Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/20/2013 - STAFF REPORTS - 1A � 4 QALM sA�'Z City of Palm Springs v H Office of the City Clerk " 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs,CA 92262 Tel: (760)323-8204 • Fax: (760) 322-8332 • TDD:(760)864-9527 • Web: www.paimspringsca.gov c9�/FORN�P NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Regular Meeting held on March 20, 2013, the City Council continued Public Hearing Item No. 1.A. to May 15, 2013: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION BY DONALD SKEOCH TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LIGHTED TENNIS COURT AT THE ESTANCIAS DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 3182 LAS BRISAS WAY (CASE 5.1285 CUP): I, James Thompson, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, certify this Notice of Continuance was posted at or before 6:00 p.m. on March 21, 2013, as required by established policies and procedures. AMES THOMPSON City Clerk Post Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 Page I of 1 Edward Robertson --- . From: Don Skeoch [dskeo63@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:51 AM 2013 MAR 20 PIM 2: 24 To: Edward Robertson Subject: Continuation of Skeoch Appeal Case CITY C!ER I Edward- I would like to request an extension of my appeal case to May 15th, 2013. Could you please confirm that you received this e-mail? Thank you so much and I look forward to hearing back from you. -Don Skeoch 3182 Las Brisas Way 3/20/2013 �OQ?NLM$.. iy c V N # 4faM{EO + C'4</FORN�P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 20, 2013 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: DONALD SKEOCH — AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LIGHTED TENNIS COURT AT THE ESTANCIAS DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 3182 LAS BRISAS WAY, CASE NO. 5.1285 CUP APPEAL FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Department of Planning Services SUMMARY The City Council will consider an appeal by Donald Skeoch seeking to overturn the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional Use Permit Application (Case 5.1285 CUP) to allow a lighted tennis court within the Estancias Development at 3182 Las Brisas Way. RECOMMENDATION 1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony; 2. Adopt Resolution No. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL BY DONALD SKEOCH AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CASE NO. 5.1285 CUP; A REQUEST FOR A LIGHTED TENNIS COURT WITHIN THE ESTANCIAS DEVELOPMENT AT 3181 LAS BRISAS WAY." PRIOR ACTIONS On August 28, 2012, the applicant submitted a Single-Family Residential (SFR) Application Case 3.3594 for the construction of a new 6,283-square foot single-family home and a casita on approximately 42,253-square foot merged lot; and a Conditional Use Permit Application Case 5.1285 CUP for a lighted tennis court in the Estancias Development located at 3181 Las Brisas Way. ITEM NO. i t City Council Staff Report March 20,2013—Page 2 5.1285 CUP—Appeal—Donald Skeoch—3181 Las Brisas Way On September 24, 2012, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) reviewed the proposal and voted 5-0-3, (absent Ortega, Fredricks, Secoy-Jensen), to recommend approval to the Planning Commission as presented. On October 24, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed project, a motion was made to denial Case 5.1285 CUP for a lighted tennis court with vote of 3-2-2 (absent Donenfeld, recuse Hudson). A second motion was made granting architectural approval of Case 3.3594 for the construction of a 6,283- square foot single-family home and a casita without a lighted tennis court, motion passed 5-0. On November 14, 2012, the Planning Commission voted 3-2-2 to adopt denial resolution #6299 - Case 5.1285 CUP for a lighted tennis court at 3181 Las Brisas Way. On December 10, 2012, the applicant / appellant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial decision. BACKGROUND AND SETTING: Immediate Neighborhood The Estancia Development consists of forty-eight detached single-family residential units, on approximately 25 acres at 500 Acanto Way. The community is comprised of one-story single-family homes on approximately 20,000-square foot lots with no shared recreational amenities such as tennis courts or swimming pools. Construction within the community had stalled for several years until the recent purchase of fifteen lots by Far West Industries and other individual property owners developin custom homes. ALTA ESTANCIAS House / Tennis Court Site 02 City Council Staff Report March 20,2013--Page 3 5.1285 CUP—Appeal—Donald Skeoch—3181 Las Brisas Way Subiect Lots - 3182 and 3194 Las Brisas Way The appellant bought two accompanying lots and merged them into one approximate 42,253-square foot lot with the intent of building a 6,283-square foot house and a casita with lighted tennis court. Currently, there are no other merged lots within the Estancias development. The subject parcel is flat and located at the corner of Las Brisas Way and La Estrella Drive; there is an existing house to the east, and a row of existing homes across the street. Vacant parcels are on the side and rear of the subject lot. Proposed Proiect The proposed project is for the construction of an approximately 6,283-square foot custom single-family home consisting of a main house equaling 3,090-square feet; two — two car garages equaling 1,602-square feet; a 608-square foot casita; and a 165- square foot pool cabana. The merged lot is located on the corner of Las Brisas Way and La Estrella with two driveways and two garages attached to the main house and casita. Other proposed amenities include a lap pool, spa, Bocce court and lighted tennis court. Lighted Tennis Court requires Conditional Use Permit: Pursuant to PSZC Section 93.01.01(A)(f), "Night lighting of tennis courts may be allowed under conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with subsections (t)(i-iv)". In the appellant's proposal, the height of the light poles will not exceed twelve (12) feet with a maximum of five (5) light poles on each side of the court for a total of ten (10). The proposed fixture head is a square "shoebox" style designed to direct light downward. A ten (10) foot tall combination masonry wall and chain link fence with perimeter landscaping is intended to screen the tennis court. The type of light fixture proposed will not be Quartz with wattage no greater than 400 per fixture. The proposed plans meet the requirements of the PSZC. Estancias at South Canyon Home Owners Association The appellant petitioned the Estancias at South Canyon Home Owners Association (HOA) Architectural Review Committee and received written correspondence dated February 3, 2012 and July 26, 2012 for the approval of "plans and elevations for the design of the proposed custom home; the approval included a lighted tennis court. Commission Review: At its public hearing meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project. A member of the Community, Ms. Jessica Norte was at the meeting and spoke in opposition to the lighted tennis court request. Ms. Norte is the property owner of 3195 Las Brisas Way located directly across the street from the appellants parcel. Ms. Norte noted that she attended the Estancias Homeowners Association meeting when the appellant's case was reviewed and according to her other members where opposed to the lighted tennis court. The Planning Commission expressed concerns with potential light spillover from the tennis court lighting and noise during evening hours. The Commission suggested imposing a time limit on the tennis court lighting; however a motion was made to deny 03 City Council Staff Report March 20,2013--Page 4 5.1285 CUP—Appeal—Donald Skeoch—3181 Las Brisas Way the CUP request and direct Staff to prepare a denial resolution with a roll call vote of 3- 2-2, (absent Donenfeld; recused Hudson). On November 14, 2012, the Commission reviewed the denial resolution with the Commission noting their willingness to reconsider the lighting of the tennis court with a possible time limit which would address Ms. Norte's concerns. The Planning Commission voted 3-2-2 (absent, Donenfeld; recused Hudson) to adopt denial resolution #6299 of a lighted tennis court at 3181 Las Brisas Way. APPELLANT'S REQUEST: On December 10, 2012 Mr. Donald Skeoch submitted a letter of appeal; and on March 6, 2013 the appellant submitted a packet of information containing an executive summary, letters from the Estancias Homeowners Association, visual renderings of the proposed lighted tennis court, and letters of support from neighbors. Below are the appellant's arguments and Staffs response: 1. "First, / went to the Palm Springs Planning Department personally to inquire about the building code related to residential tennis court lighting. 1 have diligently followed those requirements to their stated specifications. There is nothing in my plans that operate outside of these parameters. / was also informed that a lighted tennis court has been approved at Alta Development that is immediately adjacent to Estancias and that my approval "should not be an issue". Planning Staff evaluated the appellant's proposal for a lighted tennis court and determined that the proposal meets the submittal requirements of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, Section 93.01.01(A)(f) a Conditional Use Permit for a lighted tennis court. The appellant references a previous approval for a tennis court in the adjacent Alta Development. Case 5.0899 AMND was approved by the Planning Commission on March 11, 2009 for a 1,721-square foot guest house and non-illuminated tennis court. Staff notes that the appellant's referenced case did not include a lighted tennis court and asserts that the Alta approval is not relevant to the appeal being made. 2. "Second, my purchase was contingent upon the Homeowners Association's approval of the tennis court lighting. The Homeowners Association contacted ALL owners within the Estancias and / was told that 47 were in favor and only one disagreed... and this disagreement was due exclusively to the hours of play ...NOT the lighting of the tennis court. The appellant submitted an approval letter from the Estancias Homeowners Association dated July 26, 2012 for plans and elevations of a custom home. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) can include a condition that limits hours of play. The Planning Commission discussed this option and ultimately 04 City Council Staff Report March 20,2013—Page 5 5.1285 CUP—Appeal—Donald Skeoch—3181 Las Brisas Way denied the request. Staff notes that a review of a Conditional Use Permit is discretionary and requires input and discussion through the public hearing process. Review of a project by a homeowners association does not guarantee approval of the project. 3. "Third, in order to move forward with my purchase, I requested a letter memorializing the approval of the lighted tennis court. Attached is the agreement dated February, 1, 2012 from the Estancias Homeowner's Association providing blanket approval signed by the President and Vice President of the board. That letter reads, "My purchase is contingent on my ability to build a lighted tennis court that is consistent with the City's building codes." Further "Agreement that I have the Estancias Homeowners Association's permission...to allow for the construction of a lighted tennis court in the development." The appellant submitted a letter dated February 1, 2012 from the President and Vice President of the Estancias Homeowners Association approving the Appellants custom home designs including a lighted tennis court. As noted above, approval by a homeowners association does not guarantee an approval by the City. The Planning Commission has full regulatory control weighing all interested parties' concerns in determining a decision. 4. "Fourth, in July 2012, 1 submitted my construction plans (including a lighted tennis court) to the Estancias Homeowners Association's architectural review committee for approval. I received approval via the attached letter dated July 27th, 2012." The appellant submitted a letter dated July 26, 2012 from the Estancias Homeowners Association approving plans and elevations for 3182 & 3194 Las Brisas Way including a lighted tennis court. The Planning Commission in rendering a denial decision exercised its regulatory control through the Conditional Use Permit process. A recommendation from an HOA is required; however it does not guarantee approval of a discretionary action. 5. "Fifth, I have also paid for a circumference mailing required by the Palm Springs Planning Department to notify surrounding residents of my intentions. A total of 53 letters were distributed. Far West Industries owns 14 of these lots and has approved my request. Twelve of these lots are located in the adjacent Alta development in which a lighted tennis court was recently approved. There was only one disagreement of the 53 notifications. This is precisely why I insisted on having these terms memorialized in a blanket agreement prior to my purchase. Lastly, I have 05 City Council Staff Report March 20,2013--Page 6 5.1285 CUP—Appeal—Donald Skeoch—3181 Las Brisas Way spent over $41,000 on the development of these plans. Consequently, i have made significant financial investment here." As required in State law, notice was sent to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject parcel which is required by the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance Section 94.020.00 for a Conditional Use Permit. Applicants of a CUP are required to submit a noticing fee and a set of mailing labels. Staff notes that the purpose of a public hearing notice is to alert the neighborhood of a pending application and gain input and comments regarding the submission. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and received oral testimony from the applicant's architect and from one neighbor, Ms. Jessica Norte. Additional written correspondence was attached to the Staff report. CONCLUSION After receiving public testimony, the City Council may adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's denial. Should the Council determine sufficient evidence has been presented to overturn the Planning Commission's denial, a resolution of approval would be presented at the next regular City Council meeting. NOTIFICATION A public hearing notice was advertised in the Desert Sun and was mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the subject property. As of the writing of this report, staff has received no written correspondence. FISCAL IMPACT: No Fiscal Impact. z5ar-WA.,FAing, A14P Thomas Wilson, Issistant City Manager Dirkli5fof Plan to Services David H. Ready, City/�i--erg 06 City Council Staff Report March 20,2013—Page 7 5.1285 CUP—Appeal—Donald Skeoch—3181 Las Brisas Way Attachments: 1. Vicinity map 2. Draft resolution 3. Binder containing letter of appeal to City Council 4. Letter of appeal to Planning Commission 5. Planning Commission minutes October 24, 2012 6. Planning Commission minutes November 14, 2012 7. Planning Commission staff report, October 24, 2012 8. Site plan 07 °4 PLM S'°I Department of Planning Services Vicinity Map S / 1 i { S S ` I i r , _,_,__,,,,� 00(7_,_.