The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrd 1152 DA 02-01 Amnd 2 and MISC 08-15 Stone Eagle Golf Course �� r�� g�._� �.�.! G�3��3�A��'� _d,�,,.�..�...�_ �� "�l/0 '�1 Si��r 3' 02� �U' �{.._ CITY OF PALM DESEF�T ��°�c ��`"�� - � . �.��n�,�.�. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Approval of a second amendment to Development Agreement 02- 01, Stone Eagle Development, ailowing a 25-foot 2-inch maximum roof height for a two-story detached garage/casita unit on 19 lots within Stone Eagle Golf Course SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato Principal Planner APPLICANT: Stone Eagle Development, LLC. 74-001 Reserve Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 CASE NOS: DA 02-01 AMENDMENT #2 AND MISC 08-15 DATE: March 13, 2008 CONTENTS: Draft Ordinance No i152 Second Amendment to Development Agreement 02-01 Draft Resolution Legal Notice Approved Development Agreement 02-01 Planning Commission Staff Report, Dated February 19, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes, Dated February 19, 2008 Architectural Review Commission Notice of Action Plans and Exhibits Recommendation: That the City Council, by minute motion: 1) Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. iis2 to second reading approving a second amendment to Development Agreement 02-01, Stone Eagle Development. 2) Adopt Resolution No. �8-1� approving Miscellaneous 08-15, subject to conditions attached. Staff Report DA 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC 08-15 March 13, 2008 Page 2 of 8 Executive Summary: Approval of staff's recommendation will approve a second amendment to Development Agreement 02-01 allowing a 25-foot 2-inch maximum roof height for a two-story detached garage/casita unit on 19 lots within Stone Eagle Golf Course. Planning Commission Meeting: On February 19, 2008 the Planning Commission, on a 3-2 vote, recommended approval of the second amendment. Commissioners Limont, Campbell and Tschopp voted in favor of the amendment; Commissioners Schmidt and Tanner voted nay. All three commissioners in favor of the project believed that the pitched tile roof is better than the flat roof design and Commissioner Campbell stated that the overall project architecture and landscaping would blend with the mountain side. Commissioner Schmidt stated she was concerned about the view impacts to the adjacent residents at Sommerset. Property owners within 4,000 feet of the project were notified and approximately 1,300 legal notices were mailed out. Staff received two letters from homeowners within Sommerset opposed to the project. At the Planning Commission public hearing one adjacent property owner spoke in favor of the proposed amendment because he believed the pitched roofs would be better visually rather than a flat roof and a second adjacent property stated that he was unhappy with the overall project, but did not oppose the request for increased building height. I. BACKGROUND: Stone Eagle Development: On October 24, 2002 the City Council approved a series of applications and a development agreement for a project known as "The Crest" and now known as "Stone Eagle". Stone Eagle is an exclusive gated residential community with 46 single-family lots (originally 44), a 15,000 square foot clubhouse and an 18-hole golf course located west of Highway 74 with an access road across the Palm Valley Storm Channel opposite of Homestead Road. The project is zoned Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) and the development standards are as approved. At the time of approval, the applicant provided preliminary plans for three different model home types. The model homes are known as Arroyo, Northridge and Southridge. All three homes are single-story; however, the approved Southridge units included a two-story detached garage with a casita. The preliminary plans indicated that the building pad for the two-story garage/casita would be approximately 5 feet lower than the building pad for the main house. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\MISC�DA 02-07 Amendment k2 and MISC OB-15\City Cou�al StaH Report.tloc Staff Report DA 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC 08-15 March 13, 2008 Page3of8 Based on the plans presented to staff, the approved development agreement states, "Residential buildings or structures shall not have a height exceeding twenty (20) feet from finished pad elevations. In no case shall the building exceed two living stories above the pad elevation of the building site." It was anticipated that the two-story buildings would be on pads 5 feet lower than the main house. On August 17, 2004 the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the tentative tract map which adjusted several lot lines and the approved pad elevations in the area west of the storm channel opposite of Sommerset. Generally, the lots at the northwest corner of the map were lowered 15 feet, while other lots in the southeast area were raised between 3 feet and 5 feet. On March 15, 2005, the Planning Commission approved a second amendment to the tentative tract map increasing some of the previous pad heights but maintaining pad heights at or below natural grade. The map was redesigned to provide for better onsite drainage and to better deal with the anticipated soil shrinkage and subsidence in the area. The amended map also improved the balance of "cuY' and "fill" limiting the amount of dirt that needed to be imported to or exported from the site. II. DISCUSSION: When Stone Eagle was approved in 2002, the project included 24 homes with the two-story garage/casita units. The applicant believes that the architect who designed the plans assumed that pad height of the two-story units was always going to be lower than the main home pads without knowing the engineering plan would be modified in 2004. The design of the amended tentative tract map approved in 2004 was not able to achieve the design shown by the original architect due to drainage and shrinkage concerns. The project is currently under construction and all of the roads, underground utilities and lots have been constructed. The applicant has indicated that nine Southridge lots have been sold and two or three are about ready for construction. The first home on Lot 33 was brought to staff for approval of a building permit in December of 2007. After researching the approved development agreement, staff determined that the home was exceeding the 20- foot height limit. Further research determined that 19 of the 24 lots approved with the two-story garage casita units exceeded the approved height limit. Staff has been working with the applicant to address the approved development agreement and approved two-story units. Based on our discussions, staff has identified and analyzed four possible solutions. G:\Planning\Tony Bagata\Wad Files\Formats\Staff ReportsV�AISC\DA 02-01 Amendment N2 antl MISC OB-15\Ciry Council Stafl Report.tloc Staff Report DA 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC 08-15 March 13, 2008 Page 4 of 8 • Redesign with a 20-foot maximum roof height, • Lower the pad area around the garage/casita units, • Amend the approved map by increasing the pad heights by 5 feet around the main homes, • Leave the pad heights as they are today and amend the development agreement to increase the allowable roof height for the garage/casita units. A. Redesign With A 20-Foot Maximum Roof Height: The first solution staff asked the applicant to address was redesigning the two-story buildings to be 20 feet high. To achieve a two-story garage/casita at 20 feet high, the interior of the garage would have to be lowered from 9 feet 6 inches to 8 feet 4 inches, leaving enough room for the garage door opener. The casita living area would then have to be lowered from 9 feet 6 inches to 8 feet 6 inches and the roof would have to be changed from a pitched roof to a flat roof. B. Lower Pad Height Around Garage/Casita Units: The 19 lots over the approved limits are currently at the same grade as the street. In order for the two-story buildings not to exceed 20 feet from the approved pad height, the garage would have to be lowered approximately 5 feet 2 inches from the existing pad elevation. This would put the garage below the street and the driveway slope would be more than 20% towards the garage door. C. Increase Pad Height Around Main House: In the case of the five homes that do not exceed the 20-foot height limit, the lots are substantially higher than the street. The garage/casita units are located at street level, which is below the existing pad of the main house. For the other 19 lots, the applicant could request approval of an amended tentative tract map by redesigning the pad elevations 5 feet 2 inches higher for the main home area. This proposal would increase the majority of the pad area since the main home is larger than the garage/casita area. D. Leave the Pad Heights Flat: Since the roads, utilities, and pads are already constructed, the last option for the applicant was to leave the pad flat and request approval of an amendment to the development agreement to allow a 25-foot 2-inch G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\StaH ReportsUAISC�DA 02-01 Amendment M2 and MISC 08-15\City Counal Staft Report.doc Staff Report DA 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC 08-15 March 13, 2008 Page 5 of 8 maximum roof height for the 19 garage/casita units only. The applicant worked with staff to provide a line-of-sight drawing and constructed story poles on Lot 33 to study any potential visual impacts. Lot 33 was chosen because it is the highest lot in Stone Eagle that would have a two-story garage/casita unit. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to Development Agreement 02-01 to allow a 25-foot 2-inch maximum roof height for 19 garage/casita units only. The nineteen lots are located towards the south end of Stone Eagle across from Sommerset. The applicant has worked with staff to provide story poles representing one wall with a sloped tile roof on Lot 33, which is the tallest lot and which would have the most visual impact. Photos of the story poles are provided in the packets and the poles will remain erected for review by Planning Commission and City Council. Architecture: The approved homes are designed with clay roof tiles, wood awnings, stone veneer, stone columns, stone garden walls, and stucco in earth-tone tan and brown colors to blend into the hillside. The building height for the main home varies between 11 feet and 19 feet 6 inches. The building height for the garage/casita units varies between 20 feet and 25 feet 2 inches from the approved pad height. The top of the building is designed at 20 feet with a pitched roof extending to 25 feet 2 inches. The roof pitch is the only portion of the roof that exceeds the 20-foot height limit under the current development agreement. On January 22, 2008 the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the approved homes and line-of-sight drawings. The line-of-sight drawings demonstrated the visible portions of the roof tops. The material used for roof tiles will blend into the hillside and the Architectural Review Commission believed that there would not be any negative impacts and recommended approval of the garage/casita design at 25 feet 2 inches from the approved pad height. IV. ANALYSIS: The development standards in the Hillside Planned Residential zone are as approved. The approved development agreement states that the maximum building height shall be 20 feet from the approved pad heights based on the plans provided in 2002. The applicant and staff have reviewed four possible options to address the height of the two-story buildings approved in 2002. The findings of the four options are: G:�Pianning�7ony Bagato\Word Files�Formats\StaH ReportsUv115C\DA 02-01 Amendment M2 and MtSC OB-151Ciry Counal Staff Report.doc Staff Report DA 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC 08-15 March 13, 2008 Page 6 of 8 A. Redesign With a 20-Foot Maximum Roof Height: Redesigning the two-story garage/casita units was the first option staff and the applicant studied to address the height issue. The current design would require the interior garage space to be lowered from 9 feet 6 inches to 8 feet 4 inches, leaving enough room for a garage door opener for most vehicles, however, taller or raised vehicles may have trouble parking in the garage. In addition, the interior living space of the casita would have to be lowered from 9 feet 6 inches to 8 feet 6 inches and the roof would be changed from a pitched roof to a flat roof. The lower interior roof heights are less desirable in today's market. A typical interior living space is at least 9 feet high and the garages need to be talier to accommodate taller vehicles. Architecturally, the flat roof design would make the garage/casita "boxy" and would not blend in with the approved homes in Stone Eagle. The pitched roof is designed with roof tiles that will blend into the hillside. If the roof is flat, any properties above Stone Eagle will look down on a flat roof that will not blend into the hillside. B. Lower Pad Height Around Garage/Casita: Lowering the pad heights around the two-story garage/casita units would have the least visual impact; however, this solution is not possible with the current lot configurations. Since the street and underground utilities are already constructed, the driveways would be lowered providing a slope greater than 20%. According to the Department of Public Works, a 9% slope on a driveway is the maximum allowed. Lowering these lots 5 feet would require more land area to provide a longer driveway so that the slope is no greater than 9%. In addition, residential driveways should slope upwards from the street to provide the most desirable drainage patterns. This would create a very steep, undesirable driveway towards the garage and cause the driveway to drain towards the garage when it rains. Typically, it is desirable to have the positive drainage away from the garage towards the street to prevent flooding in the garage. C. Increase Pad Height Around Main Home: Another option studied was increasing the pad heights around the main homes by 5 feet, leaving the two-story garage/casita units at the same G:\Planning\Tony Bagaro\Word FileslFormats\Staff Reports�MISC�DA 02-01 Amendment x2 and MISC OB-15\City Counpl Stafl Repon.tice Staff Report DA 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC 08-15 March 13, 2008 Page 7 of 8 level as the street grade. Increasing the pad heights by more than 6 inches would require Planning Commission and City Council approval. Increasing the pad heights around the main home would have the most visual impact due to the fact that the size of the main home is larger than the garage/casita, requiring a larger pad area raised 5 feet higher. The main house totals 1,819 square feet and the floor area and the garage/casita totals 611 square feet. Raising the pad heights for the homes is not the most desirable solution and would cause the most visual impacts. D. Leave Pad Heights Flat: The applicant provided line-of-sight drawings and erected story poles to illustrate the visual impact of leaving the pad heights where they are today with the 25-foot 2-inch high garage/casita unit. These homes are located on the bottom of the mountain side and are not located on a ridge. The story poles were constructed on the highest parcel to determine the worst case scenario. Staff drove around different parts of the city and did find a few areas from which the homes will be visible; however, it was determined that these homes would be visible even at 20 feet high, which is consistent with the original approval. (see photos attached). Photographs labeled "1" and "2" are from within Sommerset. The pictures illustrate that most, if not all, of the garage/casita unit on Lot 33 will be visible at 20 feet high. The portion of the home above the 20-foot height limit is the pitched roof, which has the least impact due to the small amount of area and the fact that the roof tile will blend into the hillside. Photographs "3" and "4" are from areas on Highway 74 and Upper Way West. In these areas the homes are visible. As is the case at Sommerset, these homes are going to be visible at 20 feet and the only portion exceeding the height limit is the sloped roof. Based on staff's findings, it has been determined that the proposed amendment will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area and is consistent with the intent of the original approval in 2002. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed application is requesting an amendment to allow a 5-foot 2-inch height increase for 19 of the 24 previously approved Southridge units. The proposed amendment is consistent with the scope of the previous CEQA review G:\Pianning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff ReportsVullSC�DA 02-01 Amendment A2 and MISC OB-15\City Counal Staff Report.doc Staff Report DA 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC 08-15 March 13, 2008 Page 8 of 8 and the approved Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. No further environmental review is necessary. VI. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendment will not negatively impact the surrounding area and is consistent with the intent of the original approval in 2002. The homes are located on the lowest portion of the mountain side and the height increase will not impact the views of the mountain side or mountain ridge lines. The garage/casita units are designed with a pitched tile roof that will blend into the hillside better than a flat roofed "boxy" building. Therefore, staff believes that modifying the Development Agreement is the best alternative for completion of the 19 homes under consideration of Stone Eagle. Submitted by: Department Head: �� l� V� Tony Ba ato Lauri Aylaian Principal Planner Director of Community Development -.l'P"Y COUNCiL ,1�C;T:IU."v e xsPPROVED �.� DENI�U RECEIVED OTHER ✓ -a�� o,�. ,�ro.��s� Approv I: ��^� /�� n�c �r�Cf � k'e.i. No. /�&-/!� �:�:�TI�3�G 3��'Fs' " t�a�1'E�a v ' e ��i�.��iC, ��1�S�Y7 N�.