission previously reviewed. The architecture was sort of "organic" G91anning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin1AR041214.MIN 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES in style. Ted Lennon, applicant, was present to address the commission. Their effort on the gatehouse was to mimic the architecture of Sardinia, which has similar terrain as the hillside in Palm Desert. The roof tile is different from their original plans. They tried to used concrete tile and tumble it but it didn't look good so we went back to the barrel tile with triple tiles in the front. They'll have a brown, earthy look to blend into the mountainside to match the rocks. The guardhouse will have an organic feel. Their idea was to create an abobe-type of architecture and then squish it a little bit to give it some unevenness in the shapes and thickness. The 2,000 square foot sales office will be at the entrance and is a very low profile building that's built against a rock mountain backdrop. The tones will be darker browns to blend into the hillside. The windows will all be in thick, recessed walls with trellised overhangs. The clubhouse has a lot of peeled logs inside so there's lots of wood. The sales office will have an earthy plastered finish to the building. There are three basic residential plans which range in size from 2,600 square feet to 3,600 square feet. In the original plan, they talked about doing some 900 square foot units but they're not in the plan anymore. The homes are all freestanding, patio/pool homes with an outdoor trellised living room. They sit on anywhere from a quarter of an acre to an acre of land. The project is basically hidden from Highway 74 and the lower desert area. They all have entry courtyards with stone walls around them with outdoor showers. We're approved for 60 residences, but we're building 44 units at this time. The landscaping will be desert landscaping. The palette for the residential neighborhood will be very similar to The Reserve with almost 90% native vegetation. The biggest change to the architecture is the change from the flat tile roof to the barrel tile roof. We think we've come up with a very earthy type of architecture. Commissioner Hanson asked about the price points on the homes. Mr. Lennon stated that they're close to $600. per square foot. Commissioner Gregory stated that the windows are recessed, the colors are natural and there's a lot of sensitivity shown on all aspects of designing this development. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the elevations for the maintenance building. Mr. Drell stated that they probably want to defer the maintenance building because it's a metal building. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would be nice to continue, the feel of the gatehouse throughout the project so there's not such a separation. Mr. Lennon stated that the maintenance building will be hidden in a valley. They don't want to see it when they enter the project. Mr. Carver built his house in the canyon with a guesthouse so we now have to landscape the maintenance building to screen it from his view to be good neighbors to him. Janice Wood has a property up on the ridge G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 MINUTES and she may see the top edge of the building. The main problem is to solve the problem with the Carver unit so we're doing some landscape studies. Our goal is to come back to the City with a landscape and berming plan that addresses these issues. If we can screen the building, are we okay with doing a metal building with a brown rusted roof with earthy finishes? Commissioner Van Vliet asked if you would be able to see down valley. Mr. Lennon stated that you won't see it at all because of the huge berms. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if it's screened and you can't see it, then it should be fine. Mr. Lennon stated that they're a little bit behind and they're just starting construction of the bridge. We start grading next week on the lower area. We've rough graded all but one hole on the top. We've sanded about 7-8 greens on top. The golf course architect is Tom Doke who is the hottest, young, new architect in the business. He's been designing golf courses for twenty years and designed Bandon Dunes, which is ranked in the top twenty golf courses in the world. He and his staff will do a lot of the shaping of the course themselves. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for preliminary approval. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 04-48 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SUZANNE LOPEZ, 3257 Primera Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90068 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to construct an attached garage, entry vestibule' and 7' 'high front yard wall 6' from curb face at a single-family residence. LOCATION: 45-807 Portola Avenue ZONE: R-1 Howard Peterson, architect, was present to address the commission. A picture of the north elevation and a site plan was passed around to the commissioners for them to review. The City has widened the street adjacent to this home, which cut off some of the front yard. What Ms. Lopez is trying to do is create a buffer between the street and the house and get some privacy, a better looking house and provide a sound barrier between the street and the house. To do that, it infringes on the existing setback. A new location for the wall is being proposed at 5' on the outside of the wall with the entryway at the original location of the original retaining wall. We're looking at this as a work session. G:PlanningTonna Quaiverlwpdocs\Agmin1AR041214.MIN 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION V. V1I 1W Vill. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION MARCH 15, 2005 Mr. Drell and Mr. Smith summarized pertinent March 10, 2005 City Council actions. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 03-17 - MICHAEL FEDDERLY, FEDDERLY & ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 13 and 14 of Tract 25296-5 within Bighorn. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. on* PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. TT 30438 Amendment No. 2 - DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of Amendment No. 2 to the approved tentative map to adjust the approved pad elevations in the area 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 west of the storm channel opposite the Somerset community. APN's 652-020-001 & 002, 652-070-002 thru 010. Commissioner Jonathan advised the Commission that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter and left the room. Mr. Smith indicated that in October of 2002 City Council approved The Crest project, which is now known as Stone Eagle. That included a tentative tract map for 44 single family lots amongst other items, including the golf course and clubhouse, etc. That approved map had certain pad elevations shown on it. August 17, 2004 the Planning Commission approved Amendment No. 1 to the tentative map which adjusted several lot lines while retaining the total lot count at 44 lots/units and adjusted the approved pad elevations. Generally, the lots at the northwest corner of the map were lowered by up to 15 feet, while the lots in the southeast area were raised three to five feet. The six lots at the south end were lowered one to two feet at that time. The Planning Commission was now being requested to once again alter the pad elevations. They were not being requested to add or delete lots, they were being asked to approve new pad elevations. In the northerly area, Lots 1 through 10, this area originally had four lots which were set above natural grade. In the August 2004 action, they lowered the area two to 15 feet. That put all ten lots below natural grade in that area. At this point they were requesting to raise these lots two to three and half feet. All these lots would continue to be at or below natural grade. Lots 11 to 20 to the south side of the proposed lake, in the August 2004 action Planning Commission raised these pads to the point where eight lots would be above natural grade. All of these lots would now be above natural grade. The reason for increasing the grade in that area was due to the height of the lake. They had a section on the lake which confirmed the necessity of raising these lots in that the lake would drain through a spillway under the road and then eventually make its way into the channel. So that became the basic height necessary in that area. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15. 2005 Lots 21 through 27 were also being raised an additional one and a half to two feet. This was necessary to make these lots consistent with the previous northerly lots where they back onto them. Lots 28, 29 and 30, these three were originally below natural grade. Then they were lowered another three to four feet. Now they were requesting to raise them three feet. So they were basically back to where they began with those three. Lots 31 through 34, they've always been above natural grade and they would remain so on the new map. Lots 35 through 37 were raised in the August 2004 amendment. And they were proposed to be raised again, but they would still remain at or below natural grade. Lots 38 through 44 at the southerly end of the project were lowered on, the August 2004 map and they remain unchanged at this point. In the area of the maintenance building that was originally shown at 629 in the August 2004 action, the applicant was requesting to raise that area two feet to 631. At the same point, they were looking at reducing the height of the southeast corner of that area to 621. Natural grade in this area ranged from 635 at the west end to 610 at the east end. Mr. Smith said staff had contact from two property owners. Janice Wood to the north of the maintenance facility, and the Carvers located to the northwest of the maintenance facility. They expressed concern with the visual impacts. The Commission received letters which were passed out today from both parties. The clubhouse pad remained unchanged, and it was unchanged with the August action. The applicant provided staff with a detailed analysis and letter supporting the requested changes. Basically, it stemmed from their further defining the lake construction and its ultimate level. Then proceeding from there and finding that they were getting less shrinkage or more shrinkage in certain areas and in order to balance the site they need to make the adjustments they were requesting this evening. in MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 In the area of the maintenance facility, he said the applicant advised that the increase was necessary to provide adequate flood protection in this area. When the matter of the maintenance facility went through Architectural Review Commission back in December, that commission had significant concerns relative to the visual impact there and the applicant committed to ARC that they would significantly screen it. As of today, staff received a photo "sim" of a photo taken from the Carver property to the northwest looking southeast toward the area of the maintenance facility and basically showing that it could be accomplished. What he meant by "can," through a system of berms, landscaping and appropriate design they could make the maintenance facility all but disappear. And now it was a matter of them coming up with a plan to implement this photo sim. Staff recommended that Planning Commission approve the request, subject to all the conditions that were imposed previously, plus, that once the matter has been recommended for approval by ARC, that they return with the matter here so the Planning Commission could also have the opportunity to see the design solution that implements this level of screening. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked for staff to point out the location of the clubhouse on the map. Mr. Smith did so. Mr. Drell explained that in essence they would be using the back end of the buildings to screen the yard. They would have to make the back end of the building more like a decorative wall and then landscape it and berm it. They hadn't really seen how exactly in detail this would work. This was going to be one of those situations where ultimately they wouldn't be done until staff says they're done. It would be in the execution, so the basic standard of the review is this maintenance yard would have to meet the same sort of standard as if it was a house and they knew the sort of scrutiny houses in the hillside were given. Referring to the photograph, Commissioner Lopez asked what was in front of it. Mr. Drell said it was a cut. That cut is going down into the creek and it would have to be renaturalized with rock and, plant material. In the letter, the property owner on the other side of the bank was requesting that her side get the same level of treatment in case there is a flood that her side is just as protected as the applicant's side. Throughout the whole project, every cut 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15. 2005 that looks like that had to be restored to a natural appearance with rock and landscaping. Chairperson Tschopp noted that staff provided a Table A, and if he was reading it right, the far right-hand column was basically from the natural grade and what they were looking at tonight was the difference that would entail from the August 2004 subtotal, so in actuality some of them were showing an 11-foot increase and tonight they were actually discussing a two - foot increase from the already previously approved grade. Mr. Smith said that was correct. They would have to do the math for the one column where they would compare the August with the January. There were no other questions. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. BILL MUNSON, 5 Como Circle in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He stated that Mr. Smith did an excellent job of explaining. He thought the table told the story. There were a lot of numbers and it took some time to study it, but basically what they were requesting with this revision was a very minor change from what was previously approved. Again, the controlling factor on these lot raises stemmed from a flood control issue. He pointed out Bruce Creek going through the project and said the water level from a major event or design event dictates the elevation of these lots along the channel. Once those lot grades were established to be protected from flood control, the next issue was the relationship between these lots and the next lots going up the hill. After that, again, the lots on the crest of the hill. So it was kind of a step by step process to establish grades. The highest lots on the project in all cases involved considerable cut from where they are naturally. They weren't raising any lots. The raised lots were dictated by the flood control and he pointed out the area. Also, another point that was made was the balancing of the site not to import or export any dirt and try and make the site work within itself. Where all the cut makes the fill and all the fill comes from the cut. So there was no dirt moved through the city other than within the limits of the site. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15. 2005 He said Mr. Smith also addressed the maintenance building. What they had done to mitigate some of the issues here was they increased the setback from their property line an additional 25 feet. That allowed them to build some berms. He pointed out the location. The berm at one end was 645. Where the highest point of the building is 647.6; they were two and a half feet above the berm on this corner. He pointed out the location of the Carver residence looking down. They moved the building over, took the material bins and relocated them to a lower grade ten feet below, down at 621 versus 631. That allowed them to provide more of a screen. In another area they established a berm to screen the neighbor in that region, again, planting trees on top of the berm, so anyone looking down from that area would see, filtered through trees and shrubs, an outline of the building possibly. But they wouldn't see the yard in front. The material yard is lowered. They felt they would not be able to see it in any way, shape or form down there. They dealt with these issues and tried to mitigate them. They had other projects in the city with similar issues and when all was said and done, the residents were happy and the people were happy. So they don't ignore them, they try to deal with them and take care of any issues. He said they have a project that is built into the hills and it is a different animal. They've learned a lot. It has been very difficult and they weren't dealing with two dimensions, they were dealing with three dimensions. It was a tremendous issue to try and resolve all of this. They've been through numerous grading plans trying to get the site to be balanced so they weren't bringing dirt in or out and were dealing just within the site. They finally arrived at something. In their submittal of August 2004 they were very close, but because of flood control, they had. to revise it in small quantity. Basically, if they took an average of the changes, it was about a foot and a half per lot for the entire site, or 18 inches that they were requesting so they are balanced. They thought their architecture from the day they approached the city blends into the hillside. They made efforts to make that happen. They felt it was very good looking and would be 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 a beautiful project and everyone around it would be happy because what they see would be very pleasant. Chairperson Tschopp asked if he had looked at the conditions and agreed with staff's conditions. Mr. Munson said yes. They knew what they were showing the Commission tonight was a representation. They had to deal with Mr. Drell and the City and make everyone happy when all was said and done and that was their intent. They would do that. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. He noted that he had one Request to Speak Card from Mr. LaTourette and invited him to address the Commission. MR. PETER LA TOURETTE, 72-445 Desert Flower Drive, which he said was in Somerset, the adjacent property. He said they mainly just had some clarification and comments more than anything else. Originally when they were with Mr. Lennon and his people, they stood on one of their balconies across from where the houses were going and they told them at that time it was going to look like Sardinia or Tuscany and everything would be in the natural terrain and they wouldn't see it. That wasn't going to happen, but they didn't have a big problem with that. But what they were concerned with now, since they were going to see all these houses front and back in some cases, that there is sufficient amount of landscaping to hide and cover that because he said he would do, that if they had visual sight of the houses themselves. And the other thing they were concerned about is they still plan on the parking lot like they have in The Reserve to use a low level bollard type lighting and also heavily landscaped there again so they don't see massive asphalt in the parking lot. So those were their basic concerns. These were things they discussed with Mr. Lennon before. The lots changed somewhat and they understood the reasons for that, but they also wanted to make sure these other things were followed through on. He didn't think the maintenance building affected them, it was on the other side of the hill. E'1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Smith said that was right. MARCH 15, 2005 .:,.. .v..��.. :.. ..: ..:��:�?....�:,..'.:n.k.u:.RC,a.r.�::.x.>'�:a..r�.ti^,,-�•:.a;vu ..... ...h{'.'�A.,..u-i^v�.. .a ... �, MRS. ANTOINETTE CARVER, 72-955 Deergrass Drive, informed Commission that her properties were at 72-275 and 72-240 Upper Way West. She had major concerns because the proposed maintenance yard sits in her front yard. The photograph that was put up on the screen was not the view they see from their home, it was the view they see from a portion of their driveway and it was far more disturbing if they were to look at it from their two properties, from right up in the compound of the property. She didn't know exactly what the solution was to this, but she cringed to think they might elevate the pads even higher. She did like what they had done with moving the bins because they thought those were going to be at the back of the property and felt that was positive, but they decimated Ramon Creek. It was, truly a heart break. She was so disturbed over this. They worked so hard to comply with all of the requirements from the Department of Fish and Game where they didn't harm in any way a blue line creek. They spent considerable amount of time and money and care in developing their property so that it was aesthetically pleasing to everyone that looked at it and would only serve to enhance the property values of the people around them. She knew in many respects that the Stone Eagle development would be an enhancement, but she had difficulty with the fact that the maintenance yard was placed in their view shed rather than over with the people in Stone Eagle where she thought it should be appropriately placed. Mr. Lennon told them that he was going to have an aerial shot done of the project and that he would superimpose drawings of the buildings on it for their perusal and they had not seen that. But she just wanted to let Commission know that they have very strong feelings of opposition toward this and any help they could have to make this less disruptive as possible would be deeply appreciated. Mrs. Carver said the number of casitas seemed to have increased since they were first told about the project and they were wondering how many casitas would actually be requested by the time the project 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15. 2005 was completed or perhaps they might come back and submit again to add even more to try and support the course. That's a concern to them. The other thing they were concerned about is there seems to be a very steep grade leading up to the property. That being the case, she was wondering if when they have full loads of material, if these golf carts that were supposed to be used since no vehicles were allowed on the property, if these golf carts were used, if they would have to be the noisier, gas powered variety or if they would all be electric carts. She said that summed up her comments. Chairperson Tschopp asked if the applicant wished to readdress the Commission. Mr. Munson came forward. To address Mr. LaTourette's comments, he would address the parking lot and the low level lighting. He pointed out the parking lot and said they intend to build a combination of berms, landscape screen walls, and fences the length of the project. They could see the berming in the area where they have room to do it. In the areas where they didn't have as much room they used walls, trees, screened fences, etc. This parking was considerably lower than the clubhouse site. The nearby grade was 650 and the parking lot stepped down. He showed where the grade was 612 and said it was 37.5 feet lower than the pad of the clubhouse itself, so the lot does step down and they felt it would be well hidden. As far as lighting in that area, they probably wouldn't use any high lights or standard lights, but something more like landscaping lighting. They don't expect a lot of night activity, but they would need enough light for safety, but it wouldn't be a brightly lit parking lot. Mr. Drell asked if they would be using concrete pavers like the Bighorn parking lot. Mr. Munson said that hadn't been determined, but they intend to use pavers of that sort in certain areas of the