__ _` E GWOOD CIRCLEW OCT Legend QaaoFl. - 1.-- Site _ ACANTO DR- --- i��_�; f I CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 5.1285 CUP APPEAL DESCRIPTION: An appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission for the denial of a CUP APPLICANT: Donald Skeoch, Owner application for a lighted tennis court associated with the construction of a new house in the Estancias Development located at 3181 Las Brisas Way, Zone R-1-13, Section 38. 08 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL BY DONALD SKEOCH AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CASE 5.1285 CUP; AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LIGHTED TENNIS COURT AT 3181 LAS BRISAS WAY WHEREAS, Donald Skeoch ("Applicant") filed a Conditional Use Permit application, Case 5.1285 CUP, to allow a lighted tennis court at 3181 Las Brisas Way, Zone R-1-13, Section 38; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider Case 5.1285 CUP was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2012, the Planning Commission carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented and voted 3-2-2 to deny Case 5.1285 CUP, Resolution # 6299 for a lighted tennis court at the property located at 3181 Las Brisas Way; and WHEREAS, Donald Skeoch ("Applicant" and "Appellant") has filed an appeal, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the Municipal Code, of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Case 5.1285 CUP; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2013, a public meeting on the appeal was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the appeal hearing on the project, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.05.030, the appellant's stated grounds for the appeal includes the following: 1. "First, l went to the Palm Springs Planning Department personally to inquire about the building code related to residential tennis court lighting. l have diligently followed those requirements to their stated specifications. There is nothing in my plans that operate outside of these parameters. I was also informed that a lighted tennis court has been approved at Alta 09 City Council Resolution Page 2 Development that is immediately adjacent to Estancias and that my approval "should not be an issue". 2. "Second, my purchase was contingent upon the Homeowners Association's approval of the tennis court lighting. The Homeowners Association contacted ALL owners within the Estancias and I was told that 47 were in favor and only one disagreed... and this disagreement was due exclusively to the hours of play ...NOT the lighting of the tennis court. 3. "Third, in order to move forward with my purchase, I requested a letter memorializing the approval of the lighted tennis court. Attached is the agreement dated February, 1, 2012 from the Estancias Homeowner's Association providing blanket approval signed by the President and Vice President of the board. That letter reads, "My purchase is contingent on my ability to build a lighted tennis court that is consistent with the City's building codes." Further "Agreement that I have the Estancias Homeowners Association's permission...to allow for the construction of a lighted tennis court in the development." 4. "Fourth, in July 2012, 1 submitted my construction plans (including a lighted tennis court) to the Estancias Homeowners Association's architectural review committee for approval. I received approval via the attached letter dated July 27th, 2012." 5. "Fifth, I have also paid for a circumference mailing required by the Palm Springs Planning Department to notify surrounding residents of my intentions. A total of 53 letters were distributed. Far West Industries owns 14 of these lots and has approved my request. Twelve of these lots are located in the adjacent Alta development in which a lighted tennis court was recently approved. There was only one disagreement of the 53 notifications. This is precisely why I insisted on having these terms memorialized in a blanket agreement prior to my purchase. Lastly, I have spent over $41,000 on the development of these plans. Consequently, I have made significant financial investment here." SECTION 2. In response to the above, the City Council finds as follows: the review of a Conditional Use Permit application is discretionary and requires input and discussion gathered through a public hearing process. Review of a project by a homeowners association does not guarantee approval. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to obtain input from the surrounding neighborhood and determined that a 0 City Council Resolution Page 3 lighted tennis court at 3181 Las Brisas Way will be detrimental to the surrounding community from potential light spillover and noise. The Planning Commission in rendering a denial decision exercised its regulatory control through the Conditional Use Permit process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's decision to deny Case 5.1285 for a lighted tennis court. ADOPTED this 20th day of March, 2013. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk 1 � City Council Resolution Page 4 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California 12 3182 LAS BRISAS WAY, PALM SPRINGS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF TENNIS COURT LIGHTING RATIONALE FOR OVERTURNING PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION MARCH 20T", 2013 I am requesting that the Board of Appeals overturn the Planning Commissions decision to prohibit tennis court lighting at my residence because I was never given an opportunity to provide support for approval even after I requested this opportunity at the Planning Commission meeting on November 14th, 2012. Additional supporting information that I was not able to provide includes: 1) Prior to purchasing property in Palm Springs, I met with the Planning Department to understand the building code surrounding tennis court lighting. I wanted to make sure that I was 100%compliant to the Palm Springs building code. 2) The Planning Department required a "circumference mailing" that I paid for which was sent to all homeowners in the area. This notified them of my desire to have tennis court lighting. There was only one response which was in regard to the color of the tennis court wind screens. Therefore, the Planning Department recommended approval and I did not believe it was necessary to drive to Palm Springs to attend the planning commission meeting regarding this matter. 3) October 24, 2012: A single homeowner appeared at the planning commission meeting and opposed the tennis court lighting. In my absence,the Planning Commission sided with this homeowner and asked that a resolution be adopted opposing the requested tennis court lighting. 4) November 14,2012: 1 appeared at the following planning commission meeting. During the public comments period, I requested the opportunity to present my case for the approval of tennis court lighting. This is reflected in the Planning Commission meeting minutes and the video of the meeting. Unfortunately,the Planning Commission chose to switch the order of the cases in order to hear a case regarding a proposed Kimpton Hotel. Regrettably, that case consumed the entire meeting and it ran over. 13 I Hastily, my case was called and I was never provided with the opportunity to speak regarding compelling support of my request. The Planning Commission subsequently moved to a vote and I narrowly lost by a margin of 3 to 2. This is also reflected in the meeting minutes and the video of the meeting. 5) Had I been given the opportunity to speak,the following information would have been provided: -My tennis court lighting is 100%compliant with Palm Springs building code (see binder). -1 have written approval from the Estancias Homeowners Board approving the tennis court lighting (see binder). -1 have written approval from the Estancias Homeowners Architectural Review Committee approving my construction plans (see binder). -31 homeowners in the Estancias development support my request for lighting. These homeowners have now provided support in writing(see binder). -1 have paid to have visual renderings made of the tennis court lighting. They show that the tennis court lighting is completely benign (see binder). -1 offered to limit the hours of play to no later than 10:00 p.m. each night. Why is this so important to me? I would not have purchased land in Palm Springs if I had known this would be so problematic. My family (including an elderly father) enjoys playing tennis, however, it is not possible in the intense summer heat. Conversely, during the winter, sunset occurs as early,as 4:38 p.m. Therefore,this also limits the hours of play. Building a tennis court is an expensive investment. I would like to opportunity to use it within reasonable hours. The tennis court lighting facilitates this. I appreciate your fair and independent assessment in resolving this matter. 14 V' p Don Skeoch 4 900 W. Olympic Blvd., Unit 38J Los Angeles, CA 90015 November 3, 2012 Palm Springs Planning Commission 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Dear Commissioners: I am a new homeowner here in the Estancias development. In March 2012, I purchased property with the intention of building my retirement home in Palm Springs. I currently reside in Los Angeles and come from a very large family in Chicago. For the next several years, I intend to use my Palm Springs home on the weekends and when my family visits a couple of times each year. Eventually, I will call Palm Springs my home on a full time basis. I recently learned that there were questions regarding my intention to install tennis court lighting at my residence. I would like to strongly discourage you from ADOPTING a resolution denying this tennis court lighting until I can provide additional information. Based on discussions with both my designer and the Palm Springs planning department, we did not anticipate there would be any issues with the approval of the tennis court lighting. If we had, I would have made a point of attending the recent public hearing personally. I have watched the recent public hearing on this matter. I believe the following points should be taken into consideration: First, I went to the Palm Springs planning department personally to inquire about the building code related to residential tennis court lighting. I have diligently followed those requirements to their stated specifications. There is nothing in my plans that operate outside of these parameters. I was also informed that a lighted tennis court had been approved at the Alta development that is immediately adjacent to Estancias and that my approval "should not be an issue." Second, my purchase was contingent upon the Homeowner Association's approval of the tennis court lighting. The Homeowners Association contacted ALL owners within Estancias and I was told that 47 were in favor and only one disagreed...and this disagreement was due exclusively to the hours of Play...NOT the lighting of the tennis court. Third, in order to move forward with my purchase, I requested a letter memorializing the approval of the lighted tennis court. Attached is the agreement dated February 1', 2012 from the Estancia Homeowner's Association providing 15 Don Skeoch November 3, 2012 Page 2 blanket approval signed by the President and Vice President of the board. That letter reads, "My purchase is contingent on my ability to build alighted tennis court that is consistent with the city's building codes. " Further, "Agreement that I have the Estancias Homeowners Association's Permission...to allowfor the construction ofa lighted tennis court in the development." Fourth, in July 2012, I submitted my construction plans (including a lighted tennis court) to the Estancias Homeowners Association's architectural review committee for approval. I received approval via the attached letter dated July 27a', 2012. Fifth, I have also paid for a circumference mailing required by the Palm Springs Planning Department to notify surrounding residents of my intentions. A total of 53 letters were distributed. Far West Industries owns 14 of these lots and has approved my request. Twelve of these lots are located in the adjacent Alta development in which a lighted tennis court was recently approved. There was only one disagreement of the 53 notifications. This is precisely why I insisted on having these terms memorialized in a blanket agreement prior to my purchase. Last, I have already spent over$41,000 on the development of these plans. Consequently, I have made a significant financial investment here. In closing, Palm Springs has well articulated building code for tennis court lighting. I read this code thoroughly and have honored it. A single dissenting resident certainly should not have the power to have the building code re-interpreted. We are all aware that Palm Springs can be exceptionally hot during the day. The point of tennis court lighting is to conduct play when it is more comfortable to do so. My elderly parents still enjoy playing tennis but I believe that the extreme temperatures during the summer pose a serious health threat to them as well as my friends and family while the sun is still out. Therefore, I believe a compromise would be to approve the lighting of the tennis court yet restrict the use of these lights to 10:00 p.m. Thank you for your consideration. Don Skeoch Attachment 1: Estancias Homeowners Assoc. consent to tennis court lighting Attachment 2: Estancias Homeowners Assoc. architectural review committee approval �i Pia Ting Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 Calerdine, Kathy Weremiuk ABSENT: , Chair Donenfeld 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3A. Case 5.1285 CUP - An application by Donald Skeoch for the installation of tennis court lighting on a lot associated with the construction of a new 6,283-square foot single family residence within the Estancias Development at 3181 Las Brisas Way, Zone R-1-B, Section 35. (Project Planner: Glenn Mlaker, AICP, Assistant Planner) Vice Chair Hudson noted his abstention on Item 3A and left the Council Chamber at 2:27 pm. Commissioner Roberts assumed position of Chairman. Glenn Mlaker, Assistant Planner, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated October 24, 2012. Commissioner Roberts opened the public hearing: -Brian Diebolt, project designer (representing the owner), stated