�E�m /1�C. HomerCroy ��N�'� N�n� ACM for Devel ent Services �BSTA�N: n� �I�RIFIED BY: K ;:)riginal on File wi Ci_ty Clerk's Office Carlos L. Ortega City Manager G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\MISC\DA 02-Ot Amendment#2 and MISC 08-15\City Council Staff Report.doc ORDINANCE 115� AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 02-01 ALLOWING A 25-FOOT 2-INCH MAXIMUM ROOF HEIGHT FOR A TWO-STORY DETACHED GARAGE/CASITA UNIT ON 19 LOTS WITHIN STONE EAGLE GOLF COURSE, ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A. CASE NOS. DA 02-01 AMENDMENT#2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2468 has recommended approval of Case No. DA 02-01 Amendment #2; and WHEREAS, at said public hearings, said Ciry Council heard and considered all testimony and arguments of all interested persons. WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 06-78," in that the Director of Community Development has determined the project is consistent with the scope of the previous CEQA review and the approved Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. No further environmental review is necessary; and The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, Cal'rfomia, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the Development Agreement 02-01 Amendment #2 by Ordinance No. is hereby approved. SECTION 2: The City Clerk of the Ciry of Palm Desert, Califomia, shall certify to the passage adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, circulated within the Ciry of Palm Desert, and the same be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 13th day of March 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEAN BENSON, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California ORDINANCE 1152 RECORDING REQUESTED BY EXEMPT FROM FR,ING FEE PURSUANT AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: To Gov�r.conE§bio3 City of Palm Desert Attn: Carlos Ortega 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use Second Amendment to Development Agreement 02-01 This Second Amendment to Development Agreement (this "Second Amendment") is made and entered into as of this _ day of , 2008, by and between the CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC ("Developer") as successor-in interest to DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation ("DDC") (City and Developer are, collectively, "the Parties"), pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California. RECITALS A. City and DDC entered into that certain Development Agreement 02-01 dated as of November 14, 2002, and recorded on March 11, 2003, as Document No. 2003-172463, in the Official Records of Riverside County, California (the "AgreemenY'). The Agreement was entered into to facilitate the development of certain real property ("Site") more particularly described in the Agreement. B. Subsequently, City and Developer entered into "First Amendment to Development Agreement 02-01" dated as of September 27, 2007. The Agreement as amended by the First Amendment is referred to herein as"Amended Agreement." C. City and Developer now desire to amend the Amended Agreement in the manner set forth herein pursuant to Section 1000 of the Amended Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and promises of the Parties, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 3 ORDINANCE 1152 AGREEMENT 1. Effective Date. This Second Amendment shall become effective on the date, which is two (2) business days after the date, which is thirty (30) days after date of final adoption by the City of the ordinance approving this Second Amendment ("Effective Date"). From and after the Effective Date, all references to the Amended Agreement shall automatically be deemed to mean the Amended Agreement as amended by this Second Amendment. 2. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Amended Agreement. 3. Effect on Site. This Second Amendment will bind the Site upon the Effective Date. 4. Amendment to Section 203(1). From and after the Effective Date, the last sentence in Section 203 (1) shall be revised to read: "Permitted building heights and set backs shall be consistent with those set forth on Exhibit D, attached hereto, as amended by Exhibit E, attached to the Second Amendment to Development Agreement 02-01." 5. Exhibit E. Exhibit E, attached hereto, shall be Exhibit E of the Amended Agreement, and shall amend the development standards of Exhibit D of the Amended Agreement. 6. Covenants Run With Land. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties hereto that the Amended Agreement and this Second Amendment shall not be severable from Developer's interest in the Site, and the provisions of the Amended Agreement as amended by this Second Amendment shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Site or any portion thereof upon the recordation of this Second Amendment, and that thereafter the benefits and burdens of the Amended Agreement as amended by this Second Amendment shall bind and inure to all successors in interest to the Parties who acquire any interest in the Site. 7. Interpretation. This Second Amendment shall be interpreted to give each of the provisions their plain meaning. The Recitals are incorporated into this Second Amendment. 8. Entire Agreement. This Second Amendment is executed in duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Second Amendment consists of four (4) pages, which constitute the entire understanding of the Parties as to the matters set forth in this Second Amendment. 9. Status of Amended A�reement. Except as modified by this Second Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Amended Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 4 ORDINANCE 1152 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Second Amendment as of the date and year first above written. "CITY" CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California Municipal Corporation Effective Date: By: (Mayor, City of Palm Desert) , 2008 Attest: Carlos L. Ortega City Manager Approved as to form: David Erwin City Attorney "DEVELOPER" STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC a Delaware limited liability company Date of Submission by Developer: By: , 2008 5 ORDINANCE 1152 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) � SS. COUNTY OF ) On , before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public �SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) � SS. COUNTY OF ) On , before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public [SEAL] 6 ORDINANCE 1152 DA 02-01 EXHIBIT"E" AMENDED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS In addition to the development standards described in Exhibit "D" for Development Agreement 02-10, the following standards have been amended: Building Height for 19 Southridge Units: The maximum building height for the Southridge Homes with a two-story garage/casita shall be 25 feet 2 inches from the approved pad height elevation. The following lots are approved at this height limit: Lots 22-26, Lots 28-34, 38-44. All other lots and main homes shall not exceed 20 feet tall from the approved pad heights based on the original approval in Exhibit D of Development Agreement 02-01. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 08-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING A 25-FOOT 2-INCH MAXIMUM ROOF HEIGHT FOR A TWO-STORY DETACHED GARAGE/CASITA UNIT ON 19 LOTS WITHIN STONE EAGLE GOLF COURSE. CASE NO. MISC 08-15 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 13th of March, 2008 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19h day of February 2008 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the said request and by its Resolution No. 2468 recommended approval of Miscellaneous 08-15; 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending approval of a Miscellaneous 08-15: 1. The proposed amendment to Stone Eagle's Development Agreement is consistent with the original approved project and is accord with the objectives of the Hillside Planned Residential zone. 2. Stone Eagle Development is currently under construction and the proposed amendment will not change or alter any of the previous conditions of approval and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That approval of Miscellaneous 08-15 is hereby approved, subject to the attached conditions. RESOLUTION NO. 08-16 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 13th day of March, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California JEAN BENSON, Mayor 2 RESOLUTION NO, 08-16 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. MISC 08-15 Department of Community Development: 1. That all conditions of approval imposed on the original Tentative Tract Map 30438 and Development Agreement 02-01 shall apply to this application except for the proposed amendment as described in Exhibit E, attached. 3 CITY D � Pfl1 �l DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DtiSERT,CALtFORNIA 92260-257B 'reu 760 346—o6i� rnx:760 ;qi-7oq8 in(n@palm-dexrr.otg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. DA 02-01 AMENDMENT#2 AND MISC 08-15 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by Stone Eagle Development LLC., requesting approval of a second amendment to Development Agreement 02-01, Stone Eagie Development, allowing a 25 foot 2 inch maximum roof height for a detached garagelcasita building on 19 lots. aourM�aooe�on wm+�t�soor i�cr��oNr�sove nie�rrAovw v�o�wr , 4 , M w� SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, Califomia, at which tirne and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments conceming all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information conceming 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 City Council at, or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN,City Clerk March 3,2008 Palm Desert City Council , �. - RECORDING REQUESTED BY� AND WHEN RECORDED� MAIL TO: OOC a 2003-1724d3 N/11/2N7 �:MA R��:NC Pa� 1 0� i4 CI CIAr1C'S OffIC6 R�eerd�d Ln O�/lalal R�oe�ds tY c«r,ly .I Riv�.td. City of Palm Desert ��y �. o�`O T3-510 Fred Wariny Drive ��. �«+^ty Cl��k i R�aord�r Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 I pl I i �� in FOR THE BENEFtT OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT - NO FEE - 6103 OF THE GOVT. CODE " $ " �"°` '�` °� ��^ � � MK ��, _ 1 N� U Q y A R L � �� J `:' REC�RDING REQUESTED � M � .;.�-�: � for MM � �._ . �._ t = �. . _; .�.:: �., ,. . �. . �� v CITY OF PALM DESERT ORDINANCE NO. 1028 - APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE CREST GOLF CLUB AND RESI DENTIAL VI LLAGE (CASE NO. DA 02-01 ) (Title of Document) � ( _ �. — ORDINANCE NO. ln��e AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY O� PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT __,� AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE CREST GOLF CLUB AND RESIDENT{AL VILLAGE. �ASE N . DA 02-01 WHEREAS, the City Cauncil of tfie C'�ty of Palm Dese►t,Cal'rfomia, did on the 24th day of October, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hea�ing to consider a request by Destination Development Corporation fo� approval of DA 02-01; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2156 has recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all peraons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts end reasons to justffy its actions: The proposed development agreement is consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code Chapter 25.37, Development Agresments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Oesert, California, as fo(lows: j 1 . That the above recitations are true and cor�ect and constitute the findings � of the City Council in this case. 2. That DA 02-01 (Exhibit A attached he�eto) is hereby approved. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby drected to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspeper of general circulation, published and ci�culated in the city of Palm Desert, Califo�nia, and shall be in full fo�ce and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Councit, held on this ��rh , day of Nnvam}�sr , 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, FERGIISON, KELLY NOES: BENSON ABSENT: SPIEGEL � // ABSTAIN: NONE �� l' RICHARD S. KELLY, Ma r ATTEST: CHELLE D. KLASSE , City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California I �\ ' Ordinance No. 1Q�?,� _ EXHIBIT"A" _ RECORDING REQUESTED BY ��tvn WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Palm Desert Attn: Carlos Ortega 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (Above Space for Recorder's Use Only) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA 02-01 THIS DEVELOPMEIVT AGREEIV�NT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this 14th day of Hovember—. 2002, by and between the CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation ("Developer"), pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California: RECITALS A. To strengthen the public planning process, encousage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of Califomia adopted Sections 65864 et seq. of the Gavernment Code authorizing any city, county or city and county to enter into a development agrcement with an applicant for a development project, establishing certain development rights in the property which is the subject of the development project application. City has adopted an ordinance and regulations establishing procedures and requirements for the approval of development agreements. B. City and Developer desire to enter into this Agreement in order to facilitate the development of certain real property ("Site") located either within, or within the Sphere of Influence of, the City of Palm Desert, more fully described in Ezhibit A attached hereto and shown on the map attached as Ezhibit B.The real property will be developed pursuant hereto for (i)a residential subdivision; and(ii)a private membership golf club ("Club")with golf and other recreational amenities mare particularly described herein(collectively, the"ProjecY'). C. This Agreement will be binding on the Site upon the recordation in the Official Records of Riverside County, California of this Agreement. Approximately 63f acres of the Site is located within the City, and approximately 640t acres of the Site is located within the City's Sphere of Influence in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. Developer desires to secure entitlements for the Site from the City and to annex into the City the portion of the Site which is within the City's Sphere of Influence. l 36922.7-Word-f 0/U3/02 I(��III�II�II IIII IIIIII III'�I�I�(III�III I'I��I�I I�II F�.. 1�;'F�E ��FiNN t --� Ordinance No. 102� _ � D. Developer has either an ownership interest in the Site or the right to acyuir� the Site, and therefore has a legal or beneficial interest in all of the Site. E. Ihveloper and City have determined that the Site is best suited to devetopment as a residential subdivision project and as the Club. F. City has given due notice of its intention to adopt this proposed Agreement, has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code Section 65867 and City's ordinance and regulations relating to development agreements, and has found that the provisions of this Agreement and its purposes are cosssistent with the objectives, policies, generaf fand uses . and pragrams specified in City's General Plan as amended concurrently with adoption of this Agreement. G. Development of the Site, which is vacant, requires the construction of substantial public improvements, many of which wi1) benefit both the project and suttounding areas. The development risks and uncertainties associated with the long term nature ofthe Project, including the cost of these public improvements, cauld discourage and deter Developer ftom making the long term commitments necessary to develop the Project. Therefore, the parties desire to enter into this Ageement in order to reduce or eliminate such uncertaimies. H. Developer's work in connection with the Project shall include developing the improvements referred to herein as the "Developer Improvemenb". The "Developer Improvementa" include the rough grading, roads and streets, utilities, finished pad grading, drainage gutters, storm water and flood control facilities, water system facilities and all other improvements deemed necessary by Developer or required by City to prepare the Site for development as provided herein. As permitted by law, City and Developer desire to establish design and development standards and permitted uses for the Project and to identify the scope of improvements to be required for, and as a result of, the Project. I. City, by entering into contractual agreements such as this, acknowledges that the obligations of City shall survive beyond the terms of the present City Council members, that such action will serve to bind the City and future Councils to the obligations herein undertaken, and that this Agreement shall limit the future exercise of certain governmental and police powers of City. By approving this Agreement, City Council has elected to exercise certain governmental powers at the time of entering into this Agreement rather than deferring its actions to some undetermined future date. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by the City and its Council and have been found to be fair,just and reasonable. City has concluded that the approval and development of the Project as provided herein will serve the best interests of City's citizens and that the public health, safety and welfare will be best served by entering into this Agreement. City acknowledges that Developer would not consider or engage in the development of the Project without the assurances of the development entitlements provided for herein. By entering into this Agceement, City desires to vest in Developer certain development entitlements as specified in this Ageement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which 1 IIIIII IIIIII(II�IIIIN III�II IIII��I�I(II(�III(III(III B'zee 4 O{Cab39nH 136922.7-Wad-10/03/02 2 Ordinance No. 1028 ._ _ are hcreby acknowledged, City and Developer (each hereie sometimes called a "Party" and jointly the"Partiea")do hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS A. [Sec. 100] Property Description. The Site is that property described in Eihibit A. The Developer represents that it has a legal or equitable interest in the Site. This Agreement will affect title to and impose obligations and liabilities on the Site only upon the recordation of this Agreement in the Official Records of Riverside County, California. The Developer represents that from and afler the date on which this Agreement is recorded against the Site, all persons who thereafter acquire a legal or equitable interest in the Site (accepting owners or claimants in easements) will acquire such irnerests subject to this Agreerrient. B. (5ec. 101] Term. (1) �ommencement and Len�tth of Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date as defined herein and shall extend for a period of fifteen(15) years after the Effective Date. The "Efl'ective D�te" is the date wk�ich is two (2)business days after the later to occur of(i) the date which is thirty(30) days after the date of final adoption by the City of the ordinance approving this Agreement or (ii) the date on which Developer or an affiliated entity acquires fee title to the Site. Thereafter, unless said term is modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of the Parties, subject to the provisions of Section I000 hereof, upon expiration of said term this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and ef�ect and the Parties shall, upon request of the City, execute an appropriate certificate of termination which shall be recorded in the of�icial records of Riverside County, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 407 hereof. (2) Government Code Section 66542.6(a). Pursuant to Section 66452.6(a) of the Califarnia Government Code, the time for the approval by the City of any tentative, final or parcel map prepared with respect to the Site shall be extended for a period equal to the period this Agreement remains in effect. Such time for approval, and the term of this Ageement, shall be extended and remain in ef�'ect for an additional period of time equal to the period of any injunction or moratorium affecting the issuance of grading, building or any other permits or entitlements which are necessary to the development of the Project or any structure to be constructed within the Site. C. [Sec. 102) Sale or Assignmeot; Binding Covenants. (1) Covenants Run With Land. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties hereto that this Agreement shall not be sevetabie from Developer's interest in the Site and the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Site or any portion thereof upan the recordation of this Agreement, and that thereafter the burdens and benefits hereof shall bind and inure to all successors in interest to the Parties. � l 369Z2.7-Word- t0/a3/02 3 I illlli IIIIII Nll 111111 INlli IIII 111111 III 11NI 1111 IIN f��,?°�:��2R 4JF��, �� ---� — __ � Ordinance No. 1 2 __ _ (2) �,ti t to Assign. After completion of the Club, Developer shall have the right to freely sell, assign, exchang� or otherwise transfer its interest under this Agreement as part of a contemporaneous and related sale, assignment or transfer of its interest in the Site, or any portion thereof, without the consent of the City. In addition, Developer shall have the right at any time to freely sell, assign, exchange or otherwise transfer its interest under this Agrcement to any entity which is aft'iliated with or any of whose constituent entities are af�'iliated with Developer. Any sale, assignment, eacchange or transfer of Developer's interest under this Ageement to an unaPf'iliated (in any way) party prior to completion of the Club shall only be effective upon the consent of City;provided, however,that City must give its consent unless City reasonably concludes that the proposed transferee does not have the capability to complcte the Club. Developer shall notify the City of any such sale, assignment, exchange or transfer by providing written notice thereof to the City Manager in the manner provided in Section 800 hereof. (3) Release Unon Transfer. Upon the sale, assignment, exchange or transfer of Developer's rights and interests in ihe Site or any portion thereof, Developer shall be released from its obligations under this Agreement with respect to the Site, or the portion thereof so transfened, arising s�i �ent to the cffective date of such transfer. Any such transferee shall be obligated and bound by the terms and conditions of this Ageement and shall be the beneficiary thereof and a party thereto, only with respect to the Site, or such portions theceof so transferred to such transferee. Any such transferee shall observe and fully perform all of the duties and obligations of the Developer contained in this Ageement, as such duties and obligations pertain • to the portiot�of the Site sold, assigned, exchanged or transferred to it. D. [Sec. 103) Record�tion o!this Agreement. Promptly following the Effective Date, City shall record this Agreement in the Official Records of Riverside County,California so that it encumbers the Site. ARTICLE 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SIT'E A. [Sec. 200] Entitlement Applications for the Project. Developer has submitted to City applications and supporting materials relating to the Project consisting of an application for a general plan amendment (the "G�aerxl Plan AmendmenY'), an application for a zone change (the "Zone Change"), an application for approval of a tentative tract map (the "Tent�tive Tract Map") and an application for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit (the "Pr�cise Plan/CUP"). The City has cercified the Final Subsequent EIR ("EIR") relating to the Project. The City has also approved the Devetoper's Precise Plan/CUP, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Tentative Tract Map for the Site. The Site shall be developed as established in the approved Tentative Tract Map, the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Precise Plan/CUP, except for such changes which may be mutually agreed upon hereafter between Developer and City. B. (Sec.201j Permitttd Usts. The Developer shall have the right to develop the Site for the following uses: 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 Q IIlIUl111�114nIIIINIIiI!!lililllNll�lllllllll!!14 F��.�F�f 4g3e9A � �. — Ordinance No. 1028 _ . (1) Residential Develonment. The area of the Site designated for residential development on the site pian showing anticipated facilities and their locations on the Site attached hereto as Ezhibit C may be developed with up to sixty (60) residential dwelling units (each, a "DU") and one (1) on-site caretaker residence. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary set forth in Chapter 25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, each DU may (but need not) in developer's sole discretion be sold as up to four (4) fractional interests, each of which fractional interests shall permit the owner of such fractional intetest to occupy a DU (which may or may not be the DU in which such owner has a fee interest) for a portion of each calendar year. (2) �. The Club may be developed by Developer on the areas of the Site designated for such use on Eihibit C hereto. The Club may consist of any or all of the following recreational amenities: a private membership golf course, a driving range, a staetec house, comfort stations located in various areas of the Project, an open air pavilion with covered roof and retractable sides, a clubhouse building which includes food and beverage areas, satellite food and beverage facilities or mobile serving vehictes (including for the sale of alcoholic beverages) located as designated by Developer on or neat the golf course and other facilities, appropriate maintenance bunker facilities located in various areas of the golf course, swimming pools, and other recreational amenities appropriate for a private golf club. The golf clubhouse, maintenance building, entry gate and gatehouse, parking and other recreational uses shall be located as shown on E:hibit C. Such facilities and locations may be revised by Developer so long as they are substantially similar to that shown on Exhlbit C, and so long as the number of DUs dces not increase beyond sixty(60)plus the caretaker unit. D. [Sec.20Z] Project Phasing; Project Scenarioa. The Parties acknowledge that Developer cannot at this time predict when, or the order in which, individual buildings in the Pro}ect wi!! be developed on the Site. Such decisions with respect to phasing of the Project will depend upon a numbec of circumstances not within the control of Developer, including, without limitation, market conditions and demand for the use or uses within the Project, the condition of capital markets and availability of appropriate financing for the development of the Project (such as construction or interim and permanent ivans, andJor equity capital)and other similar factors. In order to retain the flexibility necessary to respond to such market conditions, Developer shall have the right to develop the Project in phases, in such order, and ai such times aa Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business analysis of those factors determining, in Developer's judgmecn, the appropriate course � of development of the Project. However, in connection with each phase, Developer shall be required to: (i) comply with the Development Standards (as hereinafter defined); (ii) provide suf�icient parking for the anticipated uses in such phase, as determined pursuant to the Development Standards; and (iii) implement the mitigation measures required for such development pursuant to the EIR. E. (Sec. 203] Special Develoument ProvisiQns. The Parties agree that certain development rights are hereby granted to allow Developer to take advantage of the special and unique type and character of the Project and the Site. These speciat development provisions are as foltows: I 36922.7-Word-10/03/a2 5 I I�I�I IIIIII Illt IIIII�I�IIII IIII IIIIII(II�III)IIII IIII ��•'�1A3-�c24,��f� ( � __. � Ordinance No. 1Q28 _ _ (1) P�ect Develop,�nent Standards: The DUs, clubhouse maintenance building and other strudures shall be developed along private roads. Permitted building heights and set backs shall be consistent with those set forth on Ezhibit D attached hereto. (2) �ject Parking Provisions: Because the DUs will have seasonal use and generaUy lower demand for on-site pasking on a pec-residence basis than full time residences, each DU shall have at least one (1) garage or carport parking space and one (1)designated open air space. In addition, each DU shall have one covered space for an ele.etric golf cart. Parallel on-street parking and visitor garking areas(equalling .5 spaces per D� shall be permitted within the Development consistent with roadway design and safety considerations. (3) I3.oad Design and Development Standards: On-site roads may be constructed of asphalt, concrete, decomposed granite and soil binder, or other material which meets generally accepted performance criteria, including those of the City Fire Marshall. Road widths shall be the minimum found acceptable by the City Fire Marshall, anticipated to be not less than sixteen (16) feet and not more than twenty-four (24) feet. Golf course access drives shall have an improved travel width of not less than sixteen (16) feet. Throughout the project, road edging may be at-grade conerete retainer strips with appropriate parallel drainage channels unless Developer elects to install curbs and gutters. (4) psivate Easements and Rights-of-Wav: The City shall assist the Developer in its discussions with private parties reg,arding the abandonment and/or relocation of private easements andlor rights-of-way which Developer deems may adversely affect the needs and development design for the Project. (5) Trails Access/Easements: Developer shall gram necessary easements to the City for public hiking and/or equestrian trails on the perimeter of the Site in areas designated . by Developer for such purpose and acceptable to the City, California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Such trails shall allow trail linkage from Homme Park to Art Smith Trailhead. Such trails shall not compromise project security or the golfing experience for persons using the Club facilities. Developer shail have no liability for the design, construction, maintenance or use of said trail(s). City shall be responsible for any environmental clearances or agency permits or approvals which may be requ'ued to effect trail(s)construction. (6) �edication of Qpen S�ace: A conservation easement or conveyance for cansecvation shall be established in perpetuity fo� those poRions of the Site shown on the map attached hereto as Ezhibit E. A fence shall be erected to preclude aceess to the golf course and associated lands by Peninsula bighorn sheep. (7) Irrigation Line Right-of-Way & Encro chment Permit: The City shall cooperate and facilitate the provision of an encroachment permit and necessary right-of-way approval from the City so as to permit Developer to construct an irrigation line from Developer's irrigation well on Goldenrod Road to the Site. Such irrigation line shall be designed and constructed in compliance with applicable law at the time such design is submitted to the City. 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 6 I II�III II��I II�I II��I�II�III��I)III�II III�IIII II�I IIII 8.'^�j�n fC9A�f1E1R � —� - - Ordinance No. 102 ` (8) �o�ractor/Service Personnel Parking; Developer shall provide appropriate on-site parking facilities and a transponder program to cantractors, service providers and employees to eliminate the demand for off-site parking. (9) Right to Combine Lots. Developer shall have the right, by recordation of lot tie agreements,to combine two(2)or more lots in the area designated far DUs into one larger lot, and upon such combination to either allow such lots to have differerrt grades or to regrade all of such combined lots to the average graded level of such cambined lots. City will cooperate in, and process, any lot line adjustments requested by Developer. (10) Art in Public Places. Developer shall be permitted to satisfy any applicable art in public places requirements onsite in a location visible from Highway 74. Such art and its location shall be subject to the approval of the City's Art in Public Places Commission. (11) in . Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary set forth in Chapter 25.l S of the Palm Deseri Municipal Code, grading on the Site shall, to the extent commercially feasible, be limited to the gading reasonably required to effect safe access to the Site and that reasonably required to develop the Residential Devetopment and the Club, both as described in Sec. 201 of this Agreement. The grading plan for the 5ite shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Department of Public Works. Such grading plan shatl also be reviewed and approved by the City's Architectural Review Commissian but solely to confirm that such grading plan complies with the provisions of this paragraph. F. [Sec. 204] Reservations and Dedicxtiona. No reservations or dedications of land will be required by City during the Term except as agreed to in writing by City and Developer in Developer's sole and absolute discretion and as provided in Section 203 (6)hereof. G. [Sec.20� Proceasing of Applications and Permits. (l) Processing of A.pplications. City will accept and shall diligently process all applications for discretionary and other permits or other entitlements with respect to the Project in accordance with this Agreement. If requested by Developer, City witl initiate os cause to be initiated all necessary legal proceedings pursuaM to the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 (Government Code Section 54720), or any other applicable provisions of law, to include the Site in a maintenance district for purposes of funding the ongoing maintenance of flood control facilities of benefit to the Site. To the extent such proceedings are initiated and completed by the Coachella Valley Water District, City legally consents to the inclusion of the Site in such maintenance district. (2) Discretionary Approvals. Development of the Site by the Developer is subject, inter alia,to the fallowing discretionary approvals: (a} approval of one or more additional parcel maps; and (b) approval of one or more additional tentative tract maps. I 36922 7-Word-l0/03/OZ '] I I�IIII��I�II�III I��III��I�II I�II III��1 III I�11�I�11 II�1 03.?1�.'��1�L9�39NH / � Ordinance No. 10 _ __ If, ai any time during the t�n of this Agreement, an act of Developer relating to the Project requires an administrative approval, variance, conditional use permit or other City approval, including,but not limited to,the discretionary approvals listed in this Section 205,Developer shall apply to the City in accordance with the applicable procedures then specified therefor and generally in effect for such administrative approval, variance, conditional use permit or other City approval. In reviewing and approving applications for discrttionary approvals, the City may exercise its full discretion under the law and may attach such conditions and requirements as may be deemed necessary or appcapriate to carry out the policies, goals, standards and objcctives of the General Plan and to comply with legal rcquirements and policies of the City pertaining to such discr�tionary approvals. (3) Demolition and Gradina Permits. During the term of this Agreement, Developer shall be entitled to obtain one or more demolition permits or grading permits for the Project without the necessity for applying for or receiving any building permit; provided, however, that Developer shall be in compliance with all requirements of the City Municipal Code other than any requirements to apply for or receive any building permit. (4) Certificates of OccuDancy. Promptly after completion of any portion of the Project, including any required mitigations, in compiiance with the terms hereof and all applicable statutes, ordinances and regulat'ions applicable to the construction of improvements such as those completed on the Site, upon application, the City shall provide Developer with a Certificate of Occupancy therefor. (5) Subdivision Riaht. This Agreement shall not impair the right of Developer to further subdivide the Site in accordance with applicable law and the terms of this Agreement. The City agrees to promptly consider in good faith one or more tract maps and other applications necessary or appropriate to accomplish such subdivision. Any approval of such an application may include reasonable conditions. Developer may post a bond or letter of credit reasonably approved by the City Manager as to form, amount and issuer, as security for satisfaction of any condition that may be satisfied by the payment of money. H. [Sec. 206J Design Review. Nothing set forth herein shall impair or interfere with the right of City to require the processing of building permits as required by law and to conduct its architectural review of any specific improvements proposed for the Site pursuant to the applicable provisions of the City's Municipal Code which aze in effect at the time such review is conducted; provided, however, no such review shall authorize or permit City to impose any condition and/or withhold approval to any proposed improvement the result of which would be inconsistent with the Tentative Map, the Zone Change, the General Plan Amendment, the Precise P1an/CUP, or the provisions of this Agreement. l. [Sec.207] Easement�. If easements on property adjacent to the Site are required in order for Developer to complete grading for the Developer Improvement, City shall cooperate with Developer in efforts to obtain such easements. City shall not be obligated to incur any expense in connection 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 g I(IIIII IIIIII INI II�III I�III�IIN(IIIII III■�I�I I�(III o.a?R93 9��29�s 40bR �, �--� — Ordinance No. 102 _ ._ with such coopecation. City shall caaperate with Developer in connection with tfie abandonment of existing utility or other easements and facilities and the relocation thereof ot creation of any new easemer�ts within the City necessary or appropriate to the development of the Project. If any such easement is owned by the City, City shall, at the request of Developer, take such action as may be necessary to abandon existing easements and relocate them as may be necessary or appropriate. J. [Sec.208J Rulea,Regulations �od OiTicis�l Policies. (1) AR,nlicable Rules,,Reaulations and Official Policies. For the term of this Agreement, the rules, regulations, ordinances and official policies governing the permitted uses of land, density, desi,gn, improvement and constn�ction standazds and specifications applicable to the development of the Site shall be as set forth in this Agreement; provided, however, that developmeat of the Site shall be subject to municipal ordinances and regulations which do not conflict with the provisions hereof, including, without limitation, building, electrical, mechanical, fire and similar codes, and ordinances which regulate the manner in which activities may be conducted or which prohibit any particular type of activity on a city-wide basis, in a particular aone(other than developmem limitations which are inconsistent with the rights ganted hereby) or on some other valid, non-discriminatory basis. Except as othe�wise provided in this Agreement, to the exteM any future changes in the General Plan, zoning codes or any future rules, ordinances, regulations or policies adopted by the City purport to be applicable to the Site but are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement,the terms uf this Agreement shall prevail, unless the parties mutually agree to amend or modify this Agreement pursuant to Section 1000 hereof. Except as provided in suhsectio�►s(2), (3), (5) and(6} of this Section 208, the City shall not, in subsequent actions applicable to the Site, apply new rules, ordinances, regulations or policies which con�lict with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. To the extent that any further changes in the General Plan, zoning codes or$ny future rules, ordinances, regulations or policies adopted by the City are applicable to the Site and are not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Ageement or are othervvise made applicable by other provisions of this Section 208, such future changes in the General Plan, zoning codes or such future rules, ordinances, regulations or policies shall be applicable to the Site. (2) Changes in State or Federal Law. This Section shall not preclude the application to the Project of changes in City laws, regulations, plans or policies, the terms of which are specificaliy mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations, In the event state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the date of this Agreement, or action by any governmental jurisdiction other than the City, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, then the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine the feasibility of modifying, extending or suspending one or more provisions of this Agteement as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations or the regulations of such other governmental jurisdiction. In addition, Developer shail have the right to challenge such new law preventing compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and, in the event such challenge is successful, this Ageement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. To the extent that any actions of federa) or state agencies (or actions of regional and local agencies, including the City, requued by federal or state agencies) have the effect of I 36921.7-Word-10/03/02 9 llllllllllllllllllilllllillllll111lllllllllllllllllllll ��?