project. He didn't know if it would be in the parking lot necessarily, but again, he didn't think the parking lot would be seen from Somerset mainly because of the 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2005 screen, number one. And also the fact that the grades were considerably lower. He noted that Mr. LaTourette also mentioned hiding the homes. The grades were shown for the home sites and he thought their homes were beautiful and their theme was the Sardinia Esmeralda Coast. He had some architecture if they wanted to see the homes and had elevations and colors that they viewed. He said that the colors would blend into the hillsides, noting that there were numerous browns out there. They could see the multicolored roof tile, again blending into the hillside. The eaves, he said it was difficult to see, but they were curved and a different style of architecture. Basically, there were no flat roofs, they pop up and down blending into the hillside. He showed the product for the north ridge, the highest up on the hill which would be most seen. Then he showed the product for the lots along the perimeter of the lake. There were screens over the windows, little trellises. All of that was tailored from the architecture on the Esmeralda Coast in Sardinia. He believed that addressed Mr. LaTourette's concerns. (Mr. LaTourette spoke from the audience and said he had no problem with that.) Regarding the number of casitas, they were still at 44 lots and they had been at that number since he could remember. The steep grade going up to the golf course, yes, there was a steep grade but the cart path that goes up was down rather low. He showed the path that led up to the golf course. From their clubhouse to the top was about 3,000 feet, so it was better than a half a mile. Going up the cart path, it was down in a very low area. There was a ridge between it and Mrs. Carver and he doubted they would see anyone there. As far as the maintenance vehicles that would go up the cart path, gas carts are noisier than electric, there was no question about it. But with modern technology, the gas carts don't make much noise and were not anything like they used to be. There would be a combination of vehicles used, some gas, some electrical which was typical for maintenance of any golf course. He didn't think it would be an issue where they would be super noisy. Mr. Drell asked what the golfers would be using. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15. 2005, Mr. Munson said the golfers would be using electric carts and they won't make any noise at all. And they would be the majority of the traffic. The maintenance workers would go up and down in a day's time. They also have some bunkers on top to house some of the golf course equipment so it doesn't come up and down, but stays on the course. The equipment that can stay up there will, and the equipment that needs maintenance comes down. He said they were trying to address the issues and knew Mrs. Carver had some concerns and he thought they would address them and make those concerns go away when it was all said and done. Mr. Drell said it was his understanding that they would be restoring the creek to a natural appearance. Action: Mr. Munson said yes, they worked with Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife and the Army Corps. of Engineers and got all of their appropriate permits and showed them where they were going to do impacts and mitigated those impacts. They have rules and regulations to follow to put them back and they weren't finished yet, they were in progress. Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Finerty said it appeared that the applicant had worked very hard to mitigate all of the concerns, and from previous experience with the applicant, they've never had any problem and they have been more than willing and they've been good on their word to address any issues that come up. She moved for approval. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He also believed that this is a project still in the works with a long way to go on it and there were a lot of opportunities to review and inspect the area as it pertains to the maintenance shack and all of the berming and landscaping that would occur all around this particular location. It is still a work in progress. The elevation changes average between 12 and 18 inches or two feet wasn't 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION' MARCH 15. 2005 unusual in this kind of situation, so he concurred and seconded the motion. Commissioner Campbell said the problem here is the maintenance building which hasn't been approved by ARC and it would also come back to Planning Commission for review and comment. It seemed like everything else going on in the project is done very diligently and they have never had any problem with Mr. Lennon before. Since the problem was the maintenance building, which would be coming back to them, she was in favor of this approval. Chairperson Tschopp concurred. He thought the applicant was working diligently with the neighbors and the City trying to minimize the impact it would have on the area. He thought they would end up with a very beautiful golf course development. He noted there was a motion and second on the table and asked for any other discussion or comments, then called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2327, approving TT 30438 Amendment No. 2, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. COMMISSIONER JONATHAN REJOINED THE MEETING AT THIS POINT (6:40 p.m.). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Status Report and Discussion of Condition Compliance for Case No. CUP 03-17 Action: None. Commissioner Finerty said Mr. Bagato gave her the minutes which she needed to review. She would be calling him back. Mr. Drell said the applicant was agreeing to add more landscaping and agreed he was deficient. So it was in progress and he agreed to mitigate the problem and staff was monitoring it. 13