that he was not aware of any opposition to the project and the owner received a letter of approval from the homeowners association. Mr. Diebolt responded to questions from the Commission. -Jessica Norte, (a resident of Estancias) stated that she attended the HOA meeting and there were members who opposed the proposal. There being no further appearance the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Weremiuk expressed concern with the tennis court lighting. Commissioner Calerdine suggested imposing a time limit on the tennis court lighting. Commissioner Munger expressed concern with the tennis court lighting and noise especially during the evening hours. She also commented that overgrown trees may become obtrusive to the neighbors. Staff noted that the lighting ordinance does not address reflective lighting and suggested the dark screening on the chain link fencing may be more effective. ACTION: To approve Case 3.3594 SFR, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Motion Kathy Weremiuk, seconded by Leslie Munger and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote. 17 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2012 AYES: Leslie Munger, Philip Klatchko, J.R. Roberts, Lyn Calerdine, Kathy Weremiuk ABSENT: Chair Donenfeld ABSTAIN: Vice Chair Hudson. ACTION: To direct staff to bring back a resolution of denial Case 5.1285 CUP. Motion Leslie Munger, seconded by Kathy Weremiuk and carried 3-2 on a roll call vote. AYES: Leslie Munger, J.R. Roberts, Kathy Weremiuk NOES: Philip Klatchko, Lyn Calerdine ABSENT: Chair Donenfeld RECUSE: Vice Chair Hudson Director Ewing reported that the appeal period will begin on the date the resolution of denial is approved by the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Hudson re-entered the Council Chamber at 2:59 pm. 3B. Case 5.1277 CUP - An application by Whitewater Solar Farm 1, LLC., for a Conditional Use Permit and a request for 7,75 acres of "Take" under the guidelines of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Conservation Plan, to develop a 3 Megawatt solar energy production facility on roughly 12 acres of a 108-acre parcel located at 58641 Tipton Road, Zone 0-5 (Open Space) and W (Watercourse). (Ken Lyon, Associate Planner) Ken Lyon, Associate Planner, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated October 24, 2012. The Commission requested clarification on the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) concept of "Take" (that allows limited development in areas designated of Conservation Areas). Mr. Lyon explained the allocated acreage of Take for each jurisdiction. Commissioner Weremuik stated that she did not have an opportunity to see the environmental report and would not be voting today. She suggested the item be continued to the next meeting. Commissioner Calerdine requested a continuance because he did not have an opportunity to review the environmental documents. i8 6 I Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2012 a i I 2B. Case 5.1285 CUP - A resolution of denial for the installation of tennis court lighting, and the approval of Case 3.3594 SFOor the construction of a new j 6,283-square foot single family residence within the Estancias Development i at 3181 Las Brisas Way, Zone R-1-13, Section 36. (Project Planner: Glenn Mlaker, AICP, Assistant Planner) Glenn Mlaker, Assistant Planner, provided background information as outlined in the staff memorandum dated November 14, 2012. Vice Chair Hudson and Chair Donenfeld noted their abstention on this item. Commissioners Calerdine and Klatchko noted their willingness to reconsider the lighting for the tennis court. Commissioner Weremiuk recalled the reason for the denial was not only because of the night lighting and noise but also there are no tennis courts in this development. Commissioner Calerdine stated that he is opposed to the motion because he thinks that it is an unreasonable restriction on the use of this property and believes that setting a timeframe on the lighting would address many of the concerns. ACTION: To adopt a denial resolution for Case 5.1285 CUP, and approved Case 3.3594 SFR subject to the Conditions of Approval. Motion Kathy Weremiuk, seconded by Leslie Munger and carried 3-2 on a roll call vote. AYES: Leslie Munger, J.R. Roberts, Kathy Weremiuk NOES: Philip Klatchko, Lyn Calerdine ABSTAIN: Chair Donenfeld, and Vice Chair Hudson. Director Ewing reported that this action may be appealed to the City Council within 10 working days. A recess was taken at 3:59 pm. The meeting resumed at 4:06 pm. PUBLIC HEARINGS cont'd: 3A. Case 5.1143 CUP - A request by Brook Anthony Ortiz for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a cocktail lounge at 188 South Indian Canyon.Drive, Zone RA Section 14. (Ken Lyon, Associate Planner) 5 19 04 gA1A1 SA V N �" Plannin clor oR g Commission Staff Report N�P Date: October 24, 2012 Case No.: 5.1285 CUP — Lighted Tennis Court / 3.3594 SFR Type: Conditional Use Permit for Lighted Tennis Court / Final Planned Development Amendment — PD-262 (Minor Change) Location: 3181 & 3194 Las Brisas Way— Estancias Development APN: 512-320-031, 512-320-032 Applicant: Donald Skeoch General Plan: Estate Residential Zone: R-1-B (Single Family Residential) From: Edward O. Robertson, Principal Planner Project Planner: Glenn Mlaker, AICP, Assistant Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Donald Skeoch is seeking architectural approval for an approximately 6,283-square foot custom home with a casita and a Conditional Use Permit for a lighted tennis court on an approximately 42,253-square feet lot within the Estancias Development. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve Case 5.1285 CUP for a lighted tennis court and Case 3.3594 minor change to the Final Development Plan for PD-262 to allow the construction of an approximately 6,283-square foot single-family residence subject to the conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A. 20 Planning Commission Staff import • October 22, 2012 Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA Page 2 of 9 PRIOR ACTIONS: On September 24, 2012, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) reviewed the project and voted 5-0-3, (absent, Ortega, Fredricks, Secoy-Jensen) to recommend approval to the Planning Commission as submitted. BACKGROUND AND SETTING: The custom home and lighted tennis court will occupy two recently merged lots of approximately 42,243-square feet in the Estancias Development. The Estancia project consists of forty-eight detached single-family residential units, on approximately 25 acres at 500 Acanto Way. The subject property is zoned R-1-13 / PD-262, and is within the Canyon Park Specific Plan (SP-1A). When Preliminary PD-262 was approved, certain modifications of the R- 1-B Zone development standards were allowed, including a twenty-foot front yard set- back for casitas (25 foot front yard normally required) and a 22-foot building height maximum (18 foot maximum height normally required). The proposed project meets these standards and will meet the remaining development standards required within the R-1-13 Zone. 92 ..A L +• r 1F � ��_ I �` �'!' �t"�.� _ _ _—• y it , 1 K,. _ 1 . , -- •- •� — A sn.Curta ,Data.Pe;e i yl r.ry eiu �., 1' ESTANCIAS House Site 4 .A Planning Commission Staff FZTport • October 22, 2012 Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA Page 3 of 9 ANALYSIS: Amendment to the Planned Development District.- The Estancia Tract was approved as a 48-lot subdivision which included approval of standard architecture with several house types and styles. There have also been individual lot owners who have received approval for custom residential homes within the community. Pursuant to Section 94.03.00(G) of the Zoning Code, the applicant has submitted an amendment to the Final Development Plans for PD-262 in order to develop one custom home. General Plan: The General Plan Designation of the subject site is Estate Residential (0-2.0 dwelling units per acre). This designation allows for single family dwellings to a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre. The project proposes one single family residence on a site almost an acre in size. Thus the project is consistent with this General Plan designation. Zoning Designation: The proposed site is zoned R-1-13 / PD-262. Pursuant to the City of Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC), Section 92.01.01(A)(1), permanent single-family dwellings are permitted within the R-1-B zone. The project therefore conforms to the applicable zoning designation and standards set forth by PD-262. The project also conforms to the development standards of the zone. Development Standards: The City of Palm Springs Zoning Code, Section 93.06.00(29)(a), requires all single- family homes to provide two covered parking spaces per dwelling unit. The parking standards are met by the proposed four car enclosed garage. Lighted Tennis Court requires Conditional Use Permit: Pursuant to PSZC Section 93.01.01(A)(f), "Night lighting of tennis courts may be allowed under conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with subsections (f)(i-iv)". The height of the proposed light poles will not exceed twelve (12) feet with a maximum of five (5) light poles on each side of the court. The light emitted from the poles will not spillover onto adjoining properties due to the presence of a ten (10) foot tall wall / fence and landscaping. The type of light fixture proposed will not be Quartz with wattage greater than 400 per fixture. Proposed Proiect The proposed project is for the construction of an approximately 6,283-square foot custom single-family home consisting of a main house equaling 3,090-square feet; two — two car garages equaling 1,602-square feet; a 608-square foot casita; and a 165- square foot pool cabana. The merged lot is located on the corner of Las Brisas Way and La Estrada with two driveways and two garages attached to the main house and casita. Other proposed amenities include a lap pool, spa, Bocce court and lighted tennis court. 22 Planning Commission Staff import • October 22, 2012 Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA Page 4 of 9 Site Design: The proposed home is on a rectangular shaped lot with two buildings (main house and casita) in an "L" shape. Access to the main house will be from Las Brisas Way with secondary entry to the detached casita from La Estrada. A lighted tennis court will occupy the northwest portion of the parcel with lap pool on the south end of the lot and detached pool cabana. Other site features include two outdoor kitchens and Bocce court. The landscape palette is of a drought-tolerant design utilizing a variety of desert-hardy species. Vertical hedges planted around the tennis court walls will be used to establish texture, provide visual privacy and help mitigate light spillover. A minimal amount of turf is proposed for recreational use adjacent to the pool and Bocce court. A six foot perimeter masonry wall is present on the east and south property lines. Y 9 i I � w � rJl I 3, Lot 43 Lot 42 •'•^— Lae Brtsas Way Site Plan Architecture: The design of the house is modern with flat sloping roofs, and smooth stucco walls. The color scheme for the exterior will be "Chocolate Milk" for the main body; "Twilight Taupe" fascia and eaves; and "River Rocks" for the trim and painted doors. Garage doors will be constructed of clear anodized aluminum frosted glass. The main house elevation facing west as viewed from Las Brisas Way will include two large garage doors; other sections of the house will be blocked from view by the tennis court. 23 Planning Commission Staff tort • October 22, 2012 Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA Page 5 of 9 ku u xr u�w r < < ry y' M wsar xruur r W br...Iwv wi u•er uw^ i x .�+�r 6dn 4+0n 0lwtlil House Elevations Casita: The proposed project includes a 608-square foot casita with a three (3) car attached garage accessed from La Estrella. The detached casita will consist of two bedroom buildings connected by a large roof structure forming a covered breezeway with outdoor kitchen and fireplace. The covered area will provide a viewing area for the tennis and Bocce courts. The zoning code currently limits detached casitas without kitchen facilities to 1/50th of the lot size. Based on a lot size of 42,243-square feet, a 845- square foot casita is permitted. Therefore, the proposed 608-square foot casita is consistent with the Zoning Code. • i hWf BafCa Mbp West Casita Elevation 24 Planning Commission Staffoport • October 22, 2012 Case No. 5.1285 CUP&3.3594 MAA Page 6 of 9 ir North and South Casita Elevations Details of the property development standards for the proposed project in relation to the requirements of the R-1-13 zone are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Development Standards (Minimums, unless otherwise stated) R-1-13 Proposed Project Lot Area 15,000 square feet 42,253 square feet (merged lots) Lot Width 120 feet interior - 130 feet 175 feet and 122 feet (conforms) corner Lot Depth 120 feet 122 feet (conforms) Front Yard 25 feet 25 feet (conforms) Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet (conforms) Rear Yard 15 feet 15 feet (conforms) Building Height 12 feet at set-back up to 12 feet at set-backs, with a max (max.) 18 feet height of 22 feet per PD 262 Estancias Development (conforms) Building Coverage 35% 6.7% (conforms) (max.) Casita allowed Greater than 1/50t" of the 608-square foot casita (conforms) lot requires CUP (1/50th of 42,253 = 845 sf. Covered off-street Minimum 2 Gar off-street Four covered off street spaces Parking covered required for SFR (conforms) Dwelling size 1,500 square feet 6,283 square feet (includes all living minimum areas, casita, garages, other rooms (conforms) Lighted Tennis Court: The proposal includes a lighted tennis court which requires a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission. The court will be located at the northwest corner of the lot at grade. Section 93.01.01(A)(1)(a) of the PSZC states that tennis courts shall not be allowed within any yard or set-back area. The proposed tennis court will meet this standard and be located twenty-five (25) feet set-back from both streets. The tennis court will be surrounded by a six (6) foot tall block wall with four (4) feet of chain link fencing on top to a maximum allowable height of ten (10) feet. To further mask the tennis court, a dark green mesh wind and privacy screen will be attached on the outside of the chain link fencing. In addition, a row of ficus hedges will be planted at the base of the block wall. Ten (10) total tennis court 25 Planning Commission Staff9port • October 22, 2012 Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA Page 7 of 9 light poles will be located on both sides of the court at a maximum allowable