��724�:� ---- - - �, � Ordinance No. 1028 _. preventing, delaying or modifying development of the Site, the City shall not in any manner be liable for any such prevention, delay or modification of said development. The Developer is required, at its cost and without cost to or obligation on the part of the City, to participate in such regional or local programs and to be subject to such development restrictions as may be necessary or appropriate by reason of such actions of federal or state agencies (or such actions of regional and local agencies, including the City, required by federal or state agencies). (3) Payment of Fees. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, all future applications for approvals, permits and entitlements shall be subject to the development and processing fees and taxes at their respective rates which are in force and effect at the time the application therefor is filed. (4) �yQ Further Anorovals. The City shaU not require the Developer to obtain any further approvals or permits for the development of the Site in accordance with this Agreement during the Term. � (5) City's Retained Authoritv. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the authority of the City to adopt and apply codes, ordinances and regulations which have the legal effect of protecting persons or property from conditions which create a health, safety or physical risk. (6) Other Vesting Statute. The parties intend that the provisions of this Agreement shafl govern and control as t�the procedures and the terms and conditions applicable to the development of the Site over any contrary or inconsistent provisions contained in Sections 66498.1 et seq. of the Govemment Code or any other State law now or hereafter enacted purparting to grant or vest development rights based on land use entitlements (herein "Other Vestina Statute"). In furtherance of this intent, and as a material inducement to the City to enter into this Agreement, the Developer agrees that, except as expressly provided herein: (a) Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in any Other Vesting Statute, this Agreement and the conditions and requirements of land use entitlements for the Site obtained while this Agreement is in effect shall govern and control the Developer's rights to develop the Site; and (b) The Developer waives, for itself and its successors and assigns, the benefits of any Other Vesting Statute insofar as they may be inconsistent or in conflict with the tertns and conditions of this Agreement and land use entitlements for the Site obtained while this Agreement is in ef�ect; and (c) The Developer witl not make application for a land use entitlement under any Other Vesting Statute insofar as said application or the granting of the land use entitlement, pursuant to said application, would be inconsistent or in conflict with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and prior land use entitlements obtained while this Agreement is in effect. (?) Need for Public Hearings. This section shall not be construed to limit the authority or obligation of the City to hold necessary public hearings, to limit the discretion of the City or any of its of�icers or officials with regard to rules, regulations, ordinances, laws and 13b922.7-Word-lUlU3/02 10 I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII)III�IIIIII I�II,I IIIIIII�IIIIIIII r�3. t�t,3•�r(ns34N6�i I, -- � . - Ordinance No. 1 2 _ _ entitlements of use which requue the exercise of discretion by the City or any of its officers or officials. L. [Sec. 209] Encurobrance� And Lender's Rig6ts. (1) ��rmitted Encumbrances. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Site. The Parties agree that this Agrcement shall not prevent or limit any ovmer of an interest in the 5ite from encumbering the Site with any deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Site; (2) Lgnder's Rights. The holder of any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security arrangement ("I.ender") with respect to the Site, or any portion thereof, that has requested, in writing, receipt of notice of any event of default under this Ageement shall be entitled to receive a copy of any notice of default and shall be allowed an opportunity to cure such default. The Lender shall receive a Second Default Notice thirry (30) days before the City institutes legal proceedings and the Lender shall agsin be allowed an opportunity to cure such default. The holder of any mortgage, deed of tn�st, or other security arrangement with respect to the Site, or any portion thereof, shall not be obligated under this Agreement to construct or complete improvements or to guarantee such construction or completion, but shall otherwise be bound by all the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to construe, permit or authoriu any such holder to devote the Site, or any portion thereof, to any uses, or to construct any improvements thereon, other than those uses and improvements provided for or authorized by this Agreement, subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. M. [Sec. 210] Interaction with Somerset Homeowners Association. During the period in which the Developer is consUucting the improvements on the Site,the Developer shall meet from time to time with any authorized committee appointed by the Somerset Homeowners Association. The purpose of such meetings shall be to discuss the concerns af said Association about landscaping and other issues. ARTICLE 3 OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEVELOPER A. [Sec. 300] Improvements. The Developer shaU devetop the Site in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the discretionary approvals referred to in Section 205 hereof. The failure of the Developer to compfy with the terms and conditions of or fulfill any obligation of the Developer under this Agreement or any discretionary approvals, shall constitute a default by the Developer under this Agreement. Any such default may be cured by Developer as set forth in Section 400 hereof. 136922.7-word- l0/o3ro2 11 I III�II I�IIII IIII II�I�)IIIIII II�I III�I)II�IIIII�I�I I'�I n,.c'f 1�i n o 99 y09Fi ( ( Ordinance No. 1,Q2� _ B. [5ec.301J City's Good Fait6 in Procesaing. Subject to the discretionary approvals refeeTed to in Se�tion 205 hereof, the City agrees that it will accept, in good faith, for timely processing, review end actioq all complete applications for zoning, special permits, development permits, tentative maps, subdivision maps or other entitlements for use of the Site in accordance with the General Plan and this Ageement. The City shall inform the Developer, upon request, of the necessary submission requirements for each application for a permit or other entitlement for use in advance, and shall promptly review said application and schedule the application for review by the appropriate authority. C. [Sec.302] Developer's Insurance. Before commencing work pursuant to any City-approved permit on the Site, the Developer shall obtain general liability insurance reasonably approved by the City Manager as to form, amount and carrier. Thereafter,the Developer shall maintain the insurance during the tecm of this Agreement. D. (Sec.303] Environmentd Requirementa. The Developer shall, in connection with the development of each new improvement on the Site, comply with the mitigation measures set forth in the ELR. ARTICLE 4 DEFAULT,REMEDIES,TERMINATIUN A. [Sec. 400] General Provisions. Subject to extensions of time by mutual consent in writing, failure or unreasonable delay by either Party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event of default or breach of any terms or conditions of this Agreement, the Party alleging such default or breach shall give the other Party not less than thirty (30) days notice in writing specifying with particularity the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said default may be satisfactorily cured. During any such thirty (30) day period, the Party charged with being in default shall not be considered in default for purposes of termination or is►stitution of legal proceedings. After notice and expiration of the thirty (30) day period, if such default has not been cured or is not being diligently cured in the manner set forth in the notice, the other Party to this Agreement may at its option: . (a) terminate this Agreement, ia which event neither Party shall have any further rights against or liability to the other with respect to this Agreement or the Site; provided, however, if portions of the Site are held in separate ownership at the time such event of default occurs and such event of default is related onty to one portion, this Agreement may be terminated only as to such portion and no such termination shall impair the continuing applicability of this Agreement to the remainder of the Site; or 136922.7-Word- 10/03/02 ]2 I IIIIII IIIIII IIII IIIII)IIIII�IIII IIII�III IIIIII III IIII �i'��13�4R(N�4iiyH ( Ordinance No. 102 _ _ (b) institute legal or equitable action to cure, correct or remedy any default, including, but not limited to, an action for specific performance of the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, that in no Cvent shall either party be liable to the other for money damages for any default or breach of this Agreement. 8. [Sec.401j Developer DefAu11; Enforcement. No building permit shall be issued or building permit apglication accepted for the building shell of any structure on any portion of the Site if the permit applicant owns or controls such portion of the Site and if such applicant or any entity or person controlling such applicant has been found to be in default as to such portion of the Site by the City Council of the City under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, unless such default is cured or this Agreement is terminated. A default as to an owner of any poction of the Site shall have no impact on any portion of the Site not ovmed by such defaulting owner. The Developer shall cause to be placed in any covenants, conditions and restrictions applicable to the Site, or in any ground lease or conveyance thereof, an express provision for an owner of the Site, lessee or City acting separately or jointly to enforce the provisions of this Agreement and to recover attorney's fees and costs for such enforcement. C. [Sec. 402] Annusl Review. The City Planning Department shall, at least every twelve (12)months during the term of this Agreement, review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by the Developer with the terms and canditions of this Agreement. Such periodic review shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 55865.1. Notice of such annual review shall include the statement that any review may result in amendment or termination of this Agreement. The costs of notice and related costs incurred by the City for the annual review conducted by the City pursuant to this Section 402 shall be borne by the Developer. The City Manager shall provide thirty (30) days prior written notice of such periodic review to the Developer. Such notice shall require the Developer to demonstrate goad faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to provide such other information as may be reasonably requested by the City Manager and deemed by such person to be required in order to ascertain compliance with this A.greement. If, following such review, the City Manager is not satisfied that the Developer has demonstrated good faith compliance with all the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City Manager may refer the matter, along with his recommendations, to the City Council. Failwe of the City to conduct an annual review shall not constitute a waiver by the City of its rights to otherwise enforce the provisions of this Agreement nor shall the Developer have or assert any defense to such enforcement by reason of any such failure to conduct an annual review. D. [Sec. 403J Enforced Delay, Eztension of Timea of Performance. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, either Party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war, terrorism, insurrection, 1369Z2,7-Word-10/03/02 ]3 I IIIIII IIIIII IIII II�II I�I�II I�I�(IIIII II�IIIIII(II II� �' ��IS i�n 4nr�p � - ---� - -- Ordinance No. 02 _ strikes, walkouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, governmental entities' enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, new or supplementary environmental regulations, litigation or similar bases for excused performance. If written noNce of such delay is given to the City within thirty (30) days of the commencement of such delay, an extension of time for such cause shall be ganted in writing for the period of the enforced delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon. E. [Sec. 404] Limitatioa of Legal Acts. In no event shall the City, or its officers, agents or employees, be liable in damages for any breach of violation of this Ageement, it being expressly understood and ageed that the Developer's sole legal remedy for a breach or violation of this Agreement by the City shall be a legal action in mandamus, specific performance or othet injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. F. [Scc. 405] Applic�ble I.aw aad Attorney�' Fees. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City has approved and entered into this Agreement in the sole exercise of its legislative discretion and that the standard of review af the validity or meaning of this Agreement shall be that accorded legislative acts of the City. Should any legal action be brought by a party for breach of this Agreement or to enforc� any provision herein, the prevailing party of such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and such other costs as may be fixed by the Court. G. [Sec.406j Inval�dsty o�'Agrecment. (1) If this Agreement is determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, this Agreement shall automatically terminate as of the date of final entry of judgment. (2) If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, or if any provision of this Agreement is rendered invalid or unenforceable according to the terms of any law which becomes effective after the date of this Agreement and either Party in good faith determines that such provision is material to its entering into this Agreement, either Party may elect to terminate this Agreement as tv all obligations then remaining unperformed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 400, subject, however,to the provisions of Section 40?hereof. H. [Sec. 407] Effect of Termination on Developer Obligations. Termination of this Agreement shall not af�'ect the Developer's obligations to comply with the General Plan and the terms and conditions of any and all land use entitlements approved with respect to the Site prior to such termination, nor shal! it af�ect any other covenants of the Developer specified in this Agreement to continue after the termination of this Agreement. If portions of the Site are held in separate owr�ership at the time of such termination, this Agreement may be terminated only as to such poRion and no such termination shall impair the , continuing applicability of this Agreement to the remainder of the Site. 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 14 I IIIIII Iillll IIII IIIIII IIlII!IIN IIIIII III IIIIII IN IIII ��iF��4� ; r - - Ordinance No. 102�, _ _ � ARTICLE S HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT A. [Sec. 500] Hold Harmlea:Agrameat. The Developer hereby agrees to and shall indemnify and hold the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, ofFcers, agents and employees harmless from any liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for prope�ty damagt, which may arise from the De�veloper's ar the Developer's contractors', subcontradors', agents' or ernployees' operadons under this Ag�eement, whether such operations be by the Developer, or by any of the Developer's contractors, subcontractors, or by one or more persons ditectly or indirectly employed by or acting as agent for the Developer. This provision shall survive and continue for a pexiod of one (1) year after the termination of this Agreement. The City shall have the right to select its own counsel to defend it in any indemnified claim unless either (i) Developer is also sued and its counsel can defend all parties, or(ii)Developer's insurer requires engagement of counsel oth�t than that selected by City. In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party or any govemmental entity or of�'icial arising out of the approval, execution or implementation of this Agreement (exclusive of any such actions brought by the Developer) including such actions brought pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Developer agrees to and shall cooperate fully and join in the defense by the City of such action and shall indemnify and hotd the Ciry, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents and employees harmless from any liability for damages, costs or attorneys' fees which may arise from such action. This provision shall survive and continue for a period of one (1) year after termination of this Agreement. The City shatl have the right to select its own counsel to represent it 'sn any action of the type referred to in this paragraph. ARTICLE 6 PROJECT AS A PRIVATE UNDERTAKING A. [Sec. 600J Project a� a Pcivate Uadertakiag. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between Parties hereto that the development of the Site is a sepazately undertaken private development and that the contractual relationship created hereunder between the City and Developer is such that Developer is an independent contractor and is not an agent of the City. None of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shali be deemed to create a partnership or joint venture between the City and Developer or to provide third party beneficiary rights to any person or entity not a Party hereto. The only retationship between the City and the Developer is that of a governmentat entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such private property. 136922.7-Wad-10/03/02 15 I IIIIII IIII�I IIII I'�III'�IIII IIII(I{I�I I{f IIIIII�II III1 �i 3 1�l'9�f�34He)H ��__ __�. - Ordinance No. 1028 . _ ARTICLE 7 CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN A. (Sec. 700] Consistency With Gener�l Plan. The City hereby finds and determines that execution of this Agreement is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare and is consistent with the General Plan as amended concurrentiy with the approval of this Agreement. ARTICLE s NOTICES B. [Sec. 800] Notices. All formal notices required by this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, to the principal offices of the City and the Developer with copies sent as set forth below. The addresses of the parties as of the date hereof are as set forth below. Such written notices, demands, correspondence and communication may be d'uected in the same manner to such other persons and addresses as either party may from time to time designate in writing. The Developer shall give written notice to the City, within ten (10) days after the close of escrow, of any sale or transfer of any portion of the Site and any assignment or partial assignment of this Agreement, specifying the name or names of the transferee, the transferee's mailing address, the legal description of the land sold or transferred, and the name and address of any person or entity to whom any notice relating to this Agreement shali be given with respect to such transferred portion of the 5ite. Notices required to be given to the City sha11 be addressed as follows: If to City: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Wazing Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: City Manager and City Attorney Telephone: (760)346-0611 Fax Number (760)346-7098 With a copy to: Best, Best& Kreiger Attn: David Erwin 75-760 Highway 111, Suite 200 Indian Wells, CA 92210 Telephone: (760) 568-2611 Fax Number: (760) 340-6698 136922.7-Word- ]0/03/02 ]6 I Iillll IIIIII ilil IIIIiI IIIIII IIII lillll III Illlfl ill IIII ��{-��hQ��'4�'p ( , Ordinance No. 102 _ � Notices required to be given to the Developer shall be addressed as follows If to Devefoper: Destination Development Corporation do Lowe Enterprises Attn. Corporate Counsel 11777 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 900 Los Angetes, CA 90049 Telephone: (310)820.6661 Fax Number: (310)207-1132 With a copy to: Destination Developrnent Corporation Attn: Theodore R. Lennon 74-00] Reserve Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 Telephone: (760)779-1646 Fax Number: (760)779-1469 Witt� a copy to: Luce Forward Attn: Ms. Timi Hallem, Esq. 777 S. Figueroa 5Veet, Ste 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telepbone: (213) 892-4903 Fax Number: (213)892-7731 ARTICLE 9 RECORDATION A. [Sec. 900] Agreement. The City and the Developer shall record this Agreement and any amendments or modificatioas thereof in the Official Records of Riverside County, California as required by applicable law. ARTICLE 10 MISCELLANEOUS A. [Sec. 1000] Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time with respect to any portion of the Site by mutual consent of the City and the Developer (to the extent that it continues to own any portion of the Site) and of the then-current owner(s) of the portions of the Site affected by such amendment, with City costs payable by the amendment applicant, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. B. [Sec. 1001] Waiver of Provisions. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a !36922.7-Word-10/03/02 ]7 I IIIIII'�IIII I�II I��III II�'ll I�II�III III I�III�Il{I�II 0 3,2993 9�e{�4nr� (. -- Ordinance No. 102� ��.. ._ waiver is sought. No waiver of any right or remedy with respect to any occurrence or event shall be deemed a waiver of any other occurrence or event. C. [Sec. 1002] Time of Esaeace. Time is of the essence for each provision of this Agreement of which time is an element. D. [Sec. 1003] Entin Agreemeat. This Agreement is executed in duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement consists of eighteen (18) pages and five (S) exhibits, which constitute the entire understanding and ageement of the Pa�ties. Said exhibits are identified as follows: Ei6ibit A—Description of Site Ezhibit H—Map of Site Eihibit C —Site Plan of Project Ex6ibit D—Building Heights and Setbacks Es6ibit E—Area Designated for Conservation Easement IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. "CITY" CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California Munici al Corporation. �. Effective Date: By: (Mayor, City of Palm Desert) REFER TO SECTION 101 (1) , 2002 Attest: Cazlos Ortega City Manager Approved as to form: r Davi in City Attorney 13G922.7-Word- l0l03/�2 1 g I IIIIII IIIIII I�II II,III�IIIII I�I�II�III�IIIIII II I�I r,�.x��rJ�f4s1 a9gR _ r - - Ordinance No. ,ZQ� "DEVELOPER" DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California Corporation DATE OF SUBMISSION BY gy. Developer: odo et io , Sr. V.P. 2002 13G922 7-Word-!0/03/02 19 I IIIIII IIII�I IIII IIII�)III�II III)I�II�III I��IIII II IIII y, ��C l o�,�OryF ( -- - Ordinance No. 102 � _ STATE OF CALIFORN�IA ) C UNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) O (/ 2002, before me, (name of notary) a notary public, personally appeared � � personally known to rne(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidenc�)to be the person(s)whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledge to me that helshe/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity (ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person (s). or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)act ecuted the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. CHARLYNE YOUNO - CommFaslon/1370S5p � Notary Publk—CalHomi� � Riverisd�Courtty - ►wy Comm.ExpYqA�p�7,2006 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On , 2002, before me, (name of notary) , a notary public, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person (s) whose name (s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helshe/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity (ies), and that by his/her/their signature (s) on the instrument the person (s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 136922.7-Word- 10/03/U2 I I�flll IIIIII'lll I��II IIII�II�III�I I�I III��II IIII H. 1�'��nNr 19R q��h - (- � Ordinance No. 10�2 � _ E��IT A-1 TO A-5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN'I'HE CITY OF PALM DESERT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE S EAST, SAN BERNAR.DINO MERIDIAN, IN'THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORMA, ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. 120736.8 TAH 9/l9/0l I IIIIII IIIIII IIII II'lll I'IIII IIII IIIII)III IIIIIII�(II) 9..��3 fk?f46��]I� Blaekliac Va M7 v.N8 -16- I � Ordinance No. 1 28 .� E�C�IT A-2 ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, RIVERSIDE COUNI'Y, CALIFOItNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: THE NORTH HALF OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2 IN THE NORTHVVEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNAR.DINO BASE AND MER.IDIAN; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTl' WATER DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 9,1960 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 104324 OF OFFICIAL RECOR.DS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORMA, DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 21' OS" WEST, ON THE EAST SIDE OF SAID NORTH HALF, 265.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE TANGENT BEARS SOUTH 28 DEGREES SS' S2" WEST, HAVING A RAUNS OF 650.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24 DEGREES 46' S3", A DISTANCE OF 281.14 FEET TO'THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF; T'HENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 57' SS"EAST ON SAID SOUTH LIIYE 81.06 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. izo�s6.s T�x 9n9roi slackllne va M7 v.Na -17- i ii��ii iiiiii iii�i�ii�i ii�iii iiii i��iiti iii�iiiiH��iiN ��.��41;l45 4�r�, ( < Ordinance No. 1028 E��IT A-3 ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,. RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORI�IIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PA.RCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 1 OF TI�NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 1, TOWNSHIP S SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN,LYING NORTHERLY QF THE NORTf�RLY LINE OF TH�STORM WATER C�:[ANNEL AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1960 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 102408 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORIVIA. 1207�6.8 TAH 9/19/Ol I I�IIII�III�I IIII IIII�I III�II INI I�IIII�II IIIII�I II II�I 9'`��'�n f��iyH Blaelcline Va A�7 v.ip8 _Ig_ i �:� Ordinance No. � _ _ E��IT A-4 ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN TI� CITY OF PALM DESERT, RNERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PA.RCEL 3: THAT PORTION OF TI� EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 W'I'HE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 l, TOVVNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO HASE AND MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE SOUTH ON THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION, 330.13 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 42' OS" WEST, 341.19 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 55 DEGREES 52' 34" WEST, 391.64 FEET TO THE WLS`i LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE N4RTH HALF OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE NORTH I DEGREES 10' 29" WEST ON SAID WEST LINE 222.33 FEET TO A POINT THAT BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 57' WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; - THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 57' EAST, 329.82 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGTNNING. 120736.8 TAH 9/19/01 Blacidim Va N7 v.ME -19- I II�III�IIII)IIII IIIIII IIIIII IIII I�I�II III IIIIII�II IIII N' 1�/2G�?`�kiq�iR ( � Ordinance No. 102� - — EX�iBIT A-5 ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNU�, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: � THE NORTH 330.00 FEET OF TF� EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 1 IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, AND THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 3 30.00 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, LYIl�1G WESTERLY OF THE PINE TO PALMS HIGHWAY, CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF RNERSIDE, BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 1�7,1936 IN BOOK 256 PAGE 480 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RNERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AI-L IN TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNA.RDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THERE(JF; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TQ THE COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, A PUBLIC AGENCY, OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 16, 195? AS IlYSTRUMENT NO. 66503 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CaI.IFORNIA. 120776.8 TAH 9/19/01 I III�II IIII�I�III I'��II I'I�II II�III�II(II IIII��I�I(I�f c�?. tyf�`_r�,?�a.� Hlacltline Va N7 v.ME -20- , � . ._ 1 Ordinance No. 10 — � � c��, � � ....•.:. ..x a`',li; ..•vr f�G ��. , ` � � i . , � . : : v \ � i ' .d . � � i . � d . ��, O � � • ��:. � Q � o � � �'�� 3 ��r : a i 2 �: ; �•.. v. � _ � � . � � � d � � � � ` .... _.... I_ � � � ;' _��. � � � • ' c:, '�� ,��- ''. � �n ; � . � � 0 '� � "� ' . .��.' , . ; , � � � � � � : .� . �� •a : � q w''�'. r ! ..� "�" ( � : „1 ♦ A � 'p O � I � � � . � I ��1 - � � '� �` O �� O , • . � 'I r N� ry �� . a �� , . a ,y aoa w � �j � , s •�• _,�� o $$� �� , ` . i '�''.r �.v ------ � . � ` � �i :� � O `� w • � ;� N . .. � � � . - . � ; . � . . �' E�TT A-6 • . � v Czscip�an_�22 pp�F 3 ' . -� --- � Ordinance No. 1028 . [� — . � �� . ; , � _ ,.,., ,� �' � ; � � ,��. `,r: � � ;= ,��;--��;�_ .:e--� _ � . . _. _, : -� ' ' + ' � �� /� �.:i � � �_• � � \ `.71� '�' �' ' � \ �t.. . • . ; � �,lro �,: %� � .' % \*. � � � . ; } j ,�4 / / / :j ^w /� � � .� ` ��/ , �y � . : I � � j � a a r � � Qv'� C / / � � �-'"'� CCC �,, 7S .� �v`• O , • C2 ^ l � • �c� �I 1 / "' " G � �� O►� ii �;. ~♦ : . ..... / :} ••� �• 1 ` '`'e � c•-• � / �• .. � r,,,. .� `�� >> �/� j • O ' �v;:,- I � � y 's r�•4 - � ?/► , ' / � � � n ��'� • •? � � � :S.. i.' Y :I � �- �� 'p % \.JY �/ \ '`,� \ ` `.1 / � � . � ..� ♦; i � �� f • � '\�� I �� .. ./� O 1 � .� /! �� • r � � � ' OJ ' / �� e O ` +\,�x O 4- � � / � �� > � � ' I l, OI e �` + ~Q �' 0 � � � i� G� J � , ,' l7• 7 `"�` \ ` � O� + � �/1 i � � � � : '�O � �p f1'1 s �") � i � �Y 0 � O � , ... � ; / � ..� � " „ � �, J ' � � � � � �_�� r � ��+.r•�swL 41 � � � �w w � '�� / • O ` � Q s �•',/ � � : „ � / / �. . � " { � • O, • " . •„Q = � � Q � � � n ' � � M / ,'t • . t,� w �h r �4 •��w� ��w�.r,� O�� j� l ! �� ! /S��TP3r� �� '.i ]1 O♦ ti . �� Z� � . �.� �� `'t ,.I ✓ -« « �;� � � �+ . Q O }'� Q r 1 / � � � 4 �� •' ? � � .. + � � *� • .... .�. .... �: '�� ti � � `ri.` f � � . . ' j�Q —-�� ,�.'�.Y��Y �/i L--��` � �r v _ i L �' : t � - � , n � �/ : � _• � r'..��s�� . .. . � : 'lv Ges��cn: F�23 �t ,.t PAGE 2 OF 3 I\ ( � • . r i� Q�lnance No. � —. . ^ � � � M ' .; , . � ; _.� : < . .. - � � _ _ � � � . r � . - � . . � . ~ �OI : . � • - • ��a � a�� . q I • L � I r� 'f� s�Y ��S � � . �` �~ I � � :� S�l = nt _ Ch� � �� C� � �� , Q � tn � � � � � � � � Q ; cn � � . � �I . � � � � � � I � . q ♦r.r� I ii►.��• � . . �i� . . t.� a�:. . .. a � ^' O - N - � . . � . o . w - . . � , 'T ' ' • . � _ • . . � � •. I • . • . . . • �• � - ... 1Y � . - �ri'A-6 c.,,,;� . � _ • , : . - - . - =--� — �, . . � $ -�— . . , . . � � � � . PaGE'3 OF 3 � EXHIBIT B r � -y� �:+•�,i�,.�:�„�✓'1 '�.� -•..,��::��...1. �_ ! ' ;,��+��.; , .;: r� �_-7•_;i� +�_,p � . . j• 1��:;��1��;� '!'�� : �: � ' � ./�St..=+�.`•�'1•. �'': �'--�--•.• .� _..V-iJ ' yf�� J�,, •�� a,�, .�`, ,�� J ,�:., :��;,.�.T.� .�: .;�i� .,� l.,�,... .� ' 1.:. � • I :,�_ .i ..�, � �-�;,-,,; � �::..:< .:�::;:.�;�1 ; �!"i=, —�� :.�'_ y� .:; . ; '1� , �� ,,.,a,.„y,n,��. .:�.. , •` ,—••..+ �� . , l •:�:..,r.;� `i � � -�t' . ,�� "� •^1 ` .f�' s�'n�:.� f\,,• ` •..�. • .,•.t;:.•.. `t :. �� '��f _ �'.. ,-s o �/ !� _�. t i:13'•.;�� • �+�J ' i �'�1� '�� ':.:: .ty ....... ; � '�� I � C�'�..�� -'7' •��i �� ----3�� ` �� '?-•� •., s�• i�� !'�,t�� `"• �l �.-.,t Y�. ..,��I -�: .�.. �� `_' 'r xc�. ;i o M� ;��; �� V � � � �(� 4.w= � "1 . S:�;::: �: �.. . . _ _�...� �.. .:�. �,��.__ �. 1,� ��__ . __ �.,��.... � �•�� C ��r �• � �1' �� ..h.`••`�'r�'�_g�'.".yrM�► C �7 � 3 ,r.i�i � �. � , • .t�f.,�i - •� �Q �.^�� '��`�` '�` ✓f��!'\i�� e.;- '/ •i � �- � � ✓ :-:.'�'�----. I,'�yr„- .;� .�:4�y::�,�• �q. � � ��.�.�1�' �'� �'��'\`_�,,!'�'�. �j � r:�`. •'- ��-`! �'�:.i3 ' � . �!G�.�.�e� ^f�-�ai�y'�=;��.,S �sL • � �. ,` - ' • �_ � .� ��, l.�- � c�/1 { ,� �.� z� � ,�.�� :' .�.., ' ' �l' \�> v.> ` � 1 ^-:, � i ( .,� �-�: r r:..-• � -. ;� : � ��, n `,/r J�\ ,� s. ..'��\, �,c (� . :f�x�� C� '•Jl'�- " \� v -�.� .� l � '!}.,y,x.A.:' 't .�'•k. _ `�.. • . � �_• v^� z. ,:yrr.i:�,�o ' ;�. . 1.. ;j �"+� .� . � • 5.�.. �� • � '.:_ � ��%� �� \\� \v 1� �.� ,� 4�'�•� '•• �•• •��• `_ '� `" ,..�{ �;j�; � .� � i.^� :�� C � -�) r.._, • ��.A 4 � �: � �� ' '��;:�--��•• :� �. � � . Plannia�'�, , - .��: :,,`�'��. . ;$��-�..a • - —� � � �:4� �. ..�.._...`: : �r�c (� �J`- � r� "• p�' ( • � . ..� ��,ti,� :.1 � :ii 79 � `� . - , � ZV �� v./�� J �` '�~� �� :' . \ .... � ` •� . { � •'�fa; ,' .�`:: •`-1��•;j';:::... i; g. �. � � •p/ A� x _ :;r.!.s•.... t � �. _ �•. � �'� . . .• Y.. , � � . �. •� \ `ti• . . .\J.. �r i .c.- ��_•�,'` +'"' �� ~�.h:r.�!wfl��,•.".i '`�-! � � � • . . _ �'' C . ��.r� ` � ;�� ..: � .;�I ,� _ ;,� :• ,,1T.:•. t' " '� ' � ��';-� , i;� t.f ��r' ',,•. -} .��s� . � �� . ,��. � , i �c� ...'•;' \\ .:�:�"��1. ; + � `� � .� . . ,4,li\' J��V�lU'�I�'f� _ M1;.'r' f 1 7 ti, ,.�. a. •��. t 4+�w!pr: �.� . - '�� ' r �� .. . • :- •. � � . '� .�� nc ., f =� �7` ..�. G�J� � - --�--_-1-� �.•_--' - -- - - ar...-- -• ,� �. �i�., : ). _.� � ., � ;I ' � �� i , ,. . ',� l�'4.� ,� H E��,.�, r.�.x. � � ` 1� �� /� •�.�.'.. ; ; i ♦ ) �`1•�� '-n -� :::; ., � � � �. ,, S � ' '�` . �• � 7� �� •'�!* _ ti � ' i £. 'r � - � � � ;��:;t��. � . �'� :-�. . � � ; "�:^�-,:� � . � � '``� � �;.;`� '�� . . '� . � � � � ' ��-., '� .�J ' � ;�. � �; �� : o -�-�1 �: M;., �/'1{^ ;.. �� - ' � „',' "'l\.J• - J � .•r-"tii L,•�. ; • [) (��/�'_ �/� �� . .r��'.'..•_ �'�� '." _ .% ' M 1M� f '��-� l ��r rF �J i\� �. -'��.� . . a�. t� /� �' .� n ' ♦ - i �V ��/� '��./� �� C-'' � �..,�� '�' C `P =� . . � �+,} si:;�-: �` �- • � ti L .' '\ ��• • ,�� • - � �'� �;a` '0' �;,�. , s`�, � ;. . _ ��- s.._�_ ` "�o . �,t � �.;�� `.� s�1c _� .� �.� �� ' .��' .� :� � ,� � r � ,^� � J� , � ' � � �� t . �` ., 1 ;s - � o � , 1� �;_.�: �. y� , � ��_ � �; ��_.�.�._...1��°�.�`��'"'� �'�':`��_: ;.I'�. � .. � . ..� .^ Swtcr. USCS 73'M h Ra�eY��U�adnqle� ••� 1 SGIE�Nm0 ly .... .n... � � � MI S � 1� � �T � • 1 MIII� COwtOu�w1I�vK�0 KR w••�• ..• ••�• WAt�\rt�MwIMM sNOR CM4M� •�tWMMCl00ItRK�tKM WtW 01 IW r � Crest Golf Club & Residential Village Exb�bit � J TERRA NOVA� Project Vicin�ty Map Cit of Palm Desert I-2 Planning&Research,lnc. y I IIIIII IIIIII IIII IIIIII IIIIII I�I IIIIII III IIII IIIII IIII �t 1�3`83��i9 Ei9H / 1 _ EXHIBIT C-1 - ordi r�ec�,, � � � � � �, � �%-' �=. �� ' � �� ; '�'_-�.....�: - - _ � �.. -, ,. � �' �- t �►s,� � :, �� , _,.. , � �'° `�---� - , _ , , , — � �. � ,.� �l / � �� 'o, .�. , ._�� r ►�; / i � , • / SECTT N 31 � � T.5 S., R.6 E. �II�l�I��fllN�l� �:.��r��, < - ( - C11Y Of PH� ;� �l DESERI - 73"S14 ERED WARING DR1VE PAI.M DESERT, CALiFORNlA 92260-2578 TELs 760 34lro6� � FAX: �60 j,0-057{ info�palm-defert.orE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA CASE NO. DA 02-01 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED BY ITS ORDINANCE NO. 1028 E� HIBITS �� E Not being able to be appropriately recorded, are on fiie in the Office of the City Clerk City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 (760)346-0611, Ext. 304 RAC LLE D. K SEN, ITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA MARCH 3, 2003 I IIIII{IIII�Ifll IIIIII IIII��IIII III�I III II�II II�I IIII 9"s.