height of twelve (12) feet. The light source will be no greater than the maximum allowable lighting standard of 400 watts per fixture. -------- -------------------------- -r= - - -�- - - - Elevations of Lighted Tennis Court REQUIRED FINDINGS: Findings for Architectural Review Pursuant to Section 94.03.00(G) of the Zoning Code, the final development plans may be modified by submitting a request for such modification according to the same procedure as is required in the initial review and approval process, including public hearing by the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with Section 94.02.00. However, minor architectural or site changes not affecting the intent of the PD may be approved by the Planning Commission. No council action is necessary for minor changes except appealed decisions. In order for the project to be approved by the Planning Commission, the following finding must be made in support of the minor change: 1. The minor architectural or site changes do not affect the intent of the PD. The use and density of the subject property remains the same and are not affected by the proposed changes. The architecture will be consistent with other custom homes in the Estancias Development. The home will have garage parking which is common in this community. The proposed front yard landscape will be similar to other desert landscapes in the community. Therefore, the minor architectural and site changes do not affect the intent of the PD. Findings for the CUP for a lighted tennis court: The commission shall not approve or recommend approval of a conditional use permit unless it rinds as follows: 26 Planning Commission Staff Oport • October 22, 2012 Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA Page 8 of 9 a. That the use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this Zoning Code; The applicant has requested approval for a lighted tennis court which is permitted with a conditional use permit. The design and layout of the lighted tennis court meets all regulations as set forth in Section 93.01.01 of the PSZC. The set-back requirments, light pole heights, type of lighting fixture, wattage, and tennis court barrier meets all standards, therefore the project is consistent with this finding. b. That the use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located; The applicant is proposing a lighted tennis court as part of a house compound constructed in the Estate Residential land use designation. This project with its merged lots provides a lot size large enough to accommodate a larger home and casita with an array of outdoor amenities to include a pool, spa, Bocce court, and lighted tennis court. The proposed lighted tennis court is sited such that it is conforming to all setback and other development standards for the zone. The main house and casita also conforms to all required setbacks. The project is in harmony with many applicable policies in the general plan and is an attractive and desirable addition to the neighborhood. c. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate such use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required in order to adjust such use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood, Minimum lot size in the R-1-13 / PD-262 zone is 15,000 square feet. The subject site is a merged lot of approximately 42,253-square feet. The proposed project conforms to all minimum setback requirements. It proposes a water-efficient landscape planting palette with a 6-foot high perimeter masonry wall conforming to the Zoning Code. The proposed house and landscape has been designed to maximize privacy for the owner and adjacent homeowners. Therefore, staff has concluded that the site is adequate for the proposed use. d. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use; The site has direct access to a public street that is adequately and properly designed to serve the estate residential neighborhood in which it is located. The project conforms to this finding e. That the conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare 27 Planning Commission Staff Report • October 22, 2012 Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA Page 9 of 9 and may include minor modification of the zone's property development standards. Staff has included necessary conditions of approval to ensure compliance with all required development standards for PD-262 Estancias Development. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is a Class III exemption and is categorically exempt per Section 15303(a) (New Single- family residence). CONCLUSION: The project is recommended for approval by the Architectural Advisory Committee. Pursuant to the Zoning Code, a lighted tennis court is permissible with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, the introduction of a custom built home as a minor change to the Estancia Development PD-262 is consistent with previous approvals. It is also consistent with the very low density land use designation of the General Plan. Therefore based on the above analysis, staff is recommending approval of Case No. 5.1285-CUP and minor PD amendment 3.3594 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval outlined in Exhibit A. NOTIFICATION: Notification was sent to adjacent property owners on October 11, 2012 to inform the neighbors that there has been an application submitted for the subject property. An additional notice was sent to all property owners within four hundred feet radius of the subject property, to inform the surrounding area that the project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received comments or correspondence from the public. Glenn Mlaker, AICP 'Edward 0. Robertson Assistant Planner Principal Planner Attachments: -Vicinity Map - Draft Resolution - Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval - Reductions of site plan and elevations - Material Board 28 Lot 44 Lot 45 I ®®•BOCCE�OBKI a Q a i i i i AaT• 'l --1 LI 4 1%y 1 A � I a f A A e y 0 I A A 1 Lot 43 Lot 42 Las B r 1 5 a 5 Way (_ w - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ v.Im Mcm�axxo C v Z Mm Neem [me NMel pm+ne`me Pa dG dna My � - • m spinge, r1 m.AAnbL am , 'fF213)R56-4092 �lCF�56R`• ^n.5%io uavvn�ry Ua¢R1,nPremee 1 l �eum4m P.msw p ppaM MN. mn'® �,IIIVOI "xPw ywl4Ynu • a... �� .wpW IN Slb beZmeged1513-92 M+,S^'bw..m'I.wvn_a. � i:v �"M � n•— b[•Sc13 of YB3.0.051 iR 29G93 quukm. Cwmmanm�ro..MnM1e uuermvm.vw n.........sY.e.e, an.. FxacaBcxwniox'. AUGUr 2 S 2012 imamnivn[4e Pumee A[44 �nrnFv� ' vmgle 4niN,etlnve M 9uea[mils a ahv.PmRM b le se,yd. 6.Ih 115 Med!cone court NP 14µmW) wti�IP• ,tAN[liwlr. cPWrc 5t, 3 . 359 !, Lot 44 Lot 45 I .._ I — m' 9I �� i @� s I � I i Lot 43 Lot 42 Las 8ri5ma Way xieylm Ne4.num d. W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C. o : U �..,:�A.> wmcl.•wmaw `� — — — — Slte Plan c�.vmd�rm OWW.epw �ry m�N' Mr.Bon Str�y [ A c\Miou�Q iw.ruxl[M[linfvemw `AIIgRLPWfp4C iTABUWiIBNS'� BA $ 3182.311aa Brow Wy d m p" trw.wbmvmdProq.oM -ewiryw Wlx LINx6ANF 39J9Y Palm 5pnrga.G IINHG PRG: 60B 5F 12 131 256109 2 ^ 1 1 9,N�ayn�ywrywvemw 1pigL 11VINB gRU'. 451i9F kGL ' `v, PrnsuslwWl. d^—y��—d MNN WAGE Ml p31 y qPX:512-]20L31.512-3 urgywlcxli nn.n::n CN'RA GARPG[+9fORAGE: T/I SF Ib be neyedl ��:v 4wdMn Fvgcem.,rm ICL1.w W+^.+ CWr C b[42143 0l MB 390N51 4/is pwfMmaeuyw.fa Fo.mm:. �FEB PAi105'. G21 S` PRWCR BPSCWTW.. W r.e N.Ic[l.uwN. PMCe14W (MAIN ' eem�IVelppuereryBOL BAiN(MAIN W5E1 iOIN CNLLG9FD ARCA aM 9uea[ue:Y Mv.PropeMbbe � -6283 5F {o.a4uct IyM1bd boon rvurt INP Regm e.ewdwM u�aey r� e:.o<.-.,n.•,�..-...ro.s,a .uw b�� Ie°nl�r 9'e F+nu 1 0 G • I L V V 3' —.— . 359 3 rotate.351 66 17 p� w - - - - - � �- - - - - - - - - - - 5RE 5ECTION A-A SITE SECTION 0-0 3° 36. MA 21' 1 IIMll - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O L :7 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - z Rear Eleraknn/Eut) — p AUG 2 S 2012 13 t�v = 5 . i28 3 . 3594 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Date: March 20, 2013 Subject: 3181 Las Brisas Way AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Kathie Hart, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Desert Sun on March 9, 2013. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. ILI-.0t,Lfl Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Kathie Hart, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting board, and in the Office of the City Clerk and on March 7, 2013. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. mA',A& Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I, Kathie Hart, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to each and every person on the attached list on March 7, 2013, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (78 notices) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk 32 The Desert Sun Certificate of Publication 750 N Gene Autry Trail Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-778-4578/Fax 760-778A731 20i3r ; 12 b„, 0: 04 State Of California ss: ri County of Riverside C i I F ' Advertiser: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS/LEGALS PO BOX 2743 Nn�l PALM SPRINGS CA 922632 NOTICE GFPUBLICHEARING CITY OCFp LA MugppNG8. CONFO-O AELat SE ERA TAPP�LICATION FOR3181i`'LAS BRISg9 WA0 URT: 2000361684 NOTICE IS HEREBY GI Xkcaof ft City^s e�sBPmeon, canVEN io °Wyhold a 1 TOIe Co nGl them at aMasanM �pp c'2013. The fmoe�e"Yon WAY,Palm Spry• '�D teat I am over the age of 18 ears old, a citizen of the United me Pla�ixi ie hesong I.ro an States and not a party to,y or have interest in this matter. I a� �Dod1mnald Sk ��raaooaea�esPor"be` each hereby cenify that the attached advertisement appeared a1g1 n i1.lha'=rty ��� a 1111o�hat- in said newspaper (set in type not smaller than non panel) IA. nerdat in each and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to writ: bw .^Uwo Newspaper: .The Desert Sun 3/9/2013If ...� ;..�I 1 J ++I GtlR. vim_ugy I acknowledge that I am a principal clerk of the printer of ��� ; .-�^^+^•-r The Desert Sun, printed and published weekly in the City ENVI «W+'. of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California. act Is CaNa,E,NTAL-DETERMINgTI The Desert Sun was adjudicated a newspaper of general a Eb Cilgo I�+nder ` rid circulation on March 24, 1988 by the Superior Court of the +uOr glee as mac � S(Soo Act County of Riverside, State of California Case No. REyIEW OF pq naw 191236. report and om" CT INFORMATION: marea throto�ble toiYy 11119rew Na O. and 2 p.m 106.00 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true w AAICIty Of n����at(�eoj�3 gp_on ymaue docamenla. aPPaament to rawrew woWd AndE,xecorrect. this 9th day of March, 2013 in theca 10OrN"AYHbe PU TIONL w nak eIap m ng ym g "q At isa hanlivnICfly ClerknCA ny ckange ofa �Ib ehd a �in a,rpftheen coneehQo!!n�-gip 'bed in this rrotrosra°d Al Sedca`On o� lbfi,"�a"nto('CaCWYm'(%rk inteiAn poft CP ert s Parsons b basgarmy O81 eadonsng�8e 11'` ceeB"�e m'. Partrna (tyBB)�a23.B24on8r5 t"g 31eeamacasaD r- Si la C1a r'AIade aa"p�carte. NaU1ne Prager ma Wftna f7gr1323-82 S hader favor la on Pub James Thompson,C INhry,yyh3 aY Clark NBE9HP..><fl�plD iCtL4 F#REPS ,16a i3DGOM MR PETE MORUZZI 5 gc1tRe�i a ,,, HESTbRICSIM,"N EP-0 PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE k# G MeatEiSg IS. d 13 P.O. BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS,CA 922634738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE 5.1285 CUP PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT MRS. JOANNE BRUGGEMANS VERWATION NOT EGE a ATTN SECRETARY/5.1285 CUP 506 W.SANTA CATALINA ROAD PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 MS MARGARET PARK AG(lAGAL,€,€ kTE BAND 4 eAF#UILL AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 5401 DINAH SHORE DRIVE PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS LUEBBEN JOHNSON&BARNHOUSE, ` ATTN: JOSEPH ONTIVEROS LLP ATTN: INTERESTED PARTIES. `� CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGER RICHARD C.WADE, PARALEGAL P.O. BOX 487 7424 4 STREET NW SAN JACINTQ, CA 92581 LOS RANCHOS DE ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87107 MR DONALD SKEOCH MR BRIAN DIEBOLT SPONSORS 2 900 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD DESIGN CONCEPTS UNIT 38J 57445 29 PALMS HWY,#304 LOS ANGELES, CA 90015 YUCCA VALLEY,CA 92284 MR DARCEY DEETZ-HARRISON JHA ENGINEERING THE ESTANCIAS AT SOUTH CANYON 77810 MONTANAS ROAD HOA PALM DESERT, CA 92211 PO BOX 2805 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263 512 290 018 512 290 019 512 290 020 Toll Ca Note LC Toll Ca Note I LLC Toll Ca Note I LLC 14350 N 8A St#310 14350 N 87th St#310 14350 N 87th St#310 Scotlafe,AZ 85260 Scottsdale,AZ 85260 Scottsdale,AZ 85260 512 290 021 512 290 029 512 290 030 Toll Ca Note I LLC Toll Ca Note I LLC Toll Ca Note I LLC 14350 N 87th St#310 14350 N 87th St#310 14350 N 87th St#310 S ottsdale,AZ 85260 Scottsdale,AZ 85260 Scottsdale,AZ 85260 512 290 042 512 290 050 512 290 051 Holdings Pal prings Soni Casagrande Far West Industries 55 S Lak ve#720 19435 Mesa Dr 2922 Daimler St Pasa CA 91101 Villa Park,CA 92861 Santa Ana,CA 92705 512 290 052 512 290 054 512 300 034 James&Candis Bayne Estancias At South Canyon Homeowner Toll Ca Note I LLC 19435 SW 129th Ave 1081 N Palm Canyon Dr 14350 N 87th St#310 Tualatin,OR 97062 Palm Springs,CA 92262 Scottsdale,AZ 85260 512 300 035 512 300 036 512 300 053 Toll Ca Note I LLC Toll Ca Note I LLC Toll Ca Note I LLC 14350 N 87th St#310 14350 N 87th St#310 14350 N 87th St#310 Scottsdale,AZ 85260 Scottsdale,AZ 85260 Scottsdale,AZ 85260 512 300 054 512 300 062 512 320 001 Toll Ca Note I LLC Alta Nei orhood Assn&Tower West Peter Goldman&Chad Parsons 14350 N 87th St#310 5000 rch St#3000 623 Milagro PI Scottsdale,AZ 85260 N ort Beach,CA 92660 Palm Springs,CA 92264 512 320 002 512 320 003 512 320 005 David Wagner Garvey C F&J Joint Trust Barbara Wagman 1526 Villa Rica Dr 3050 Monte Azul 3181 Indian Creek Ct Henderson,NV 89052 Palm Springs,CA 92264 Buffalo Grove,IL 60089 512 320 006 512 320 007 512 320 008 Far West Industries Far West Industries Far West Industries 2922 Daimler St 2922 Daimler St 2922 Daimler St Santa Ana,CA 92705 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Santa Ana,CA 92705 512 320 009 512 320 010 512 320 011 Daniel&Gina Alegre Daniel&Gina Alegre Far West Industries 2623 Divisadero St PO Box 472470 2922 Daimler St San Francisco,CA 94123 San Francisco,CA 94147 Santa Ana,CA 92705 512320012 512320013 512320014 Zemickow Inc Far West Industries Far West Industries 9515 La Tuna Canyon Rd 2922 Daimler St 2922 Daimler St Sun Valley,CA 91352 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Santa Ana,CA 92705 C s. is 9,,- C�4 r 512 320 015 512 320 016 512 320 017 Far West Industries Michele McKee&Laura Okane Far West Industries 2922 Daimler St 2455 Via Sonoma#C 2922 Daimler St Santa Ana,CA 92705 Palm Springs,CA 92264 Santa Ana,CA 92705 512 320 018 512 320 019 512 320 020 Far West Industries Far West Industries Far West Industries 2922 Daimler St 2922 Daimler St 2922 Daimler St Santa Ana,CA 92705 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Santa Ana,CA 92705 512 320 021 512 320 022 512 320 023 Far West Industries Michael B Kevm&G rielle Barnett 2922 Daimler St 2857 eco Ct 1823 fridge Rd Santa Ana,CA 92705 P Springs,CA 92264 Lo geles,CA 90049 512 320 024 512 320 025 512 320 026 Jessica Norte&Vincent Norte Kenneth ison&Darce Deetz-Harris Michael Erives 3195 Las Brisas Way 355 W Portal 1804 Laguna St Palm Springs,CA 92264 Pa Springs,CA 92264 San Francisco,CA 94115 512 320 028 512 320 029 512 320 030 John&Kristine Pavelak Kristine Pavelak Scott Semar 5790 Sycamore Ave 5790 Sycamore Ave 3645 Vantage Ln Rialto,CA 92377 Rialto,CA 92377 Glenview,IL 60026 512 320 031 512 320 032 512 320 033 Donald Skeoch Donald Skeoch Far West Industries 900 W Olympic Blvd#38J 900 W Olympic Blvd#38J 2922 Daimler St Los Angeles,CA 90015 Los Angeles,CA 90015 Santa Ana,CA 92705 512 320 034 512 320 035 512 320 036 Gerard John#iegel Alexander Mirand&Neala Mirand Holdings Td JanetJennjK Biegel 121 Industrial Way 10357 Artesia Blvd 1 lOth a Close Fairview Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Bellflower,CA 90706 AB OH 1L0 512 320 037 512 320 038 Zemickow Family Investments I Estancias At South Canyon Homeowner 808 Norumbega Dr 1081 N Palm Canyon Dr Monrovia,CA 91016 Palm Springs,CA 92262 009607549 009607550 009607551 TIEDEMAN,CARL E&LORI KELLY,PATRICK J LITMAUREEN A&TURNER SHARON 720 AZALEA CIR W 5159 BROOKS ST B MAUR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 MONTCLAIR,CA 91763 720 DOGWOOD CIR W PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 009607552 512220006 512280005 RICCIO,KENDRA A USA 512 USA BIA 225 FRANKLIN ST DUNMORE,PA 18512 512280006 512280007 512280008 USA BIA USA BIA USA BIA 512290038 512320022 512320036 ALTA NEIGHB O OD ASSN CHIN,QUET H ID HOLDINGS 5000 BIRC 3000 3177 LAS BRISAS WAY 10357 ARTESIA BLVD NEWPO BEACH,CA 92660 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 BELLFLOWER,CA 90706 EZZT-96E-008-I sjagel/woowE-mmm - sn 138JU00 :91lsgam ino llslq 512 290 018 512 320 022 Returned Mail Toll Ca Note LLC Michael Brown Case 5.1285 CUP 8767 F Via de Ventura, Ste. 390 3177 Las Brisas Way Scottsdale, AZ 85258-3385 Palm Springs, CA 92264 512 320 023 Kevin & Gabrielle Barnett 11710 Mayfield Avenue, Apt. 401 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Returned Mall Toll Ca Note LLC Michael Brown Case 5.1285 CUP 8767 F Via de Ventura, Ste. 390 3177 Las Brisas Way Scottsdale, AZ 85258-3385 Palm Springs, CA 92264 512 320 023 Kevin & Gabrielle Barnett 11710 Mayfield Avenue, Apt. 401 Los Angeles, CA 90049 O*pALM S'O�P -y city of Palm Springs v �^ Office of the City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquicz Canyon Way • Palm Springs,CA 92262 ` Tel:(760) 323-8204 • Fax:(760) 322-8332 • TDD: (760)864-9527 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov cQ41FORN�P March 7, 2013 Ms. Claudia Salgado Bureau of Indian Affairs Fax To: Belinda Ray P. 0. Box 2245 (760) 416-2687 Palm Springs, CA 92263 RE: City Council Meeting — March 20, 2013 Public Hearing Notice—3181 Las Brisas Way Dear Ms. Salgado: The City Council will be conducting a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. on March 20, 2013, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's November 14, 2012, denial of a Conditional Use Permit Application by Donald Skeoch, property owner for a lighted tennis court in the Estancias Development at 3181 Las Brisas Way. I have enclosed copies of the notice for distribution and your file; however, please advise if additional notices are required. The allotment numbers and corresponding APN within 400 feet of the subject property are as follows: APN Allotment Number 512-220-006 33B, 33BA, 80C 512-280-005 105E 512-280-006 105E 512-280-007 105E 512-280-008 105E Thank you for your continuous assistance and support. Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or concerns, 323-8206. 1S/incerely, N- Kathie Hart, CIVIC Chief Deputy City Clerk /kdh End: Public Hearing Notices (6 copies) Envelopes (10 pre-stamped) 33 Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS APPEAL OF CASE 5.1285 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A LIGHTED TENNIS COURT 3181 LAS BRISAS WAY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of March 20, 2013. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's November 14, 2012, denial of a Conditional Use Permit Application by Donald Skeoch, property owner for a lighted tennis court in the Estancias Development at 3181 Las Brisas Way, Zone R- 1-B. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project is Categorically Exempt under the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 3 (Section 15303(a) new single-family residence) exemption. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this are available for public review at City Hall from 8:00 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the public hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the Planning Commission by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Glenn Mlaker, AICP, Assistant Planner, at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, por favor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245. mes Thompson, City Clerk 34 N Department of Planning Services Department Vicinity Map S ,u L 0 0 0 DP GWOOD CIRCLE W ............ 4Q` Legend 7T r 400 F t. Site ACANTO DR' Parcels —T-1 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 5.1285 CUP APPEAL DESCRIPTION: Appeal of a denial decision by the Planning Commission for a lighted tennis court located APPLICANT: Skeoch Residence in the Estancias Development, 194 Las Brisas Way, Estancias Development Zone R-1-B, Section 38. 35 Kathie Hart From: Glenn Mlaker Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 9:33 AM To: Kathie Hart; Craig Ewing; Edward Robertson Subject: FW: 3182 Las Brisas Way-Tennis Court Lighting Appeal Mr. Skeoch is requesting postponement of his appeal hearing until the March 20, 2013 City Council meeting. See email below. Glenn GLENN MLAKER, AICP Assistant Planner City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-323-8245 From: Don Skeoch Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:49 AM To: Glenn Mlaker Cc: Don Skeoch Subject: Re: 3182 Las Brisas Way -Tennis Court Lighting Appeal Glenn- I would like to formally request a postponement of my case until March 20th. I continue to gather support for my case but also am trying to juggle a busy overseas travel schedule due to business demands. Thank you for the consideration! -Don On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Glenn Mlaker<Glenn.Mlaker(cre,palmsprings-ca.gov>wrote: Hello Don, you can request a date in March if you like. The available meetings are March 6 or 20. I will need an email from you formally requesting a postponement from the February 6, 2013 meeting to a date in March. Please let me know. Glenn 1 36 From: Don Skeoch Sent: Wednesday,January 09, 2013 9:08 PM To: Glenn Maker Cc: Don Skeoch Subject: Re: 3182 Las Brisas Way - Tennis Court Lighting Appeal Glenn- I'll work to get everything to you BEFORE January 22nd. Question. If I wanted more time, could I push the date back to March? (I just have a heavy travel schedule in February). -Don On Tue,Jan 8, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Glenn Mlaker<Glenn.Mlaker apalmsprings-ca.gov> wrote: Hello Don, your appeal request is scheduled before the City Council for Wednesday, February 6, 2013. In preparation for this meeting, I will need to prepare a Staff report describing the project and presenting your appeal case. As of today, the case file includes a letter requesting an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission. Will you have additional documentation, letters, photos, or correspondence to be included in the City Council Staff report making your case to overturn the decision? The Staff report will need to be finished by Tuesday, January 22, 2013 and all exhibits are required at that time. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks - Glenn GLENN MLAKER, AICP Assistant Planner City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 37 2 760-323-8245 From: Don Skeoch Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 6:47 PM To: Glenn Mlaker Cc: Don Skeoch Subject: Re: 3182 Las Brisas Way - Tennis Court Lighting Appeal Glenn- Per our conversation earlier today,here is a scanned copy of my request to extend the board of appeals hearing regarding the tennis court lights at my residence (3182 Las Brisas Way). I am surprised you haven't received the hard copy yet. It was sent by certified mail on Wednesday, December 12th. I suspect that you'll have it tomorrow. If there are any questions,please don't hesitate to call. As always,thanks so much for your help with this. -Don Skeoch 213-256-4092 On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Don Skeoch<dskeo63 ,anail.com>wrote: Glenn- Wednesday, Feb. 6th will be fine. 3 38 Thank you. -Don On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Glenn Maker <Glenn.Mlaker(a palmsprings-ca.gov> wrote: Hello Don,thank you for you correspondence requesting a waiver of the 45-day hearing requirement. In our discussions you have mentioned January 16, 2012 as a possible date for the appeal hearing. It has come to my attention that the City Council cannot hear the case on that date. The next available meeting would be Wednesday, February 6, 2013. Will this date work for you? Thank you for your understanding. Glenn From: Don Skeoch Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:50 PM To: Glenn Mlaker Cc: Don Skeoch Subject: Re: 3182 Las Brisas Way -Tennis Court Lighting Appeal Glenn- The request to move my hearing date from January 2nd to January 16th was sent by certified mail yesterday. You should have it tomorrow or Friday. I always send it certified with a signature required. I continue to compile the supporting documentation and will forward that to you in advance of the hearing date. Per our conversation last week, could you scan and e-mail the letter of support from Far West Industries that you have? 4 39 Thanks- -Don On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Glenn Maker<Glenn.Mlakerkpalmsprings-ca.gov>wrote: Hello Donald, as a follow-up to our phone conversation last week, the tentative appeal hearing before the City Council is scheduled for January 2, 1013 unless you send correspondence requesting the mandatory 45-day review period be waived. Are you prepared to go before the Council on this date? I will need all your supporting documentation which will be added to my Staff report. Please let me know. The Council agenda is being finalized in the next few days. Thanks — Glenn GLENN MLAKER, AICP Assistant Planner City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-323-8245 40 5 Palm Springs City Planning 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 December 10, 2012 Dear City Planning, On November 23`d, I seat correspondence appealing a recent decision by the Palm Springs Planning Commission declining my request for tennis court lighting. Last Friday, I heard from Glenn in the planning department that my case would be scheduled to be heard on January 2"d, 2013. Due to my holiday travel schedule, I would like to request that my appeal be heard at the following appeals meetings on January 161h, 2011 1 have already asked my employer to grant me a vacation day on January 16`h, 2013 so that I can drive out from Los Angeles and speak regarding my appeal in person. Glenn has informed me that I am required to make this request in writing. If there are any questions, please contact me at 213-256-4092. Thank you. Don Skeoc 3182 Las Brisas W Palm Spring, CA 92264 Cell: 213-256-4092 41 SUBMITTED BY APPELANT BOARD OF APPEALS-TENNIS COURT LIGHTING 3182 LAS BRISAS WAY PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION MARCH 20TH, 2013 42 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPEAL Case 5. 1285 3181 Las Brisas Way 43 3182 LAS BRISAS WAY -TENNIS COURT LIGHTING APPEAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1) MARCH 2O12: HOA BOARD APPROVAL: I asked the President and Vice President of the Estancias HOA to sign a letter indicating that there would not be any resistance if I were to build a home with a lighted tennis court(consistent with Palm Springs building code) PRIOR to my purchase. They reach out to the other homeowners and subsequently provided a signed letter. This letter is enclosed. 2) JUNE 2012: ESTANCIAS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE APPROVAL: As required, I submitted my plans to the Estancias Architectural Review Committee which indicated the tennis court lighting. They approved the plans as submitted. This letter is enclosed. 3) SEPTEMBER 2012: PALM SPRINGS PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION: The Palm Springs Planning Department makes the required "circumference mailing"to all residents in proximity of my property. I am informed that the planning department received only one inquiry which was regarding the color of my tennis court fence. . 4) OCTOBER 2012: PALM SPRINGS PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS"APPROVE": The Palm Springs Planning Department recommends"approve". Therefore, I do not find it necessary to attend the planning commission hearing as I presently live and Los Angeles. The tennis court lighting observes Palm Springs dark-sky laws and is 100%compliant with Palm Spring Building Code: -Tennis court lights cannot be any taller than 12 feet(standard is 22 feet) -Each tennis court light cannot be more than 400 watts (standard is 1,000 watts) -Tennis court lights cannot raise the ambient light more than one candlelight -The tennis court must meet all set back requirements Unexpectedly, a single homeowner attends the meeting to discourage approval. In my absence, the Planning Commission requests that a resolution be adopted banning tennis court lights for review at the next meeting. 5) NOVEMBER 2012: PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: I attend the next Planning Commission meeting. During public comments, I ask the Planning Commission for an opportunity to provide additional information supporting the approval of the tennis court lighting. My case was the • first to be heard, however,they choose to switch the order. Consequently,another case regarding the approval of a downtown hotel ends up consuming the entire meeting. The 44 • Planning Commission decides to take a vote on my case without any additional comment by me. I narrowly lose by a vote of 3 to 2. 6) DECEMBER 2012: ESTANCIAS HOMEOWNER SUPPORT: I decide to appeal and begin to reach out to all of my surrounding homeowners requesting their support of my tennis court lighting. 