�t��t�i4h 4yeH �,n.ne a wni.0 rru �' ----- - --/ l Ordinance No. 102� � - EXHIBIT D BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS The following development standards shall apply: Minimnm Butldin¢Setbacks: Front yard: Fifteen(15)feet Rear yard: Ten(10)feet Interior side yard: Five(5)fat Buildin¢Heiehts: Residential building or structiues shall not have a height exceeding twenty(20) feet from finished pad elevation. In no case shall the building exceed two living stories above the pad elevation of the building site. Country Club/Golf Course or recrearional facilities buildings or structures shall not have a height excoeding forty(40)feet from finished pad elevarion. I II�ItI I�IIII I�II IIIIII I'III�I�I�II�fI I�I I�III�I�I I�I �". 'f;f';�'�as'''�,,, � ,4 ,;( �q �. CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNtNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Recommendation of approval of a second amendment to Development Agreement 02-01, Stone Eagle Development, al�owing a 25-foot 2-inch maximum roof height for a two-story detached garage/casita unit on 19 lots within Stone Eagle Golf Course SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato Principal Planner APPLICANT: Stone Eagle Development, LLC. 74-001 Reserve Drive tndian Wells, CA 92210 CASE NO(s): DA 02-01 AMENDMENT #2 AND MISC 08-15 DATE: February 19, 2008 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval of staff's recommendation will recommend to City Council approval of a 25-foot 2-inch maximum roof height for a two-story detached garage/casita unit on 19 lots within Stone Eagle Golf Course. II. BACKGROUND: Stone Eagle Development: On October 24, 2002 the City Council approved a series of applications and a development agreement for a project known as "The CresY' and now known as "Stone Eagle". Stone Eagle is an exclusive gated residential community with 46 single-family lots (originally 44), a 15,000 square foot clubhouse and an 18-hole golf course located west of Highway 74 with an access road across the Palm Valley Storm Channel opposite of Homestead Road. The project is zoned Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) and the development standards are as approved. At the tirne of approval, the applicant provided preliminary plans for three different modei home types. The model homes are known as Arroyo, Northridge and Southridge. All three homes are single-story; however, the approved Southridge units included a two-story detached garage with a casita. The Staff Report Case Nos. DA 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC 08-15 February 19, 2008 Page 2 of 7 preliminary plans indicated that the building pad for the two-story garage/casita would be approximately 5 feet lower than the building pad for the main house. Based on the plans presented to staff, the approved development agreement states, "Residential buildings or structures shall not have a height exceeding twenty (20) feet from finished pad elevations. In no case shall the building exceed two living stories above the pad elevation of the building site." It was anticipated that the two-story buildings would be on pads 5 feet lower than the main house. On August 17, 2004 the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the tentative tract map which adjusted several lot lines and the approved pad elevations in the area west of the storm channel opposite of Sommerset. Generally, the lots at the northwest corner of the map were lowered 15 feet, while other lots in the southeast area were raised between 3 feet and 5 feet. On March 15, 2005, the Planning Commission approved a second amendment to the tentative tract map increasing some of the previous pad height from the previous approval but maintained pad heights at or below natural grade. The map was redesigned to provide for better onsite drainage and to better deal with the anticipated soil shrinkage and subsidence in the area. The amended map also improved the balance of "cut" and "fill" limiting the amount of dirt that needed to be imported to or exported from the site. III. DISCUSSION: When Stone Eagle was approved in 2002, the project included 24 homes with the two-story garagelcasita units. The applicant believes that the architect who designed the plans assumed that pad height of the two-story units was always going to be lower than the main home pads without knowing the engineering plan would be modified in 2004. The design of the amended tentative tract map approved in 2004 was not able to achieve the design shown by the original architect due to drainage and shrinkage concerns. The project is currently under construction and all of the roads, underground utilities and lots have been constructed. The applicant has indicated that 9 Southridge lots have been sold and two or three are about ready for construction. The first home on Lot 33 was brought to staff for approval of a building permit in December of 2007. After researching the approved development agreement, staff determined that the home was exceeding the 20- foot height limit. Further research determined that 19 of the 24 lots approved with the two-story garage casita units exceeded the approved height limit. Staff has been working with the applicant to address the approved development agreement and approved two-story units. Based on our discussions, staff has identified and analyzed four possible solutions. G:Wiaoning\Tony Bapato\Wad Files�Formats\StattreportsUNISC�DA 02-01 Amendment r2 antl MISC OB-15\Feb 19 P�anning Commission StaH Fieport.doc � Staff Report Case Nos. DA 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC 08-15 February 19, 2008 Page 3 of 7 • Redesign with a 20-foot maximum roof height, • Lower the pad area around the garage/casita units, • Amend the approved map by increasing the pad heights by 5 feet around the main homes, • Leave the pad heights as they are today and amend the development agreement to increase the aHowable roof height for the garage/casita units. A. Redesign With A 20-Foot Maximum Roof Height: The first sofution staff asked the applicant to address was redesigning the two-story buildings at 20 feet high. To achieve a two-story garage/casita at 20 feet high, the interior of the garage would have to be lowered from 9 feet 6 inches to 8 feet 4 inches, leaving enough room for the garage door opener. The casita living area would then have to be lowered from 9 feet 6 inches to 8 feet 6 inches and the roof would have to be changed from a pitched roof to a flat roof. B. Lower Pad Height Around GaragelCasita Units: The 19 lots over the approved limits are currently at the same grade as the street. In order for the two-story buildings not to exceed 20 feet from the approved pad height, the garage would have to be lowered approximately 5 feet 2 inches from the existing pad elevation. This woufd put the garage below the street and the driveway slope would be more than 20% towards the garage door. C. Increase Pad Height Around Main House: In the case of the five homes that do not exceed the 20-foot height limit, the lots are substantially higher than the street. The garage/casita units are located at street level, which is below the existing pad of the main house. For the other 19 lots, the applicant could request approval of an amended tentative tract map by redesigning the pad elevations 5 feet 2 inches higher for the main home area. This proposal would increase the majority of the pad area since the main home is larger than the garage/casita area. D. Leave the Pad Heights Flat: Since the roads, utilities, and pads are already constructed, the last option for the applicant was to leave the pad flat and request approval of an amendment to the development agreement to allow a 25-foot 2-inch G:\Planniny\Tony Bagato�Word Files�Formats\StattreportsV�AISC�DA 02-01 Amendment M2 and MISC OB-1SFeb 19 Planni�g Commissio�Stafl Report.doc I ( Staff Report Case Nos. DA 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC 08-15 February 19, 2008 Page 4 of 7 maximum roof height for the 19 garage/casita units only. The applicant worked with staff to provide a line-of-sight drawing and constructed story poles on Lot 33 to study any potential visual impacts. Lot 33 was chosen because it is the highest lot in Stone Eagle that would have a two-story garage/casita unit. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to Development Agreement 02-01 to allow a 25-faot 2-inch maximum roof height for 19 garagelcasita units only. The nineteen lots are located towards the south end of Stone Eagle across from Sommerset. The applicant has worked with staff to provide story poles representing one wall with a sloped tile roof on Lot 33, which is the tallest lot and which would have the most visual impact. Photos of the story poles are provided in the packets and the poles will remain erected for review by Planning Commission and City Council. Architecture: The approved homes are designed with clay roof tiles, wood awnings, stone veneer, stone columns, stone garden walls, and stucco in earth-tone tan and brown colors to blend into the hillside. The building height for the main home varies between 11 feet and 19 feet 6 inches. The building height for the garage%asita units varies between 20 feet and 25 feet 2 inches from the approved pad height. The top of the building is designed at 20 feet with a pitched roof extending to 25 feet 2 inches. The roof pitch is the only portion of the roof that exceeds the 20-foot height limit under the current development agreement. On January 22, 2008 the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the approved homes and line-of-sight drawings. The line-of-sight drawings demonstrated the visible portions of the roof tops. The material used for roof tiles will blend into the hillside and the Architectural Review Commission believed that there would not be any negative impacts and recommended approval of the garage/casita design at 25 feet 2 inches from the approved pad height. V. ANALYSIS: The development standards in the Hillside Planned Residential zone are as approved. The approved development agreement states that the maximum building height shall be 20 feet from the approved pad heights based on the plans provided in 2002. The applicant and staff have reviewed four possible options to address the height of the two-story buildings approved in 2002. The findings of the four options are: G:�Planning\Tany BagatolWad Files�Formats\StaNreportsUAISC\DA 02-01 Amendment M2 and MISC 08-15�Feb 19 Planning Commission StaN Report.doc � Staff Report Case Nos. DA 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC 08-15 February 19, 2008 Page 5 of 7 A. Redestgn With a 20-Foot Maximum Roof Height: Redesigning the two-story garage/casita units was the first option staff and the applicant studied to address the height issue. The current design would require the interior garage space to be lowered from 9 feet 6 inches to 8 feet 4 inches, leaving enough room for a garage door opener for most vehicles, however, taller or raised vehicles may have trouble parking in the garage. In addition, the interior living space of the casita would have to be lowered from 9 feet 6 inches to S feet 6 inches and the roof would be changed from a pitched roof to a flat roof. The lower interior roof heights are less desirable in today's market. A typical interior living space is at least 9 feet high and the garages need to be taller to accommodate taller vehicles. Architecturally, the flat roof design would make the garage/casita "boxy" and would not blend in with the approved homes in Stone Eagle. The pitched roof is designed with roof tiles that will blend into the hillside. If the roof is flat, any properties above Stone Eagle will look down on a flat roof that will not blend into the hillside. B. Lower Pad Height Around Garage/Casita: Lowering the pad heights around the two-story garage/casita units would have the least visual impact; however, this solution is not possible with the current lot configurations. Since the street and underground utilities are already constructed, the driveways would be lowered providing a slope greater than 20%. According to the Department of Public Works, a 9% slope on a driveway is the maximum allowed. Lowering these lots 5 feet would require more land area to provide a longer driveway so that the slope is no greater than 9%. In addition, residential driveways should slope upwards from the street to provide the most desirabie drainage patterns. This would create a very steep, undesirable driveway towards the garage and cause the driveway to drain towards the garage when it rains. Typically, it is desirable to have the positive drainage away from the garage towards the street to prevent flooding in the garage. C. Increase Pad Height Around Main Home: Another option studied was increasing the pad heights around the main homes by 5 feet, leaving the two-story garage/casita units at the same level as the street grade. Increasing the pad heights by more than 6 inches would require Planning Commission and City Council approval. G:�Planniny\Tony Baqato\Wortl Files�Formats\StaHreports\MISC�DA 02-Ot Amendment M2 and MISC 08-15�Feb 19 Planning Commission Staff Report.tloc � �. Staff Report Case Nos. DA 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC 08-15 February 19, 2008 Page 6 of 7 Increasing the pad heights around the main home would have the most visual impact due to the fact that the size of the main home is larger than the garage/casita, requiring a larger pad area raised 5 feet higher. The main house totals 1,819 square feet and the floor area and the garage/casita totals 611 square feet. Raising the pad heights for the homes is not the most desirable solution and would cause the most visual impacts. D. Leave Pad Heights Flat: The applicant provided line-of-sight drawings and erected story poles to illustrate the visual impact of leaving the pad heights where they are today with the 25-foot 2-inch high garage/casita unit. These homes are located on the bottom of the mountain side and are not located on a ridge. The story poles were constructed on the highest parcel to determine the worst case scenario. Staff drove around different parts of the city and did find a few areas from which the homes will be visible; however, it was determined that these homes would be visible even at 20 feet high, which is consistent with the original approval. (see photos attached). Photographs labeled "1" and "2" are from within Sommerset. The pictures illustrate that most, if not all, of the garage/casita unit on Lot 33 will be visible at 20 feet high. The portion of the home above the 20-foot height limit is the pitched roof, which has the least impact due to the small amount of area and the fact that the roof ti{e will blend into the hillside. Photographs "3" and "4" are from areas on Highway 74 and Upper Way West. In these areas the homes are visible. As is the case at Sommerset, these homes are going to be visible at 20 feet and the only portion exceeding the height limit is the sloped roof. Based on staff's findings, it has been determined that the proposed amendment will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area and is consistent with the intent of the original approval in 2002. V. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendment will not negatively impact the surrounding area and is consistent with the intent of the original approval in 2002. The homes are located on the lowest portion of the mountain side and the height increase will not impact the views of the mountain side or mountain ridge lines. The garage/casita units are designed with a pitched tile roof that will blend into the hillside better than a flat roofed "boxy" building. On January 22, 2008, the Architectural Review Commission recommended approval of the amendment to Development Agreement 02-01. G:�Planning\Tony Bayato\Word Files�famats\StaHreportsUAISG7DA 02-01 AmendmeM Y2 and MISC 0&15�Feb/9 Planning Commission Staff Report.doc i � Staff Report Case Nos. DA 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC 08-15 February 19, 2008 Page 7 of 7 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed application is requesting an amendment to allow a 5-foot 2-inch height increase for 19 of the 24 previously approved Southridge units. The proposed amendment is consistent with the scope of the previous CEQA review and the approved Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. No further environmental review is necessary. VII. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to City Council approval of Development Agreement 02-01 Amendment 2 and MISC 08-15, subject to conditions attached. VIII. AITACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution B. Second Amendment to Development Agreement 02-01 C. Legal Notice D. Approved Development Agreement 02-10 E. Architectural Review Commission Notice of Action F. Plans and Exhibits Submitted by: Department Head: Tony Ba ato Lauri Aylaian Principal Planner Director of Community Development Approval: . Homer Cro ACM for Devel ment Services G:�Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files�Fortnats\StaffreportsVollSC\DA 02-01 Amendment�r2 and MISC OB-15�Feb 19 Ptanning Commission SWH Report.tloc � (. �:��:�:ItiY.��D �'EB t � 2Ip6 (:ity�ofPalm Desert 73-510 Fmd Waring Drive Palm Dcscrt,Ca. 92260-2578 :Ohi'1L'`iT�'DEt'ELOPMEA�r`?Er;`:.!'MENT Attn. Lauri Aylaian, Secretarty CtTi OF FAL:�DESERT Palm Desert Planning Commission Re: Legal Notice Case Nos.DA 02-01 Amendment#2 and Misc 08-IS Dear Ms. Avlaian Please register my strenuous and vociferous objection to the request by Stone Eagle Development LLC.,for approval of a proposal to allow a 25 foot 2 inch maximum roof height for a detached garageJcasita building on 19 lots. I live in a development called Sommerset,which is directly across the wash and has a spectacular view of the mountain on which this proposed development is planned. As I sit on my patio,my view is being impinge�upon by the present development that is going on To visualize a two story-plus home, I consider it blasphemously obscene and reprehensible. These developers obviously knew what they were getting when they applied for the original zoning. Now,ihey aze like the camel who sticks his nose under the tent before taking over the whole tent. I,and my neighbors,currendy enjoy a buwlic view of the mountains and the surrounding area. To further despoil this scene is not only a crime against nature,but may also have a further environmental impact on the area. Therefore,without going to the expense of hiring counsel to fight this proposal, I wish to register my objection and protest to this proposed plan. I shall rely on our City Council to use their judgment in vetoing this request. Yours truly> . 3erome B. Sewell 72308 Sommerset Dr. Palm Desert,Ca. 92260 3BS/hms MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 Ms. Aylaian asked him to submit his letter and she would share it with the appropriate departments. Mr. Bartlett thanked Commission and submitted his letter (see Exhibit A attached hereto). Chairperson Tschopp thanked him for his comments. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. �, A. Case Nos. DA 02-01 AMENDMENT #2 and MISC 08-15 - STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of a second amendment to Development Agreement 02-01, Stone Eagle Development, allowing a 25-foot 2-inch maximum roof height for a two-story detached garage/casita unit on 19 lots within Stone Eagle Golf Course. Mr. Bagato reviewed the request and recommended that Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. Chairperson Tschopp asked about the area of the roof that would be above 20 feet. Mr. Lennon spoke from the audience and said probably an average of 300 feet. Mr. Bagato clarified that was less than 20%. Commissioner Limont asked if the request would grant approval to the entire 19 units, if it would be on a case-by-case basis, or only for those currently under construction. Mr. Bagato replied that the request is for all 19 lots, with Lot 33 being the worst case scenario. Commissioner Limont asked when they are all done if they would see clusters of houses all through there. Mr. Bagato said yes and pointed out Lot 33 on the displayed picture. He stated that Lot 33 is actually a little bit higher than the one behind it. They would potentially see the top pitches of the first couple. There was a line-of-sight drawing that showed that only the top couple of units had visible rooftops. Beyond that, one portion was behind the wash behind the berm. Three other units would not have to have a height increase since they comply with the 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 200$ original approval. On the lots a little below Lot 33, they might see a couple of the rooftops for the other pitches, but didn't think they would see more than half or three quarters of them. Commissioner Limont asked how much higher the chimney would be from the rooftop. Mr. Bagato replied it would be a total of 27.5 feet. Commissioner Limont noted that now they were seven and a half feet higher than the original 20. Commissioner Campbell reiterated that what was before them were the 19 lots. By the time everything is constructed, she thought everything would blend right in. The homes won't be noticed as far as the irregular height for this one. Mr. Bagato agreed. With the varying heights, it would make that one unit stand out less and they were using materials that will blend into the hillside. He said it should blend in when iYs complete. Commissioner Schmidt asked how many more Southridge models are planned. Mr. Bagato said there are a total of 24; 19 are the ones asking for the 25-foot height limit. The other five will be at 20 feet because those pads turned out to be lower than the main pads of the homes. So there would be 24 total, but only 19 with the 25-foot height from the approved pad height. Commissioner Schmidt asked for and received confirmation that no where else on the property are more of these units. Commissioner Schmidt asked if Mr. Bagato knew when the utilities were installed for sewers and roads. Mr. Lennon spoke from the audience and said two years ago. Commissioner Schmidt asked if there were engineering studies done at the time. Mr. Bagato said they did the engineering for the drainage, but wasn't sure about the actual home lots and deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Schmidt asked for the approximate size of the lots. Mr. Lennon spoke from the audience and said 8,000 to 15,000 with an average of about 13,000. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the homes, including the garages and casitas, were about 3,200? Or 2,500? Mr. Bagato stated that the Southridge units are about 1,800 for the main home and 1,200 for the casita garage. Commissioner Schmidt noted those are stacked. Mr. Bagato concurred. Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that they are around 2,500 to 2,600 on each lot that ranges from 8,000 to 15,000 square fee. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Looking at the plans, Commissioner Schmidt asked for confirmation that the ceiling heights in the garage and the casitas are 9-feet 6-inches. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. There were no other questions and Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 MR. TED LENNON, President of Stone Eagle Development, Silver Spur Trail in Palm Desert, stated that this turned out to be an oversight in the timing of how things went on. On the original plan most of these homes are on the hillside and they go up the hill and taper. Five or six of the homes are going to be built just like that. He said they were surprised because they know the 24-foot building was approved, but no one saw the language that said it was from the pad height. Mr. Lennon noted that the building itself as currently designed had been through the Architectural Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council, and was approved. All the construction drawings have been done. He explained that the lots are sold with a full set of construction drawings so theoretically, the owner just comes in and does the individual grading and that's all they have to do. Mr. Kevin Knee was the first home owner to come forward to build this and staff saw the clause from the building height, not just 24 feet high. So they were a little surprised. But he thought staff did a terrific job in challenging them to look at the different options to resolve this issue. He was pleased with the results reached, which was the same result that came out of the Architectural Commission, and they felt that if nothing else, it added more interest. One of the key things they were trying to accomplish is most of these units all have these spectacular multi-color tiles which blend into the mountains, and to accomplish the height right now, they'd have to go to a flat roof. These units are not the highest units. He referred to a picture of the lot with the story poles. He said it is the highest of the 19 units. He pointed out the locations that would be higher and noted that they would be looking down at flat roofs if that's what they had to do, but they were hoping to have tile. He indicated that the other thing that effects the units themselves is they believed they had to lower the ceiling height of the studio unit for quality and for the impact. They would have to give up vertical height and lessen the value of the unit. He said the garages were almost of more concern with SUV heights. They would have to get the garage down where they'd just be skimming coming in the door like the old tract houses. They wanted to try and avoid that. With the combination of the aesthetics, he thought it was a small impact. Mr. Lennon thought the drawing of the Southridge units demonstrated how they would blend together. These homes would have a mountain 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 backdrop everywhere versus the homes that are above this project. He thought the two-story homes on top of the hill kind of draw the eye to them. He said they spent a long time with the Architectural Commission and they unanimously felt this was a reasonable variance to request. He was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Limont asked for clarification--the original development agreement called for a 20-foot height limit. Mr. Lennon said no, it was a 20-foot height limit above the building pad of the main unit. The buildings could be taller than that, they just had to relate to their own building pad. It didn't matter, they could be 30 feet higher than the next building over, but the way it was written out, they couldn't be more than 20 feet higher than the building pad of their unit. Commissioner Limont noted that the architect designed for 24 feet. Mr. Lennon agreed that he designed a 24-foot unit. It went through all approvals, but it kind of just got lost in the development agreement that it had to be 20 feet above. Whether or not it was the architect's fault, he said it ultimately stopped with him. Commissioner Limont indicated she was just asking for clarification. Commissioner Schmidt asked how many of the 19 units have been sold. Mr. Lennon replied nine and explained that two of the nine don't have a problem. Commissioner Schmidt asked if this was out of the 19. Mr. Lennon said that was correct. Commissioner Schmidt asked if he was saying they do not have a height problem. Mr. Lennon said two of them don't have a height problem because the garages are being built below due to the way the lot sits. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 Commissioner Schmidt asked if there was any other product that could sit on these lots other than Southridge. Mr. Lennon indicated that it is a planned unit development. He thought the answer was no, it really fills out the lot. He said it was a good question. They would have moved their Northridge units which are just one story and would bring a higher price, but they just didn't fit. If they looked at the site plan carefully with all the buildings laid out, everything was designed for privacy out the window and that unit was designed just for that. Commissioner Tanner asked if there was another way to put this Southridge together. In other words, they are talking about utilizing space of the lot, and he understood that, but he asked if they needed to utilize it vertically on the garage or if the casita could be eliminated on the garage. Effectively what they were doing is bringing up it a{I up to the required height as opposed to taking the casita up to 25.2. Mr. Lennon said they would go to a two-bedroom from a three- bedroom and would lose a huge amount of square footage. Commissioner Tanner estimated about 600 square feet. Mr. Lennon concurred. He said that's 20% to 25% of the square footage they would be giving up. Commissioner Tanner asked if they were utilizing that third bedroom in the casita as a selling point. Mr. Lennon said yes. Commissioner Schmidt thought it was difficult to see the setbacks and the building footprint, and if there might be more room on the lots. Her first thought was to eliminate the second story of the casita, but the applicant was saying that's not feasible. Mr. Lennon stated that it wasn't. He said they tried to design within aesthetic reason the maximum homes on these lots. He thought they had done that and met their requirements. Commissioner Schmidt asked what he would do if the request wasn't approved. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2Q0$ Mr. Lennon said he would have to go to the 20-foot flat roof and go back to the home owners who have already bought homes and do some explaining. Commissioner Tanner reiterated that Mr. Lennon would go to the home owners who've already purchased that are looking down on the flat roofs, and then asked if Mr. Lennon had explored or talked to the home owners about the possibility that they'll be looking at a flat roof versus pitched roof. Mr. Lennon said no, this had just come up recently. He said it wasn't just these owners, iYs the other 30 homes they've sold with lots that look down on this as weU. He said these full construction drawings were probably $150,000 to $175,000 a unit construction plans which were all done for these homes. They have been done and approved. They've been back now for the earthquake code to meet City requirements that just happened in the last year and they now have a local businessman trying to pull his permit right. Commissioner Limont asked for and received confirmation that the home that look down on the 19 under discussion are all at the regulation height. Commissioner Tanner asked how many units had been sold that would look down at these 19. Mr. Lennon pointed them out on the map. Commissioner Tanner reiterated that they're all virtually sold except for the 19. Mr. Lennon said that of the 19, seven or eight of them are sold. So it isn't just those. That was the last product they put on the market. Commissioner Limont said they were in a bit of a valley, so just a little higher up if they grant a height exception. Mr. Lennon said yes, iYs in a valley. He showed the low point and where the units were located. Besides the 19 they were looking at, Commissioner Campbell said all the other lots already sold will be a lot higher than the 19 lots and would be looking down. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 Mr. Lennon showed the locations of the lots above the 19. He said the neighboring homes on the hillside also look down on them. Commissioner Campbell said when those are built, the 19 lots won't look as high because some of the other homes would be higher. Mr. Lennon concurred. He also noted that all their homes are earthen colors to match the mountains and thought they would disappear pretty well. There were no other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Tschopp asked for testimony in FAVOR of the height exception. There was no response. Chairperson Tschopp asked for testimony in OPPOSITION. MR. TIM BARTLETT, 73-382 Salt Cedar Street, stated that he wasn't entirely in opposition to the height. Although he looks down, if they looked at the site plan, he's right up that canyon and will look down on those lots. Quite frankly he would probably rather see tile roofs than flat ones. He was far enough away where iYs really not going to impact him. He said he was present once again to sincerely express his disappointment, not only with staff, but with the developer. They were sold a bill of goods. The project had some great architecture. He • just wanted to take this opportunity to express his sincere disappointment. He said he has a lot that is probably worthless now. The applicant turned a dry canyon into a swamp and staff has done what they can for the last three years to basically allow that to happen. The applicants haven't met numerous regulations. He was sure they were going to get this request approved. If they didn't get it from the Planning Commission, they'd get it from Council. They've gotten every concession they could ask for. He just wanted to express his distaste in this whole process. He was sorry to do that because he has a lot of respect for Palm Desert and was sorry to say that. He thanked them. MR. GEORGE NICHOLAS, a resident of Palm Desert off of Pitahaya, said he was the owner of 40 acres right above this property and he would much rather see the rooftops in tile form versus flat roofs. He informed Commission that he is putting together a plan that they hope to bring to the City soon which would show a minimal amount of density and very high value of estate-type lots. They have 20 acres that looks down on this property and they didn't want to look at flat roofs. Tile roofs that blend into the hillside would make a nice look from their standpoint in terms of sales. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 He said he plans to build his residence here. He's lived here 31 years and from a personal standpoint, he would like to see it as proposed by the developer. He also felt the height would not be effected with what they are trying to do, especially from what they see from above, because they are probably a few hundred feet higher and then they go all the way up to the big home on the hillside, which is a lot more intrusive that anything being proposed. As the adjacent landowner and probably the one most effected here, he had no objection to the plan and thought it would be better than a flat roof. He thanked them. Commissioner Schmidt asked if Mr. Nicholas' property, the 40 acres, was within Palm Desert. Mr. Nicholas said 35 acres are within the city of Palm Desert and five acres are near Paisano Road in the County. It is the Whitman Estate and he's owned it a few years. There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Tschopp asked if Mr. Lennon had any rebuttal comments. He said no. Chairperson Tschopp clos the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Limont stated that everyone knows that she hates height, but she looked at the drawings with a flat roof versus a pitched roof and just from an aesthetic standpoint, she liked the pitched roof better. Having seen the quality of what Mr. Lennon's group does at Stone Eagle and at The Reserve, they are really beautiful properties. They make a huge effort to use native plants, there's privacy and blending. She had a true leaning for one time to put down her baseball bat. But she did have a thought about the chimneys. She didn't know if it could be done, and was just a suggestion, but in looking at some of the pictures, she thought the roofs looked great, but all of a sudden they have this chimney feature that goes up another 2.5 feet. She didn't know if they could come down or if it would architecturally destroy it, or if it could be done from a structural standpoint because then they have a chimney too close to a rooftop. But she liked the pitched roof better than the flat and thought if done properly, this type of architecture would look better than if they just did a block house and put them up on the hill that fell within our regulation. Commissioner Campbell stated that after driving around up there, those homes blend so well with the mountains that they didn't notice they were there. She also agreed that the landscaping is excellent. She did not like the flat roof and would like to have the pitched roof and everything would blend in with the mountain. The eyesore she saw was not Mr. Lennon's 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 development, but all the other homes built up there in the mountains on county land that stand out like a sore thumb. She thought this was going to be a very nice development. As far as the chimney was concerned, she suggested if it was light colored, maybe they could paint it a little bit darker to blend in more with the roof color so it wouldn't stand out as much. Otherwise, she was in favor of the project. Commissioner Tanner said he also had the opportunity to go up and visit the project and said that architecturally it is absolutely gorgeous and it does great things for that mountainside. Talking about looking further up the hill, 400 or 500 yards away they see these huge county monstrosities, thaYs what they Iook at. They weren't going to be looking at this particular project. His only concern, and it was a major concern, was that anytime they extend the heights, it opens the door to future projects that come into Palm Desert and sets a precedent. They teli them they will be limited to the height they can go and then all of a sudden, because of engineering issues and problems, five years after the start of the project they are faced with a decision as to how to go forward because the applicant couldn't live with, and neither could the City, the grades that have to be achieved by lowering that casita and garage. They were in a position to set precedent every time they allow a variance. He thought this was a beautiful project, a gorgeous project, but what concerned him was that a yes vote placed on this would set that precedent for future projects. He wasn't sure yet how he was going to vote. Commissioner Schmidt said the comments she heard this evening had been from a view above looking down on this project. She has heard from a number of Somerset residents who will be looking across at it, and when they think of one home with a two-story garage and casita, they should bear in mind there would be eight adjacent to the run-off area that Sommerset would endure. She said who is she to say anything disparaging about Mr. Lennon's development, because it is beautiful, but the ordinance and th� agreement that was charted in 2002 was very clear. They were now faced with letting the horse out of the barn. Again. She had to vote no because of that. Chairperson Tschopp stated that he was disappointed because of the mis- communication because it had caused a problem that, as Mr. Bartlett said, has grown to be something a little more than what they originally planned on putting into the hills. But now that they're there, the alternative was unacceptable. The flat roof to him was terrible and not acceptable. They couldn't lower the pad because of the unacceptable grade it would create. If they raised the house, they pretty much created a larger area thaYs more visible in some ways. So the alternatives weren't very good. Looking across 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 from Somerset, the 20 feet would be visible, and 25 would be, and he didn't think it would be that much of a detriment to the home owners at Somerset. Tonight they heard from a couple of the neighbors who were generally going to be impacted by this and both of them spoke in favor. And Commissioner Lirnont favored a height exception and he had to go along with her and he was in favor of this project moving forward. He asked for a motion. Acti n: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Schmidt and Tanner voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2468 recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. DA 02-01 Amendment#2 and MISC 08-15, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Schmidt and Tanner voted no). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Status report on Housing Element Update as required by State of California Ms. Aylaian indicated this was an informational item. Staff wanted the Planning Commission to be aware that they are moving to the phase of holding several public meetings to gather input from the community at large. There would be two different meetings targeted to two different audiences. The first was for service providers and people who work within the affordable housing venue and that would be, for instance, non-profit organizations that provide affordable housing to churches and other groups that provide services. They would try to gather information from them in one setting and then they have a separate meeting heid during evening hours specifically targeted for residents at large who might have any interest at all in the housing in Palm Desert and the attempt to provide both affordable and moderate rate housing in the update of the Housing Element. Those meetings would be taking place this week and next week and all that information would be fed back into our update. She said the target was to have this submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development and approved by the end of June of this year. 12 .�._ r� CIjY OF � � r� lf�l DESERI 73-5�o FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: �60 346—o6�t Fnx: 760 34�-7098 I info@palm-desert.org January 24, 2008 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NOS: DA 02-01 Amendment No. 2 and MISC 08-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 74-001 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210. NATURE OF PRO.lECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of 19 homes with a maximum roof height of 24 feet 6 inches. LOCATION: Within the Stone Eagle development west of Highway 74 and the Palm Valley Storm Channel in Section 25 T5S R5E and a portion of Section 31 T5S R6E. ZONE: HPR Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted approval. Date of Action: January 22, 2008 Vote: Motion carried 5-0-1-0, with Commissioner Hanson abstaining (An appea! of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. �i rn�n�anna�cwEi ° SOUTHRIDGE LOTS WITH A 25-FOOT 2-INCH HEIGHT ABOVE THE APPROVED PAD HEIGHT'° c ' i s... _ - :44.11 *„ •„...0,. ,..: ..:01111;:- r*-0,,,..i. -..- , . ,.- -,..:- ;„...f.,--,. .,:. ,. .. .,11.c..., ., .: ,' * EAGLE DR {' fi 4.1 p* • ' gy'` ;,. � A q ''' ''''' ' Ahli.tr 7' '.1 -„*...-S.4,s'-.--0. - 4114.,:lit' , ... .I' NOP ,ic-k,, .," • 10"1'• ' :itirp- tt'sr'.. . .,r ' oI ''''''2 4... - ‘‘,.4 " 40,411t ' : ), +y x 13 4• Q R gyp! ' i ."`,.. .gpJADA TRL ..�. ��f7i� s� o R rc: .w � L 441111;14 ,, itL4 ti _M1 . ( LCi REST�i7 1 [ het� M7 II'47-i-e.4: # _• ® R' W ti`• o 0 0tt4.1 4::le y14 ,trii [,y.•• rnr 1 r •" Tye''/0 GE TRL ! 1 AV , . . o .3 �'r7 • 0 , : / #1 o - - .44..p 4. •—,,- — .., O t' '- , 1 ' ff . bEsiR -- -41 Avg . ,4.4!.-,,, . 910.7<,-., , ei ' - • 'yeR - r- . , ., r,.1.,-, „sr, w+E 11 liai , .. -." 10•10 .- 1 . s o E.: w> , it An l ._._ P-,.qT.A44..•k,,.'i,,.:,.•r{ii.,.,z,,.r0i„-•,.k• •-' ..,.,".-',,,l'"\,—'k}-.-f,-•\k t,,,i .i-7„1_i-"(•=',-'4-'0P 7es_,•;.1-',,.,,., J.,%,o'•3t r,.4)14-,,0l.,)1--,‘,,,:q.•-1,„'k ,r.;.li'-1 ai,a.•,-0,.c,'%t,,-,:,.,,i..-., :z...,..A.4..,.0-•,-1r..0,_l.-l-,.,,-,1 I,;,i •t"h Ak,-T•.,rv.•.r,-•,,..-,.r','.„,--,.,...'',1--'.,0-.„i.f.,•‘'../..,",-",,‘.,k r',,k;N,‘.,„.-..,-7,-',.,,O'.,;,4,',„'`,,„,,',,f;,4N..1„,k.,-t t:-'''i,c•,,T'i,0.'-,r",:l'(,,.47'•,,.4 7-.,.<(4,,\',...-.{-1..1t.-,:--1 r.•_-,i_/-„*.i,/..,,---i-,_..1-i',,.,,,,.t-t.0'',,-',N,(l'(.4'•-*f.''-/,.,',-•ti--,7...-a-,".:,,;',-.:4-4.'),:-17,4'.',7,,,''-,)A','1-,--4-'---"--,?4•,!,.4,.4'-.J-„r1-j,:-;,r,,'.=t:4c,1/4-,h0,-,•,-,--:',.., -,,,•.f,,-,'.-,-•.,.:s‘k".,,-,,",.,1,-,-,=,',,,,4 A.z4-e,,:-,.)g.r-,,.-:-.,•:\\, 1.„,•' 'r'-,-'-ei'‘• 4'_,t,.,,,.,--„i..„,;1.•.._.-...,".. ,7__,-..<.s,.,'.•,—'-,_-‘-m 1_ ,0..••r•„l,,.* •uii.,i,k•-,-4.ioYI''r,;'-e',/A.'f,.--.4t1',,o',-"p/.•d-r.-'..t '•..,...=._,/,...'_-.4* ",-'.s,.•7,,73.,,..,.4•t. _*..vL\V•..,-_)4,..,,,-),'v,.(-I.''-'.ci..'.,ls_'--,t.-„'u,o."i,,-_:p\._,s_-,."-T---„t.-`,.s:.,---7•-.'.;'. 6;-,.,._.,:'".A-.,_-`:.„„-./.;.„..-...--.„_--.,.-_:,-z:.—.,::.--<.,,.---..,7,.f.1—\„.,.-•W..'_V-1-..1_.-,-.1-I.-.'..,_.0,--',4,..1..1'._-.,--.--\_., '..„,',r,,I'r',--.\-.-.,.—_t.-t--.—v4-•..,..-_.%--.-(--A„--- /‘L- -,4--.4--/--1,,1,--1l4-./,'/.\-r-.,--k_..*-„%-,_•/.-:"-,2,i„,/oN-:/,*-,,A-•"_.,,c,l,_,,-i--k-_,'l_'. .'i<---,:l,•,--(,,), -1_11-0.1.•1.!•I'1,r._1..-A.2i-.._T1.•--,-1,o.--.A44.'.l-..„'..."...i4 l......-.- - - .1 I4.1-.i,‘-0ki—'l-/kt,0/,7 1t yi'9•t-i4.)'"4., ,o—,.,y gS17•Iiri'r I.14T....i‘._-E..I_f%t_. //0 1.i)lPtV0-0.S- „4..(t(-,-a 0-.:•7,4,P,, -'-i lAV,.\.7\lA:b....'.-.-:•.`',/-4-"-,i 4/l lk. ." ,--.ff,.-.!1*4r.1..:.4.t*4p:l14r-ta,-1&e,'-\,;*•s-,-- d,,•.A4,,0-..io.r,4 a L1, •*l1.7i1,../1'\. I.....I•-..•..i .,,-0•-,-",-.7 •(g- -s::,'.:›\:r 01._•°i\;. .A0w.t•4w,,:..l4'&.i .4-'..;•1._"i,''.p.".--,1 .-#.''4.2 4,•L4W-cI:.a\ 414';:-•'4,A.?.0-,.4'-I.,.1„,'1-,,d1--I-4o: —s,/''.,0:---1—&-j-,_-,--_,1.<4.0=-_..14,--_.*-t:1-.--._/,-_..,-...-_:--•,.,:/,/..P/L„,,.'/„i,/.'t:1 A,y-,,._-2 0.,'•,,.„I'1.•:. - ip i * 7I :,'4 4 ,• - -- , „1 _ - a • E1047- / _ - // ,:r. 1 % \ - -0• -,•,,', i/iF 4t.,,il,d‘tr t iik1k1,i,1i.4 I il./•,,I;4r ,/. rfi lb I -cR-;4• (. 0 / V - . . 41/47 ,- , # -v ‘ • ,;;;_,i ,r 7,•' ,'--`..-- _ - ' - „oil k ---., '-' C „.-,.» y ,05,.... .... 0 ‘4‘*••• ''-'7.. , ' -, ar.0 ,,--: '411111111P1"-- I • . 0 „b... , ..,....,;\:::.,,,— .: ... s,—. ....::.„---- ,:/i: 1:;49: 0•4/' Al• .,..0-:---,--- Ale 1'i ' - - • fr-,------:----%,,, Rik ,2____“" :_.,14 -...-"...........7-..,-", t---- N i,;,, l p7,1 Ai •10 '' to:" . . . , . ,. •• .,_. .• •::' \ -4hcm - ....4; an.''t:, • . Ify. g , i tot, I f' Itz . 40147 ti4 "'• **-- ' I 1" ',... . . -. --.4 , r •; <1.........z-‘ , .. v ..4, . 0 • -:,....?' ,I,AN'•-,,- '' 4410.,'.,?' , , s ' •••• , 1641111 r r : *.f r f 11 i.,,, )1a, vt,' ;.- - ..41,11,„,,, I-0,-;t.;!':IF f..•,4.: ir. ;::!•,"i it */, • L 4-COrsti-ettnttr404:47,V, ... • - . ' 22,,:t........ i 1 •".• t-'f L• • ...;• •:: agil Pet 1!%;:-,•-•,• ,,,,.-.".,-.-_-:.4.:t4r ti_,,„,140 i -"---':I',1,0V1 lir if -... ... - y,..< -. •. ./i ,1/4,.4_,Ar- ...4444 in ,, s \ ill'\ a 4-....-,`'.,4 Or. :,••• ---7.44 , s ,,i.v.i. , : ....-.. :: s .„„.....:.....---n,..-07,..--.:::e - itf ‘„, ,z,-..7,4,- 1, ,-,:k., <,,,,, ii ,, I.:,,,,l,k •. , .....;,,,,-, 5,'31 .,4 Fi ,, ‘111111;. ..-4.00* .. I ,'" •'' ',‘' -';,,,;',,k- -'1 '' '''.44-'4';)de ,i,,,,,?1,1 .4,.,,• .,,,;_-, , s ,..- , ==._, yis IFt,r-4,.1:, Nall 1 , i •'1, -.--/-: ‘-'•7.•',.,t/;•,- •i,Z•511‘ts ,,4')/iiiii /r - -Pdk' ' ,`,,1 ". ci n 110 \ . '— ."--reijkOlk71.-.4; w ,....41, 1\ •-',. ,i'r ir ,' k i.• fitrigip'.1). ',Ar Rill ) iii,.. '1/,i . , 1111111111k::10 --i',.`.a.•II%/41 1 t11141. 1''''' ,/ Ari -11 A i r4k WI, terg. '--z4k-:,-,•C'‘'cr. '",;.;, ,,-.. ',,',••• k l'i••.---,'„ , ,4,.. , 6-• ,,,-,-/' v. - "—pi- • 111 ' ' Pi% -„ArAss,_ _.---,,,ati4.11t„ - r.11' ' I t'• ., A',111 " :' 1 "' - 1 al t ..,#r ... .- .11 •• , — 1%.•I' 4"..C -•,,,-;'., ,Aj i 4 "4, ,,,,, .... ,,,,...: \ ..,...,--1,---.-a-,-1,1,7,....:-,,,:‘,\',\,' , ,---,- z...„....„, v.. ..... ir . 41.441:;' ,c,s,,, , :14.-.::=. -----'''''''' t, \''',* ammon111 , • ....mg=M.. , to 04 ;-i'\'•-•••;,-.:•.•_,...-•-• 4 ,AmL... .., will -.4 4,-.„ Ns' f,4 ve---••••-- L-- po ._.. ' - - t,et IL 's:11! 1010 i MEWED Ile: lihhis __,..„..<'-7 ,:ii 5 I ''• • \s V ! ik "., ---' t W I - GRAPHIC SCALE 'OW B-rom a a l'• 1- T!oikiigimimmimr CAI STONE tAG LEI& 1 OF 2 '*, „. ---N-•T. t_' 0 10 (Nam) ".kv.- ..........;- ztV'' ,i; 1$ / , 1 Moe.MO fl•\,-.•\,*. -''''';"7-111,A1 Iv ‘,......2\ ,31 41F rAvr" I ' .1::( .- , , \\ rg A A. sT°NES 3 C 0 UT HE AGLERDEvELIE,CaE opt view'_CDT 7 u 7c1B9 cur T ♦ -. `♦ ♦• �� CARTA♦ ♦ MAINOARAOE _ `♦ HOUSE `♦ PAW VALLEYSUUMEMET OEVElOP1El4T ♦ WRICEINO LCT 40 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ` • SECTION 'A'—'A' ♦ ♦ ♦ CARTA �� ♦♦ `♦ GARAGE MAN ♦ ♦ HOUSE ,IEw ♦• ♦ • LOT e17 3a3e 3 0 l\. MAIN • • • • ♦ ♦ N DIEM • `♦ LOT�T�33004338-2 ♦♦♦ /�` ♦ MAIN I ♦ VEM LOT 17 1RACT 30 30-2 YAR10Z1L110 LOT 17 SECTION 'B'—'B' MAN CARTA CASTA ��—S HOUg — LOT9TR 3 \ MAIN ". LOT 4 1RACT 304.31-3 CARTA jam` HOUSE LOT LOT TT301323 1 p LOT 17 1RACT 30438-2 RAMMING LOT 17 S 'Ci'—'C' MEMO NA 1Y) (1: T A t STONE EAGLE S i O N t tAG L' 8OUTHRICGIE LOT EXHIBIT STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC sHErr 2 OF 2 Armeguz.7., 2a2 paNs /04011141L._. 5T011Th 'EAGLE PALM r.)EsEra CALIFORNIA KEY NO1L El AL,IP.M V:04,7.4E, cE, DITAQ.Puerti SA1,.- t. LT' E E --. , fT. 11..,..;..., rei as; o• 7i. -. • - , 1- i.,.0'`.. : ", . - . a p.H. ........_ AI'-._,:,.,,,,....7.. ....,...,....7,-...,,,,:,..!, „....;,..",...si .2' III ,.rs4,..4,.-....-,,,,....• -..7-s7,----;:"'-"- -'''-"•'•-...7. -1'1, ,....-.1:4-,-11,7,v.:171.4i.„. 11-i..- - &„.,...r OKA/0We,, .,[71.•c—....,:.$, i.5_:'—.--. sc...aoK%........tot--.- •aA/.. - - •.' a .. ' - • - . . . .... A'...1-.GAME,.1._ .d.A.L.I.W.A.0 IA.\ ., ,., ., .: ... _.. . .. ir .- -.r.,._ ...;. •410' , 1, k.- -II Nt-,i, . ... -t"-0....--- ... . vit4.1.0-f0 w0"..10 WAD. .. VOL•10101,, .. ,f,5.-1,_ "•-e. 6.....Af: ,41E,p7,.. *,.. •,., ill ' ......__t - ' ..•;., i . _... t : -•- • •,-: .,p„.•,:. ,}1.-a—a,---F-7i- .7.,--t. .0, i 1 ',L4 .- ''LL777 W-7- t,• , Mk \ _2 ‘, --• -,. i.i.;: -17 r— -VW''' : . ..‘.41*' 7i,..... 111- . -W __ • _.,_____ _,..._.(—= ,,,.._, ...,... _ _ -"----, vi4 — ..-Ftr_f:f 1E7 tr-T- . -, 011 ---...... A ____ SOUTHRIDGE SIDE ELEVATION •........./ •.. F7''''' -..,„. • •.\''''t:.`-t"A.0,0'0 • ' ,,::-1.,.:,, - '. , . " 611•611:• TA:, , t....;....„,,‘„ .. , , ,e4„....r.,,,, ---4 --' t _ k:'. . . --rit....-„i'll''''..:1'-'• 2.+1."- ' ._.._4.4,-?' - •., — ;t:'!,`A.:::-.' it>. --- • ,F—.7,-e_ E F.d, E E . . „ - _ •1,,,,,,,,,i, • ,, • __... -..._ !. F —,...------- , 0. ' .-- ••,-„„ i . 1....7. '---... .- *.., . • . ... i I . „ . , .t. H-VVI 06, ..-=. . . ...:.1 t:.-', .... s.„:::`' ''''t AVY'.'' rs i ,, .J . •'S. --;.•-,,,'-' -,.. t., t-0 '''t ‘'-,- - [ t. .- 1 ,--it.:-,;'-' 1,..-.4".1...-;k-•' '.0 1.4,.-: '-'•.. ..,A 1,„,,,,ri.40, 4...-i, • for-,..., --#,-..- ......,,% -:,....-,..e , - ......„?. ,0-7-- 'Arff I' ,Al'-', . le.,...,,,,,, .,.. .7.. _'3 WI, 1.1.00U..5 ..,.., ' Z.Z. :- 7411114—'..!:)-.-,:..,..,•-'': ! .... --,,......L. — ....... . .t .... •• .; • Iv ,'e,,-, , - ...r;', , ...._,.., : •-m..• • '.*.. ,.,..-..., ,-,---- ...:,...„...L.--:-.'',.,''... -',,......,':._.:::1-7•.:',:„...:,',,,,..._:•,. ... ., -, 4-..,- I- L.,„A:r-1-.:-•.' ',.---i , 414v-_--:. : ; ,, , , - . -',:i •, • ' - e,-..,'..'. -? - :: , 4-. -,- , ,f-?.-::;. 4. -..t-v...4 ; : ,,,„- 1. ..7..:: _..,* z.•... 1 , . .Lli., ..- • , , I --- -s - r it, •---,.. ''.. ' .TA, ..._ p,..;•*-t .-:-'. , -law — ...- - , _. • .--.".. ..-, _.. ,..4i- . . ,SOUTHRIDGE REAR ELEVATION :___, ..4..........___ '''-- ...y...9-- 7,,,,..17, --,-- '' SOUTHRIDGE PLAN . , ,, • , lo-c- , AIL 411' TEVEI5 !.oci,kro: r,.,,,,,,I,1,-.k4f...t, 1DAD 1 elDddfl @ I '8 1DTTTT7 © 1HOIDH DIVicl „P-18 - JOON 1V1J • • • z < m y • p m • y m somi `�f ' 1 { l 1 7 1 1 7 t- 1 7 1 l 1•7 1 Z Z I 1 I 1 ��■ M .'j • cn O� Z� rn ° _ II xi a o G) G) m m =/ 0 n� V/ T •-I-I n N r -1 C C CO 0 ° a o E 1 x 713 = p 1,►_ oZ ....11ill /v 915 1 RECEIVED CIT `f CLERK'S OFFICE PALM DESERT. CA March 7, 2008 City of Palm Desert 2008 MAR 10 PM 12: 5 I 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert,Ca.92260-2578 Atttn:Rachelle Klassen,City Clerk, Palm Desert,City Council Re: Case Nos. DA 02-01 Amendment#2 AND MISC 08-15 Dear Ms. Klassen" Pursuant to your Notice published in the Desert Sun,March 3,2008,I am enclosing a copy of a letter that I wrote on February 11,2008 to the Palm Desert Planning Commissio. Please consider everything that I expressed in that letter,I reaffirm now.I respectfully request that the City Council take heed now of the matters that I addressed before. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, g J; ome -. Sewell, -308 Sommerset Dr. Palm Desert,Ca. 92260 JBS/bins February 11, 2008 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert,Ca. 92260-2578 Attn.Lauri Aylaian, Secretarty Palm Desert Planning Commission Re:Legal Notice Case Nos.DA 02-01 Amendment#2 and Misc 08-15 Dear Ms. Aylaian Please register my strenuous and vociferous objection to the request by Stone Eagle Development LLC.,for approval of a proposal to allow a 25 foot 2 inch maximum roof height for a detached garage/casita building on 19 lots. I live in a development called Sommerset,which is directly across the wash and has a spectacular view of the mountain on which this proposed development is planned. As I sit on my patio,my view is being impinged upon by the present development that is going on. To visualize a two story plus home,I consider it blasphemously obscene and reprehensible. These developers obviously knew what they were getting when they applied for the original zoning. Now,they are like the camel who sticks his nose under the tent before taking over the whole tent. I,and my neighbors,currently enjoy a bucolic view of the mountains and the surrounding area.To further despoil this scene is not only a crime against nature,but may also have a further environmental impact on the area. Therefore,without going to the expense of hiring counsel to fight this proposal,I wish to register my objection and protest to this proposed plan. I shall rely on our City Council to use their judgment in vetoing this request. Yours truly, 4kkea Jerome B. Sewell 72308 Sommerset Dr. Palm Desert,Ca. 92260 JBS/hms ri 19.-8" ROOF HEIGHT 16-0PLATE HEIGHT 13'-6" ROOF HEIGHT 12-10Y2" ROOF HEIGHT 7-6" PLATE HEIGHT dAl 1 t I 1 7-6'' PLATE HEIGHT 13'-2" ROOF HEIGHT Mehed S074.6,9z /7/ (7(2‘/7(.-/ /,Z J 4-7/7 3.e CT --/ 19'-8" ROOF HEIGHT 16'-0" PLATE HEIGHT 13'-3" ROOF HEIGHT 7-6" PLATE HEIGHT t.) 2' MIN 2' MIN \ C:) CD 0 9'-6" PLATE HEIGHT 24'-6" ROOF HEIGHT 20'-2" PLATE HEIGHT I • J i . - • • • 1 • L. 7-6" PLATE HEIGHT 16'-0" PLATE HEIGHT 17-8" ROOF HEIGHT 9'-6" PLATE HEIGHT 19'-8" ROOF HEIGHT 16'-0' PLATE HEIGHT 15-3" ROOF HEIGHT 12-10Y2" ROOF HEIGHT 7-6" PLATE HEIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...._ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 7-6" PLATE HEIGHT 9'-6" PLATE HEIGHT 20'-2" PLATE HEIGHT 24'-6" ROOF HEIGHT 16'-0" 7-6" J001J 1ST ]OvelvO OO \ o� rv0 D m to (7a N Q D 70 0 m Th N 6, ♦ -- w 0 N (5 21001J GNOOES DOVelVO / / / / / / �( \. \ \ \ t \ \ \ \_ \ \ \ \ NIW ,,0-,i Sciv= .3TA ell Z l '& IIL g S213S ,18-1V \ w r D r n 0 z N 5-6' Cn 6. / 13'-1" co 2'-5" 0 m 4'-7) 1'-5/" 6'-6" (r 0 2'-6" 8'-1 " D D c m O 2-6" OO '0 0 co a 2'-5" w 0 0 „9-,Z „t-,6 9-,£Z 0 2'-4" ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦N I 53'-0" 2'-0" 30'-0" 7-4" 3'-9" 2'-0" 1 1 '-2" 4'-7" 24'-3" 3'-0" (b O w i • 1 1'-6" (r 0 -D D 0 2'-0" 8'-0" 1'-6" r- N O ♦ ♦ w (5 Z7 0 0 70 -10 D Z X 2 L 18'-0" L 0 CI 0 D 0 0 a n f ran n 3'-6" 8 0 - [1 5'-8" 21.9" 3'-1, 3'-0" ♦O ♦ w 12'-0" 0 v, _ (p c I 8 m� t,— =Nm I2 -0" 1 4'-3' 0 48'1 -91/2' 7'-0" 3'-6" D 1'-0" TYP 2'-6" co 18'-9" 1-9 0 m Z 70 4'-4" c O 4'-9%" ♦ 13'-113/ ♦-. Z Q 10.-8" w 5- 4" a 0 6'-4"_ ♦ — N cn =i D C5 0 m() m N A7 7'-2" U 4'-6" w O 4'-0" 8'-6" 3'-2" / 3'-0" w N 00 9'-5" 70 I_n 0 C) `H 4'-7" th 4'-6" 19'-4" m 70 c m 14'-93/ 11 4 11'-10" 0 \`O ♦rn 0 ♦ m O 13'-2" i 4'-6" 6'-11 16.-0" 14.-0" 7'-2" CAI" 0. O m m 70 ti /( 3'-9" 6-5" 1 3'-7' 2'-8" £17 2/2' D / 1 '-a„ 1- (5 (T O ♦ \ A w (5 0 2'-1C 5'-0" 13'-9" 55.-0" 3'-5" 6'-3" 11VM nwD „8 C X 9MO HIIM San1S t7XZ 2x6 STUDS WITH 1 LAYER OF TYPE X GWB ON EACH SIDE 9MO H11M San1S 9XZ v, P m -1c Z 0 0 0_ rn o Qz CO D Z O 2-4-IZ V) 0 m WALL TAGS AND DESCRIPTION (REF STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS) N <5�05 ODrz01=p= r- A) m Z CO O r- - Z N r N�C�DO=�o�DD\gm Z= r n m m m r Q m77 DnZDp-'� mZoc cDi,m0OZ0>, -< y 0 Z C 0 0 rn m 73 Q (n r_ Zc(imD 7> mm0DZ 0m, ZMcXir-5) Cn D ET)-1m 0 m Z T m Z- D = 0 5_ m0D rDmmZ > Z D r Z N Z rn �D—r0 v'0 zZ JOp 70m>T0 D moDzm 0n0(p=� mZZ< ��m,_cc� D00D ZOrmN�W n2(/' n Qv'ZA)5m m=Dm rm-=Qpr>c' zZOC) �T> 1070070 ri Q9. ()zp (-Z„rn ,3rnp%D =0<m l65'°may rDmO C�)3=-{rnr OmZD (n>AZ=nm - 0 cxDQ1 o mrn-- D-D mOm> 00 m rn N - Z m ' v' O "'<m, n,- Z m D mm -1 mZ 2 r m rn 0 _1Z A3 -o xl ° 5 0 m m N = - 70 m ` r m Q y D rr- v, 0 r r m m = 0 (ri, m cm, SDcD Q m m � m> >; z ='-' -0Q m Z 0 m� ; Q� -ZO 0= z -<y_(n) -�� m Z , rn 0 O0_ �0 0N0 �O < > 0 mm mZ7 („5 0i, = D O r ( = m m -I D - C 0 -+ Z Z v) =NNO O-. 000 08. REF EDGE OF SLAB PLANS FOR FURTHER DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS O CD O CD CD rnm p6D �,p�'-G)N =O70 r 0 D� D-7,m �m f V)r 0�r-gym Cp•�-n D� D,C) 7Dcnmw DDr z onzz-'O,°-A W'Z G)O cZi,cn DN=Q�2 m--,(n —rm mm m�- DRI ODD m m 7 m Z= m= r O Z m v,D cT,,� — Q70mvZ,—m,Z N7T I -1 C c n=N- r v OZ--p1mO0 6O ' z D Qv, nz OzOD m0m� m Z c `-1 1l O= N m m m�:' DO �<ZnQ� mv,0 cn D c xm 00 5rnN G)2D �Z �W �' c=D �D0 Q D v, D Q m Z v . n v v, z Z O N D r= PI O rn 0 (" c (p D 0 �m 0 D�50 Q m =v. Dr D r0)7 �rn Z =: 0 r (n 0 -n O Qm 0) (p - � rn op OZ =_.Z cmO7 v �rn Ov,r- Z m 0D`"+ m O n 0 c=i, D -(m O 0 D lm I-v, 0 -n scIN 14 JANUARY 2008 PROJECT NO: AA0106 SOUTH RIDGE (S) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FLOOR PLANS SCALE: 1 /4" = 1'-0" N 0 O 03. REF FINISH SCHEDULE FOR INTERIOR WALL FINISHES 02. ALL GYPSUM WALL BOARD (GYP. BD.) IS 5/8" TYPE "X" (U.N.O.) nm 0 1— za 0 0 0 S910N 1�I�IlN�O S]dAl. A19WGSSV •a 11YM an1S aOOM S10MAJ S )19W]SSV 11VM •3 6mp Algw asso-9 N 6 (9£-00 •oN )IDRH3 NV1d ./v4-.4.°% STO N "EAGLE : >> on : 0, no ; :: Z(fig-T2>11:Z xi o rn oo S1O?J1NOD ?J3MOHS SCUPPER DRAIN (REF DETAIL 15/A6-920) MAIN COMMUNICATION PULL BOX (REF ELECTRICAL DWGS) 11YM 028311V9 JO WO11O9 rn 0 70 L131V3H 2131VM 1OH ELECTRIC METER/PANEL (REF ELECTRICAL DWGS) GAS METER (REF PLUMBING DWGS) 47 rn im xrn WEATHERPROOF RECEPTACLE (REF ELECTRICAL DWGS) (SOMA ONIBW111d 33e1) BIB 3SOH 11VM ADVAId/N3OWO STEEL COLUMN (REF STRUCTURAL) CO 010N AD NV1d d001d CD REF GENERAL NOTE SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION S11ON 1V219NO NV1d d001d 6mp-u old ooll-6N S1D31IHD2N JO 31n111SNI NVD11:131A1V L81 l SES 8S8 =Xtf3 LLL6 SES 8S8 :131 ZZ l Z6 VIN21O1I1VD 'ODIC NVS 3Ntll 1131N3D AIIS213AINn 0168 0SZ 31InS "3NLLN3AV DNINNV/ld• 321n1D311HD21V 0 rrl 1.11 rn dad c_SzAzee_poy," e4 @atm/ /27