30 out of 31 of the home/lot owners support me. Their a-mails and letters of support are enclosed. Approve the Tennis Court Lights Disapprove the Tennis Court Lights 30 Lot/Homeowners 1 Lot/Homeowners 97% 3% 7) JANUARY 2013: ESTANCIAS HOA MEETING: At the quarterly, HOA meeting, I offer to limit the use of the lights to 10:00 p.m. I think this is completely reasonable as I have observed music coming from backyard pools much later than 10:00 p.m. Although I am trying to find a compromise,the single dissenting homeowner flatly refuses. There is no give from this individual. 8) FEBRUARY 2013: ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS: I paid to have architectural renderings made to further support my case. They clearly show that there will be no evidence of the lights. • WHY ARE THE TENNIS COURT LIGHTS SO IMPORTANT TO ME? -1 would NOT have invested in Palm Springs had I known this was going to be an issue. I have been extremely proactive regarding this issue. -During the summer, it is simply too hot to play during the day: -1 tried playing one afternoon in November at 90 degrees and we had to quit playing before we finished the first set. -My parents and many of my friends are in their 60's and 70's. I am very concerned about the health hazards of playing in the extreme heat. -During the winter,the sunset occurs as early as 4:38 p.m. That severely limits the hours of play when it is more comfortable to do so. -97%of my neighbors that responded have provided written support of my request for approval of tennis court lighting. It's been a wonderful way to meet my neighbors. Most have asked if I would be interested in playing sometime. I can see building a sense of community together. I BELIEVE I AM BEING EXTREMELY REASONABLE. I HAVE ALSO AGREED TO • LIMIT THE HOURS OF PLAY WITH THE LIGHTS. I SEEK YOUR APPROVAL. 45 HOA APPROVAL LETTER APPEAL Case 5. 1285 3181 Las Brisas Way 46 Deetz Harrison 760-992-9622 PA Michael Erives, President Darcey Deetz-Harrison,Vice President Estancias Homeowners Association michael.erives@yahool.com DarceyCraca oitasre.com Palm Springs,CA February 1,2012 Dear Michael and Darcey, My name is Don Skeoch and I have recently relocated back to Los Angeles after having lived in San Francisco for the past four years. I was recruited to move to the Bay area to manage the opening of the California Academy of Sciences where I served as the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Marketing Officer. The"Academy"is the only museum in the world that houses an aquarium, planetarium,and natural history museum under one roof. It also has the distinction of being the largest double platinum LEEDS rated building in the world based on the U.S. Building council's sustainability rating. This past October, I was approached about relocating back to Los Angeles to serve as the Chief Marketing Officer for the city's tourism bureau. While i loved San Francisco, I greatly missed the sunshine of Southern California. I have since settled in and I have dreamed of owning a retirement home in Palm Springs for many, many years. It is my desire to build a home that I can visit a couple of times each month until I retire in roughly 10 to 15 years. I am working with real estate agent, Darcey Deetz, on the purchase of two adjacent lots in the Estancias community. I plan to work with the title company (First American Title Co.)to complete a"lot merger" (meaning the two lots could never be separated in the future). I will then move forward in building a home,pool,and lighted tennis court on the combined lots. i am aware that there is a minimum building standard of 3,500 square feet of covered living space and I have also been informed that I would be required to pay a homeowner's fee for the equivalent of two lots(2 x$150/month). I do not have any issues with that. My purchase, however,is contingent on my ability to build a lighted tennis court that is consistent with the city's building codes. I have already spoken to the Palm Springs planning department to understand their general conditions for tennis court construction. 1 am happy to comply with all of these. I have also learned that the Estancias development is considered a "planned development" by the Palm Springs planning department and the construction of a tennis court can occur but requires amending the original conditions of the development. I was also told that this successfully occurred a couple of years ago in the neighboring Alta community and I am happy to handle the paperwork associated with this. Darcey has been wonderful in communicating with the other homeowners regarding their permission. It appears that there is general consensus that this would be okay;however, I am concerned about purchasing the lots and then meeting resistance from any specific homeowner. A tennis court requires a public hearing and I am nervous that a single homeowner could complicate my ability to move forward. The planning department has told me that the support of the Estancias Homeowners Association should make the approval process go smoothly(as it did In the Alta development). 47 Deetz Harrison 760-992-9622 p.2 I think it is important to note that I have looked at the setback requirements for constructing a tennis court and the light beams ARE NOT PERMITTED to extend beyond my property lines. Additionally, if there are concerns about late night tennis, I am happy to memorialize"hours of permitted play"on the tennis court. I am seeking approval from the Estancias Homeowners Association for the following: 1) An understanding that I will merge the two lots I am purchasing(they could never be subdivided in the future). 2) An understanding that I will comply with all planning department general conditions for the construction of a lighted tennis court. 3) Agreement that any tennis will cease prior to 8:30 p.m. in the evening. 4) Agreement that I have permission from the Estancias Homeowners Association to build a tennis court on my property consistent with Palm Springs building codes. 5) Agreement that I have the Estancias Homeowners Association permission and support in altering the Estancias planned community general conditions filed at the planning department to allow for the construction of a lighted tennis court in the development. I have always had a wonderful relationship with my neighbors and would like to be completely transparent about my plans. I would feel much more comfortable If the terms above were memorialized. Thanks so muchl I look forward to being anew(part time)resident of Estancias. If you would like to discuss this in greater detail,please contact me at 213-256-4092. Otherwise, I would appreciate your Best regards, Don Skeoch Don Skeoch Michael Erives Purchaser of Lots 42&43 President Las Brisas Way I, Estancias Homeowners Association Dated: !!� Dated: 2' Darcey Deetz-H rrison Vice President Estancias Homeowners Association Dated: Q, 48 HOA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE APPROVAL APPEAL Case 5. 1285 3181 Las Brisas Way 49 i cuSign Envelope ID:F08EDFE3-319A-4A2A-887E-8544C9A6D1CF 1.c ESTANCIAS AT SOUTH CANYON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION c/o Allen & Associates PO Box 2805 Palm Springs, CA 92263 July 26, 2012 Via Hand Delivery ATTN: Mr. Terry Tatum ATTN: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, City of Palm Springs City of Palm Springs Building& Safety Department Planning Services 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs CA 92262 Palm Springs CA 92262 Re: Architectural Review Committee Approval Letter • Custom Home Construction at 3182 & 3194 Las Brisas Way, Palm Springs, CA 92264 Dear Sirs: This letter confirms that the plans and elevations for the design of the custom home at 3182 & 3194 Las Brisas Way, Palm Springs, CA 92264, were submitted to the Architectural Review Committee for the Estancias at South Canyon Homeowner's Association ("Estancias HOK) by owner Don Skeoch. The Architectural Review Committee voted to approve the plans and elevations. The approval of these plans and elevations was re-confirmed via written email response(s) from the members. Should you have any questions regarding the approval of these plans, please feel free to contact me at (760) 808-1449. Sincerely, OxuSlpned bb^y: ''� ,I I c `tCQ/wW9A. eyBli)eetz-Harrison Vice President of the Board and Member of the Architectural Review Committee, • The Estancias at South Canyon Homeowners Association Page 1 of 1 50 VISUAL RENDERINGS OF TENNIS COURT LIGHTS APPEAL Case 5. 1285 3181 Las Brisas Way 51 i � I 1 -- I i I \) I I frJfL N I' Ii II II i r t I 1 14411 14 II II ''' 52 c'7 LO �/fYl 1WL41 � S O� r - S 4 MAP INDICATING HOMEOWNER SUPPORT APPEAL Case 5. 1285 3181 Las Brisas Way 55 - -- - - -- ---- - - _ _ - -_ vv L Illy V oWCilrtMy �ffila'l°t)AfJf LV�6j G9mYl'I W'TTPII1tml,81'.la NCffllpBAA Int ve Ic aet e• - lxwwvl na..r] mrlx ',&EET2CF5R&-M TRACT MAP NO. 29532 �nra iRY.IW_l-L l®VG A 9oH➢R@pp°!'A FYIBIIOA°F Tf S t/2°F a&Sa t/S A �!'BSGTAN.R 2Ys,RYE, 3885 Y e 1 w/cl N aarasn. wry I wra m r In r�n.mc Iz as fu��xan YCS�r1142S 1/10'SLMA N� 1 Lor a lREAltO�/ • KG,IIS wfO M'6VNr"WIfD -� ` � yA�� � H ❑ IRA�� j AS IS® h 1 A � s•q b� .11ll`T m wrAzs rxi erfNY .-----Y ~r----' '_____ ecru x A my _- � e aerATs sn msm ztw r': s. -1L%S.0 a�ru N, 1 f�i' ®a rrAvm u as Y m rom-vvr vn.. 1 a Ai ALL bi CA.Qx FyfAr by LOMmr rr�� L O✓°K LE�LM1•Rw ancr+e<elie n Yeii 14.LYKlI4AC 6NB IYA Lmo Aw u°c afom u ar a n¢ rouffz awualiim fcflw:"m ��— ' ixln urn, m Nxaaorm®iet rsr nYe act = xll mn-a eves rexcznNo weer wYfam Lro Asa6t uata anaerY wrm m wra Baia. I _ r. melm YfLapLua.cr rrry-v 'eT.wl rumla`nf Ixru Lara wra `ro'��r_I Lela ; I n WY" rl fwenio xnamwwxx ray-1 fV+l-rw [wmrl rx y �7 xw a.rarl 77 :� "au .. aevurE Aaia wa.ce naµe 1 O Fv.ecf` 1 ___7` � Wsru�.0 x�`w+ a res aAcr Lamlxssn muAa?a � '` i q g� row rx esa�rrtlraeaxte § I b �$ � y s M } I l irlMle n . I f a b� i wv a 1 M ma i I l f I • • - p a 1 1 60WCR46 Epp Nr kl 1 ® � T r ww� x� �K TJ Lro.'n o�W _as�l eoC xv.wem .uh[n YOYIS'bW b1R' �i��a'fl� �N edle`v ef¢m'J yy�^R AGL IID If UA nl91 HTLTIp �mf16 F14 LOT4 wT t[ wi[T LYT ti 16I<I MYfigar leL'ip 91u OVif® %t-e A4[n0 YX.PIr1T aay Atwir®Yr ab a W�LF�Ha �eRv Lmf p m lut"' W 1®/.M NIWWfa1 i CD • • • 3182 Las Brisas Way Tennis Court Lighting Support by Homeowners in the Development LOT# Name Responded? Support in Writin¢ Homeowners Percent 6 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes Responden¢ Responding 7 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes Those in Favor: 31 97% 8 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes Those Opposed: 1 3% 11 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes TOTAL 32 100% 12 John Zernikow Yes Yes 13 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes 14 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes 15 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes 16 Michele McKee& Laura O'Kane Yes Yes 17 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes 18 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes 19 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes 20 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes 25 John H. Yes Yes 26 Mary Anne Fenniak Yes Yes 28 Mario&Cindy Berardi Yes Awaiting Letter 29 Sue Casagrande Yes Yes 30 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes 32 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes 33 Mike Brown Yes Yes 34 Kevin Barnett Yes Yes 35 Jessica Norte Yes No 36 Deetz-Harrison Yes Yes 39 John Pavelak Yes Yes 40 John Pavelak Yes Yes 41 Scott Semar Yes Yes 42 Don Skeoch Yes Yes 43 Don Skeoch Yes Yes 44 Scott Lissoy(Far West) Yes Yes 45 Gerard&Janet Biegel Yes Yes 46 Alex&Neala Mirand Yes Yes U, 47 Alex&Neala Mirand Yes Yes HOMEOWNER LETTERS OF SUPPORT APPEAL Case 5. 1285 3181 Las Brisas Way 58 Scott Se►nar 3645 Vantage Lane Glenview, Illinois 60026 November 26, 2012 To Whom it May Concern, My neighbor, Don Skeoch, is requesting the approval of tennis court lighting at his residence in the Estancias development oPI'ahn Springs. I am the homeowner of the lot located at 3206 Las Brisas Way, Palm Springs, immediately adjacent to Dorn's lot. I am writing to support his request for approval of tennis crnrrt. lighting. He has agreed to limit the use of the lightinLl at 10:00 p.m. each day. I Je has also agreed to ensure that the tennis court lights are installed in a manner that is consistent with Palm Spring's building code. Therefore, 1 would like to strongly endorse the approval of tennis court lighting under these • conditions. Best regards, Scott Sonar • 59 Gmail - Skeoch Tennis Court Lighting/Estancias 4 Page I of 1 a I � 5 0 @ .nor Skeoch Tennis Court Lighting/Estancias 1 message Michael Brown< mikebinsf@hotmail.com> Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:13 AM To: Don Skeoch <dskeo63@g mail.com> Hello Don, After having reviewed the many elements of your proposed design for tennis court lighting that will serve to protect the surrounding home owners from excessive"fight polution", we feel very comfortable in supporting your request for the lighting of your courts. It appears that you are doing everything possible to protect your neighbors interests and we feel very comfortable with what you are proposing. We have visited the planning dept and seen your plans and your home and court here will be an outstanding addition to the neighborhood. We hope to see your construction begin soon and are opposed to any delays related to issue of tennis court lighting. We love living here at Estancias and hope that you find it as great a place to call home as we do. Regards, • Alex Chin and Michael Brown 3177 Las Brisas Way Palm Springs, Ca 92264 Phone 760 832 6876 • G© https://mail-google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=617876884e&view--pt&search=inbox&th=13 d3b8b... 3/5/2013 From: kpbarnett(o)comcast net [ma ilto:kl)barnett()comcast.[let] • Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 3:01 AM To: Darcey Deetz Cc: Michele McKee; Mario &Cindy; michael erives; Sue Casagrande; iudvCobblankcanvashome.com; Alex Mirandj Subject: Re: Estancia Tennis Court Lighting I support the tennis court and trust Don will landscape tastefully around the court's perimeter. I'm also confident that his plans to build an estate-like property inside The Estancias gates will only assist in raising neighboring home values. Hope everyone is well. Kevin Barnett • • 61 From: Sue Casagrande [mailto:suecasa.alteraCalgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:58 PM � • To: Darcey Deeiz Cc: Michele McKee; Mario &Cindy; michael.erivesCaovahoo.com; judyCfblankcanvashome.com; kpbarnettCcbcomcast.net; Alex Mirand Subject: Re: FW: Estancia Tennis Court Lighting I give my approval for the tennis court lighting. Sue Casagrande • • 62 Lq 46 Darcey Deetz 3:13 PM (22 hours ago) (kV6—�� 4rC5� to Judy, Mari®, michael.erives, Sue, judy, kpbarnett, Alex, ichele ell To all Architectural Committee and HCA Board members, My husband Ken Harrison and I would like to formally support Don Skeoch's home with the lighted tennis court. It will be located right across the street from our home. We think it will be a positive addition to our neighborhood. He has met all of the City of Palm Springs Planning and Zoning requirements and all of the Municipal codes have also been met. We do not believe the tennis court lights will be a nuisance any more than some of the resident's exterior home lights are. We also believe in each homeowner's rights to build on their property as they wish, as long as they meet all City, planning and zoning and architectural committee requirements. Don has gone above and beyond in the planning of his estate and has tried to be a good neighbor. He has even offered to try to compromise with anyone that may have issues.This is the kind of neighbor that I look forward to having. Best regards, • Darcey Deetz-Harrison and Ken Harrison 3207 Las Brisas Way Palm Springs, CA 92264 M 760.808.1449 1 T 760.537.2914 1 F 760.637.2914 darcev(a)darceVdeea.com • 63 4� ( 0 From: ALEX MIRAND [mailto:amirand@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:28 AM j� • To: Darceymmcke Deetz; Judy garvev ; berg om 4��,� I1 ��� UI '�^j Cc: mmckeeCa�okanemckee.com• berawestCa�yahoo.com• michael.erives@yahoo. 0 1, rGV l suecasa.altera@g mail.com; judo@blankcanvashome.com; kpba rnett(cbcomcast.net Subject: RE: Estancia Tennis Court Lighting Neala an I, too support Don's project. We came home last night and turned on all of our Kitchen and patio lights ( 3400 watts from 15 feet up ) Its 2 times more light and 3 feet higher ( with no 10 feet fence ) than what is proposed , a house in that lot would produce more noise and light than a tennis court. Palm Springs only alouds 400 w @ 12 feet x 4 with a fence around the court, there is no light that will spill out in fact Don might want to use glow in the dark tennis balls. Noise? tennis does not make noise like a pool does, in a pool people and kids are a lot louder than a tennis ball ( its a game like golf, there is no yelling ) Don anything I can do to help please let me know, it would be a pleasure to have a neighbor like you. Alex and Neala Mirand 3209 Estaban Way& lot 47 • 64 [Ok �� b 4&6� • John Pavelak 10:33 AM (9 hours ago) I Id"17 0 T,;" 'k, ^ / Good Morning Don, I look forward to meeting you in person. As you mentioned, I couldn't see the lights from my lots, so I know your direct neighbors might be concerned. I don't have a problem with the tennis court, and I think it would raise the"Luxe°Level of the Community. Have a Nice Day! Sincerely, John Pavelak • • 65 1,4 z Ail • Mary Anne Fenniak 1:51 PM (5 hours ago) to me All things considered, I would be in favor of the lighting. • • 66 �t , 1 , f l` 16 I 4 44 , lf � 1 e, Estate De lopment FAR WEST INDUSTRIES .fa sti d st'e om 2922 Daimler St. Santa Ana, CA 92705 (949) 224- 1970• Fax: (949) 224-1963 October 24,2012 Planning Commission City of Palm Springs 3200 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2743 Re:Case no. 5.1285 Conditional Use Permit(CUP)—Estancias-Lighted Tennis Court - 3181 Las Brisas Way Agenda Item 3A Dear Planning Commission members: We are the property owners of lot 44 in Estancias that is directly adjacent to the proposed CUP..We would like to ask that the Planning Commission place a condition on this proposed lighted tennis court as follows. The Staff Report states that a 6'tall block wall will be built around the tennis court and a 4'fall chain link with green screening will be placed ontop of the block wall for a total height of 10'tall. Although the west and north sides of the tennis court have proposed trees,the east side(which is where our lot is)has not trees on the site plan. We therefore ask that the following conditions be placed on this project as part of the CUP approval. 1_ The block wall be built with natural earth tones. 2. The 4'tall screening on top of the 6'tall block wall be'Tan", not green. As a reminder,City policy does not even allow green wind screen for construction jobs, it must be tan. Thank you for your consideration, Brian Berkson Project Manager m � • �Aty NCIA •� ,r ` r x ai ( S6 f ... tfir, 32 +019 it lq 1 1! l S M1 J.... . : A LTA _..., �. 3- e � ry 1 3 i Sev;er Water 68 164 k On Wed, Dee 12, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Janet Biegel <gjbie el a telus lee �:� Cf(� / i a • Don: l Just wanted to add our support to your new home in our community. s we are located directly behind the proposed tennis courts we don't feel that there would be any problems with the lighting on your tennis courts. If we go around the exterior of our home and look at the total wattage of the lights we currently have in our outdoor entertaining area we would well exceed the allotted requirement for your tennis court lighting. I don't see there being any difficulty with the proposed lighting you are requesting. I would also like to extend our support of your building such a fantastic estate in our community as it will only add to all home owner's property values in the community. We would like to welcome you to our lovely community and know it is a great place to be. Regards, Gerard& Janet Biegel • • 69 PALM SPRINGS TENNIS COURT LIGHTING CODE APPEAL Case 5. 1285 3181 Las Brisas Way 70 >3 Z1 Tennis courts. Page 1 of 2 d Springs Municipal Code up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames ZONING CODE '� ' Mer 93,00 GENERAL CONDITIONS 93.01.01 Tennis courts. This section is intended to provide for the regulation of tennis courts within residential zones of the city. A. Tennis courts may be allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Single-family Zones. a. No tennis courts shall be allowed within any yard or setback area. b. A six(6) foot high solid masonry wall shall be installed on the property line between the tennis court and adjacent property. Landscape,which screens the tennis court fence, shall be installed within the setback area. G. The height of any tennis court fence shall not exceed ten(10) feet above the court surface. d. Tennis courts shall establish the surface level of the court at the lowest elevation or below of the natural terrain. e. Plans and minor architectural approval application,including plot plan,grading plan, landscape plan,shall be submitted to the planning division for approval pursuant to Section 94.04.00. Tennis courts located in hillside areas, as defined in Section 93.13.00, shall be reviewed by the planning commission. For all other locations,the planning director may approve proposed tennis courts. f. Night lighting of tennis courts may be allowed under conditional use permit approval by the planning commission in accordance with Section 94.02.00; and provided,the above-listed conditions(subsections(A)(1)(a) through(A)(1)(e)of this section)have been met. In addition, the following development standards shall be complied with: • i. The height of the proposed light fixtures shall not exceed twelve(12) feet at the setback line.A maximum of five(5)light standards(fixtures)shall be permitted on each side of the court. The light fixture height shall be measured from natural grade. ii. The light beam shall not extend off the subject property. Lighting levels, measured at the property line, shall not be increased more than one(1)footcandle above the ambient light level. iii. Quartz light shall be prohibited. iv. Lighting shall not be greater than four hundred(400)watts per fixture. 2. All Other Zones,Including Multi-Family Residential. a. No tennis courts shall be allowed within any yard or setback area. b. No more than thirty(30)percent of the requirement for usable landscaped open space and outdoor living and recreation shall be devoted to tennis court development. C. A six(6)foot high solid masonry wall shall be installed on the property line between the tennis court and adjacent property.Landscape, which screens the tennis court fence, shall be installed within the setback area. d. The height of any tennis court fence shall not exceed ten(10) feet above the court surface. e. Tennis courts shall establish the surface level of the court at the lowest elevation of the natural terrain. f. Any proposed or existing development proposing tennis courts shall require architectural approval of the total site by the planning commission pursuant to Section 94.04.00.Plans, including plot plan,grading plan, landscape plan, lighting diagram, light specification, neighboring property diagram, and application, shall be submitted to the planning department. Where an existing development is proposing to add a tennis court(s), a minor architectural approval 1, application shall be filed. 71 tp://www.gcode.us/codes/paimsprings/view.php?topic=zoning_code-93_00-93-01_O1&frames=on 1/23/2012 To The Palm Springs City Council, a, a ` In reference to: The appeal for the conditional use permit in Es9whbiba. 0 PM 2: 33 lighted tennis court 3181 Las Brisas Way -14:3 1 n;_,; , CITY CL P ; My name is Jessica Norte and I am writing to you on behalf of my husband, my children and myself. I am in opposition of the tennis court lighting. This is very personal to me because our home is directly across the street from this project, in Estancias at South Palm Canyon. It is my family that will be the most affected if these tennis court lights occur. I am extremely invested and concerned to make sure this does not happen. We purchased our home over 7 years ago, and we decided to purchase in the canyon area because this area of town is peaceful. When I purchased my home the layout of the lots were single-family lots. The CC&R never mentioned tennis courts or tennis court lighting in them because the original layouts were single-family lots. So you could imagine my unhappiness that a few years later two lots are merged and a tennis court becomes located across the street from us. I can live with the tennis courts but I cannot live with the tennis court lighting. Estancias currently has about 20 homes built out of the 48, and out of those homes about 11 of them are rentals or for sale. I think it is very clear that this community is not built even half way, nor do all parties have a strong interest in this neighborhood. Estancias has no true guidelines for the architectural review committee at this point, they are very minimal. As of March 2013 we finally hired a property manager. 1 am expressing this to you so you understand that this is not a well run HOA. The letter that was signed off on behalf of the HOA dated February 1, 2012 was not approved by the direction or knowledge of the full HOA. I also would like to note that Darcey Deetz- Harrison was the realtor handling this property sale. Recently, during a January 26, 2013 HOA meeting there was a direction from the board to go forward with a letter to city with this particular verbiage " The Estancias HOA will agree with the determination of the city of Palm Springs with regards to the approval or disapproval of tennis court lighting and hours of operation." 72 I hope that is what actually was sent to you because it is the verbiage that was read out to the general board membership at the meeting. Again no vote was taken on tennis court lighting but there was a consensus to stay neutral on issue after Mr. Skeoch requested a letter in support of his tennis court lighting. I am providing you with 6 letters from other homeowners in the area affected by the tennis court lighting, and they too are in opposition to the lighting (exhibit D,E,F,G,H,1). I also would like to point out that neither of the two gated communities surrounding Estancias allows or has lighted tennis courts. There has been miss information given out about ALTA having a CUP for tennis court lighting. I want to make it very clear no CUP exist for allowing tennis court lighting in ALTA. I went down to the City of Palm Springs Planning Department and actually pulled the CUP and I have attached the print out given to me by Glenn Mlaker verifying this (exhibit A). Glenn Mlaker also provided me with a copy of the ALTA design guidelines, which specifically prohibit lighted tennis courts (exhibit B). In regards to the other gated community Bella Monte, I have attached a letter from Margaret Parks Director of planning &Natural Resources at Agua Caliente Planning Department (exhibit C) that also verifies that there is no lighted tennis courts in Bella Monte and lighted tennis courts go against the Master Plans Architectural Guidelines. I give you this information for you to see that lighted tennis courts do not currently exist in gated communities surrounding Estancias, and to show how out of place it would be in the particular area of town. There are two main reasons I am opposed to the tennis court lighting. The tennis court lighting will hinder the beautiful dark skies and will deteriorate the character of this single -family neighborhood. This area of town is very limited on lighting, and I believe the reason it has limited lighting is to keep the character of the canyon area. It would be a true shame to allow tennis court lighting for the benefit of one individual, when it will effect on so many other in a negative way. My other worry is the noise that would occur with night tennis playing. Tennis courts are very loud in general, even worse when the court is not sunken in. You could understand why I would not want lighted tennis courts across the street from my home. If you were in my shoes you would feel the exact same way. And the idea of a time frame being placed on hours of tennis court lighting does not work either. Once the tennis court lighting goes in, they are in. The owner can rent the house out, he can sell it, and he can ignore a time frame if one is placed on the use of the lighted tennis courts. There truly is no way to enforce the hours 73 of light use, it's not like the Palm Springs police department is going to check on a light violation and we have no security in Estancias. The only true solution is to not allow it. Natural sunlight is sufficient and would keep hours of play to an appropriate time frame. This is extremely important and personal to my family and me. I hope you agree with the planning commission and uphold the denial of the CUP for tennis court lighting in Estancias. Thank you, Jessica Norte and Vincent Norte 74 -------------- CASE# ITYPE RELATED CASES RELATED CASES2 JJHSPB PIPP DATE 5.0899 PD 271 AMND 5.0899 PD 271 TTM 30050,3.3114 MAJ 12/2/2008 PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION ALTA For architectural approval of an approximate 1720 square foot guesthouse addition and tennis court on Lot 62 and an amendment to the development standards for Planned Development 271. JA 5P2-290-032 OTHER APN OTHER APN2: ADD RESSNO LAUTESS N1: NER LANE ER BONNE SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE � ERN PLAN Planning Services DATE ASS2 3 2008 RN (NEE Rs OWNER,LESSEE,AGENT: APPLAST APPFIRST '.COMPANY Owner Zolezzi (Alfredo Basel Investors, Inc. APPADDRESS APPCITY APPSTATE APPZIP 398 Patel Place Palm Springs CA 92264 Ptannino APPTEL: APPFAX: APPEMAIL APPCELL: (760)464-5100 (866)877 914 alfredozolezzi@mac.com F- SPONSOR( ADDRESS( I CITYSTZIPI 7 PHONE(: FAX1: EMAIL(: Narendra Patel,A.I.A 71-711 San Jacinto Drive Rancho Mirage, (760)776-5031 (760)423-0310 patelarch@aol.com CA 92270 SPONSOR2 ADDRESS2 CITY ST ZIP2 (PHONE FAX2: EMAIL2: EngineerBenjamin Herbst, Fcpo Way 2618,902 Bay- McCall, ID 83638 77� (208)630-5079 s mmit@parkplacemcca SPONSOR3 ADDRESS3 CITY ST ZIP3 PHONE3: FAX3: EMAIL3: Bennett Puterbaugh, (760)320-5103 bmpbluepalm@aol.com Landscape SPONSOR4 JADDRESS4 CITY ST ZIP4 PHONE4: FAX4: EMAIL4: SPONSORS ADDRESS5 iCITY ST ZIP5 PHONES: FAX5: EMAIL5: PROPERTY TYPE I IDPU: PROJECT/DPU STATUS ENGR'G COND DUE: HEARING DATE: Residential NO Complete Received 03/11/09-PC DRCA: DRCA SECTIONS:I DRCADRCA S AA� NO It PLAN 09, 0 CITY COUNCIL' NO 12/22/08 NO Ot/28/09, 03/11/09 NO DPU/HSPB UPDATE: ALTA-For architectural approval of an approximate 1720 sq.ft.guesthouse addition and tennis court on Lot 62 and an amendment to the development standards of Planned Development 271. 12/16/08-To allow a larger second unit on a single lot; parcel merger is complete(with Felipe). WEEK ENDING: I ADD-ONS f1.6 cup u:w s gr ea . cl"s 75 i ALTA Design Guidelines For Architectural and Landscaping Control i March 1,2005 76 ,i 1 3 s 2. Driveways. Driveways must be placed to minimize their visual impact and street scene disruption. 3. Driveway Clearance.Driveways that approach the side property line should have the driveway adjacent to the side property line broken up with planters or potted plants. 4. Driveway Entrances.The Developer will not provide driveway entrances (i.e., curb cuts). The Owner must provide all necessary curb cuts (if necessary) and construct a concrete driveway entrance perpendicular to the curb. a. Where driveways intersect the Street, single entry driveways shall not exceed eighteen(18)feet in width and dual entry driveways (circular drives)shall not exceed twelve (12)feet in width per entrance. b. A fifty(50)foot minimum separation, as measured from the centerline,is required on all dual entry driveways. 5. Onsite Parking. At least one dedicated guest parking space is required on the Home Site. Uncovered additional guest parking may be permitted on the Home Site if sufficient screening is provided. Parking areas must be located within the Building Envelope, 21 SITE AMENITY STANDARDS: 1. Water Features. Swimming pools,spas and other water features should be screened from direct view from the Street and adjacent Home Sites. Reasonable effort should be made to minimize sound originating from the pool equipment. Pool equipment must also be screened from view from Streets, adjacent Home Site and the Golf Course. Fencing or walls around swimming pools may be combined with property line walls and fencing. 2. Tennis Courts and Sports Courts. s ace development review approval d w its municipal c es written en r of s and ail b _ . m esign ?7 I 1 I , 1 Guidelines,and the Development Restrictions. Lighted tennis and sport courts will not be allowed. 3. Illuminated Address Signs. Lighted address identification signs shall be provided by the Owner subject to review of the DRB. The preferred location of address placards is on the driveway gate to the property. For those residences without gates, addresses shall be displayed on a placard in a clearly visible area of the Streetscape Zone. The maximum number size is six(6) inches and font selection and materials should complement the chosen architectural style. Ultimately, address location shall conform to City Regulations. 4. Satellite Dishes and Antennas. No satellite dishes or antennas may be installed on an Estate Home Site without the prior written consent of the DRB. 5. Accessory Structures.All Accessory Structures such as gazebos, detached garages, decks, storage sheds,equipment enclosures, etc.,that are not part of the Residence, shall be reviewed and approved by the DRB at the preliminary review stage. 6. Driveway Gates. ALTA has been designed to restrict access by the general public to individual Residences. Two electronically controlled gated entries(one for entry and one for exit)are provided for the community. On larger than average lots,double lots, and on some comer lots, owners may install driveway entrance gates on their properties. a. These gates must be located at least ten feet off the street. Certain exceptions based on site-specific issues will be made by the DRB on a case-by-case basis. i b. Pilasters used to anchor each side of the driveway gate,must be tastefully designed and appear to naturally merge with the adjacent walls. The pilasters and gate design must complement the architectural style of the residence. i 1) The maximum height of the pilasters shall not exceed six (6)feet. 2) The maximum gate height shall not exceed seven (7)feet 3) The gate shall be properly engineered using footings and I or retaining wails to anchor the gate. 78 AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS TRIaAL PLANNING & D..EVELOFMENT November 26, 2012 Jessica Norte 3195 Las Brisas Way Palm Springs, CA 92264 RE: Tennis Court Lighting in Bella Monte Dear Ms. Norte, Based upon a review of our permit files and field visits conducted by Tribal Staff on November 16 and 20, 2012, there are no lighted tennis courts in the Bella Monte development, nor have any pen-nits been issued by the Tribe for a lighted tennis court. Development within Bella Monte is regulated by the Home Owners Association's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), the Indian Canyons Master Plan, and the Tribal Land Use Ordinance; none of which address lighted tennis courts, or tennis courts in general. Tennis courts, therefore, are not permitted by right in the Bella Monte development, and any future permit associated with a tennis court there could only be approved if it can be "deemed compatible with the Indian Canyons environment" by the Tribal Council per the Indian Canyons Master Plan. Lighted tennis courts, however, could not be deemed compatible under any circumstance since the Master Plan's Architectural Guidelines specifically prohibits the use of spotlights and floodlights. With respect to any exterior lighting, the overarching objective of the Master Plan's Architectural Guidelines "is to minimize any unintended harsh lighting or hot spots when viewed from a neighboring property or the greater Indian Canyons area," and to preserve the "ability to enjoy the star filled nights in the desert without conventional ambient lighting or street lighting interference." Please contact me should you have any questions at 760-883-1326. Very truly yours, Margaret E. Park,AICP Director of Planning & Natural Resources AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS MP/dm 5401 DINAH SHORE DRIVE, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 79 y/, T 7601699�6800 F 7601699,6823 WWW.AGUACALIENTE-NSN GOV 9 November 17, 2012 Dear Palm Springs City Council, I am a homeowner and former board member at the Estancias at South Canyon residential community in south Palm Springs. Recently a new lot owner in Estancias, Donald Skeoch at 3181 & 3194 Las Brisas Way, submitted plans for night lights on a tennis court that he plans to build next to a new single-family home. I am absolutely opposed to any lighting on the tennis court as this will drastically alter the calm, dark, pleasant nighttime sky we all currently enjoy in and around the development. Specifically, the type of ultra-bright, florescent lighting required for a tennis court at night, is diametrically apposed to the warm, pleasant, mood-type lighting scheme currently used on the guard house, community grounds and on all the current homes in the community. I am not basing this opinion on simple speculation. Instead, I have direct proof of the permanent disruption this type of bright, nighttime lighting would cause to not only our own development but the surrounding developments — Bella Monte, Alta -- as well as many single-family homes and estates in the area. Just last month, a single home in the Alta development next door was used to shoot a television show. The spotlights used during the multi-week shoot in this home -- similar to the lighting tennis court lighting would emit— shined directly into my house many lots away and lit up the entire valley all around, destroying the entire nighttime sky. As unappealing as that temporary lighting was, it represents exactly the kind of disruption everyone in the entire area would experience permanently from similar lighting on a tennis court. I also want to make it clear that we, as lotthomeowners, were never asked to vote on these lights. If we had been, I would have voted a resounding "NO." For the sake of the aesthetic and quiet enjoyment of not only our development, but also those that surround Estancias in the hours after the sun has set, I ask that you please do not issue a permit for tennis court lighting to Mr. Skeoch or anyone else inside or around the Estancias development. Thank you, Chad Parsons Estancias at South Canyon Lot#1 623 Milagro Place Palm Springs, CA 92264 80 b,+ E November 29, 2012 Dear Palm Springs City Council, I am writing to state my opposition to the lighted tennis courts at 3181 and 3194 Las Brisas Way in Estancia at South Palm Canyon, owned by Don Skeoch. When the original notice came out about the public hearing at the planning commission, I did not have enough time to respond to the notice. But then I heard that there might be a possible appeal and so now I clearly want to state my opposition for the record. The canyon area is very special and by allowing tennis court lighting in this neighborhood you would forever be changing the ambiance of it. Just drive down South Palm Canyon or Murray Canyon Way and you can clearly see that street lighting is very limited. I also, have noticed that there are other private owned tennis court in the area and those I have seen are none lighted. It was brought up at the City Panning meeting about a possible time frame on the lighting. And I want it noted that I do not believe this will work either because, there is no way to truly enforce a time period on lighting. I hope you understand how important it is to keep this area tennis court lighting free. I urge you to please not over turn the denial of the Conditional Use Permit. Thank you for your consideration, Vincen onzales Jr. 835 D gwood Circle Palm prings, Ca. 92264 81 To: Palm Springs Planning Dept Regarding: Proposed construction of tennis court in Estancias accompanying construction of new residence We would like to express our opposition to the lighting of a proposed tennis court to be built in Estancias. Night time lighting of the court would be inconsistent with the city policy of reducing night time reflected light and have a negative impact on our entire neighborhood. Michael Brown Alex Chin 3177 Las Brisas way Palm Springs, Ca. 92264 82 508 Bella Cara Way Palm Springs,CA 92264 15 November 2012 To Whom It May Concern: With respect to the discussion of allowing tennis courts and lights within the HOA grounds,we reiterate our opposition to both the tennis courts and the lights. Our position was originally stated in an email to the collective homeowners on 20 January,2012. Our position has not changed. Thank you, ^-- 0141 " Brian Nolan Art Cook 83 From: Michael Date:January 10, 2013, 9:08:42 AM PST To: Family Email Subject: Re: HOA Jessica, This email is to state that I do not vote for or approve Tennise Court lighting in the Estancias HOA. Regards, Michael Erives Presiden Estancias HOA This is a email sent to me from Michael Erives. He personally is in opposition to the tennis court lighting. 84 March 13,2013 Dear City Council, I am against any tennis court lighting being installed in Estancias. When I purchased my home in 20081 was explicitly told by the original developer that the 48 lots would be developed as only individual residences. There was no club house,tennis courts or lighting to be involved in the original plan. I understand since other developers have taken over this project chances are to be expected. Although tennis courts are not desirable I accepted that change but lighting is an unacceptable infringement on the original homeowners. Thank you, ' . / VV Dave Wagner(lot 2) 665 Milagro Place Palm Springs,CA 92264 85 MAR. 13. 2013 4:47PM FAR WEST INDUSTRIES N0. 3644 P. 2 ti i .f t 2013 HAPx 13 PH 6' 08 Real Estate Development FAR WEST INDUSTRIES uwvw.fatwesfindusbies-wm .. n 2922 Daimler Street -Santa na, CA`92705 •(949) 224-1970- Fax: (949) 224-1963 March 13,2013 Via Faesimile James Thompson Palm Springs City Clerk 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 Fax: (760)322-8332 Be.- Public hearing before the City Council,March 20,20.13 Appeal of Case 5.1285—Conditional Use PermitApplkadon for a Lighted Tennis Court in the Estarrcias Development; 3181 Las Brisas Way,Palm Springs,CA Dear Mr.Thompson: This letter shall serve as our objection to the installation of H&s for a tennis court currently planned by Donald Skeoeh, owner of the above-referenced property (the 'Nmch Lots"). Our company, Far West Industries, owns 12 lots in the Estancias at South Canyon community (the "Community") and we are currently constructing or are planning construction of homes on each of those lots. One of our lots,Lot 44, is directly adjacent to the Skeoch Tots and another lot,Lot 11,is across the street from the Skeoch Lots. Not only would a lighted tennis court interfere with the enjoyment of our future homebuyers,but it would be in direct contravention of Estamias being a"dark"community. As you know,many residents of Palm Springs move there to enjoy the desert atmosphere and the spectacular night skies with millions of visible stars. A lighted tennis court would take away from that phenomenon. There are no street lights in the Community and we do not believe that individual lots should have lighting which would take away from the peaceful night setting. We want to be good neighbors and we believe that owners in the Community should consider the aesthetics of the Community and the effect that their homes and amenities have on their neighbors. We are,therefore, asking that the City Council consider the implications of the lighted tennis court, how it would affect the Community and decline Mr.Skeoch's application for the lighted court.Thank you. Very holy yours, BrianBerkson Project Manager G-Wswndw-Palm Spdu03-D-2Al3LvtO City RC Caw 5.1285.dm ge