city council staff report

Transcription

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE:
September 18, 2013
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT:
AN APPEAL BY DONALD SKEOCH 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 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
3182 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.__._\.~,;,.(\~-
City Council Staff Report
September 18, 2013 - Page 2
5.1285 CUP -Appeal - Donald Skeoch - 3182 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 6,283square 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 I 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 developing custom homes.
ALTA
ESTANCIAS
House I Tennis Court Site
02
September 18, 2013- Page 3
5.1285 CUP -Appeal- Donald Skeoch- 3182 Las Brisas Way
Subject 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 Project
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 165square 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 (f)(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 (1 0) 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
September 18, 2013 -- Page 4
the CUP request and direct Staff to prepare a denial resolution with a roll call vote of 32-2, (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 lime 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 3182 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, 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 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
Staff notes that the appellant's
house and non-illuminated tennis court.
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 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.
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
denied the request. Staff notes that a review of a Conditional Use Permit is
04
September 18, 2013 -- Page 5
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, 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 21h, 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
spent over $41,000 on the development of these plans. Consequently, I
have made significant financial investment here."
OS
September 18, 2013- Page 6
5.1285 CUP- Appeal- Donald Skeoch- 3182 Las Brisas Way
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.
David H. Ready, Ci
M. Margo Wheeler, AICP
Director of Planning Services
Attachments:
1. Vicinity map
2. Draft resolution
3. Binder containing letter of appeal to City Council
4. Letter of appeal to Planning Commission
5. Letter of Support from Far West Industries dated August 20, 2013
6. Planning Commission minutes October 24, 2012
7. Planning Commission minutes November 14, 2012
8. Planning Commission staff report, October 24, 2012
9. Site plan
06
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
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CASE 5.1285
CUP; AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A LIGHTED TENNIS COURT AT 3182 LAS
BRISASWAY
WHEREAS, Donald Skeoch ("Applicant") filed a Conditional Use Permit
application, Case 5.1285 CUP, to allow a lighted tennis court at 3182 Las Brisas Way,
Zone R-1-B, 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 No. 6299 for a lighted tennis court at the
property located at 3182 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 September 18,2013, 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, 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 has been approved at Alta
07
City Council Resolution
Page2
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
permission ... to allow for the construction of a lighted tennis court in
the development."
4. "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 2-lh, 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 mv 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
08
City Council Resolution
Page 3
lighted tennis court at 3182 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-CUP for a lighted tennis court.
ADOPTED this 181h day of September, 2013.
David H. Ready, City Manager
ATTEST:
James Thompson, City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS)
ss.
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:
City of Palm Springs, California
09
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Date:
Subject:
September 18, 2013
3182 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 September 7, 2013.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Kathie Hart, CMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
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 September 5, 2013.
Kathie Hart, CMC
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to each and every
person on the attached list on September 5, 2013, in a sealed envelope, with postage
prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (78 notices)
\L~
Kathie Hart, CMC
10
City of Palm Springs
Office of the City Clerk
5200 E. Tahyui[z Canyon \Xfay • Palm Springs, CA 92262
Tel: (760) )2:)-820-1 • Fax: (760) _)22-r:_1Y~ • TDD: (760) 864-9527 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov
September 5, 2013
Ms. Claudia Salgado
Bureau of Indian Affairs
P. 0. Box 2245
Palm Springs, CA 92263
RE:
Fax To:
Belinda Ray
(760) 416-2687
City Council Meeting- September 18, 2013
Public Hearing Notice- 3182 Las Brisas Way
Dear Ms. Salgado:
The City Council will be conducting a public hearing at 6:00p.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 3182 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
512-220-006
512-280-005
512-280-006
512-280-007
512-280-008
Allotment Number
33B,33BA,80C
105E
105E
105E
105E
Thank you for your continuous assistance and support. Please feel free to contact me if there
are any questions or concerns, 323-8206.
Sincerely,
\L~
Kathie Hart, CMC
/kdh
Encl:
Public Hearing Notices (6 copies)
Envelopes ( 10 pre-stamped)
11
Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL OF CASE 5.1285
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR A LIGHTED TENNIS COURT
3182 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 September 18, 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
3182 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 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 Council hearing. Written comments may be made to
the City Council by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to:
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
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 Edward Robertson, Principal Planner, at (760) 3238245.
Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, por favor llame a Ia Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar
con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245.
~
ames Thompson, City Clerk
12
Department of Planning Services
Vicinity Map
CASE NO:
5.1285 CUP- APPEAL
APPLICANT: Skeoch Residence
Estancias Development
L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
DESCRIPTION: Appeal of a denial decision by the
Planning Commission for a lighted tennis court located
in the Estancias Development.
L____________________________________~
13
Real Estate Development
FAR WEST INDUSTRIES
www. farwestind ustries.com
2922 Daimler St. • Santa Ana, CA 92705 • (949) 224-1970· Fax: (949) 224-1963
August 20, 2013
Planning Commission
3200 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY
PALM SPRINGS, CA g2263-2743
Re: Case no. 5.1285 Conditional Use Penmit (CUP)- Estancias- Lighted Tennis Court - 3181 Las Brisas Way
Dear Planning Commission members:
Far West Industries is hereby retracting the letter that we sent to the Planning Commission on October 24, 2012 in
which we asked that the Planning Commission place certain conditions on the proposed lighted tennis court on lot 43
in the Estancias at South Canyon Development
At this time, Far West Industries has no objection to the Approval of the installation of tennis court lights on Lot #43,
so as long as it is done in a manner that is consistent with the Palm Springs building code.
Thank you,
-.
(
~~zz_~-----------------
Brian Berkson
Project Manager
RECEIVED
AUG 2 2 2013
PLANNING SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
l4
3182 LAS BRISAS WAY. PALM SPRINGS
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF TENNIS COURT LIGHTING
RATIONALE FOR OVERTURNING PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
MARCH 20TH, 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 141h, 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 oft he 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: I 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.
Hi
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).
-I 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
4:38p.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.
16
/
,!
I
'
/
Don Skeoch
900 W. Olympic Blvd., Unit 38J
Los Angeles, CA 90015
November 3, 2012
Palm Springs Planning Commission
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
P!!!v-· .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 I", 2012 from the Estancia Homeowner's Association providing
17
Don Skeoch
November 3, 2012
Page 2
u
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,
Permission ... to allow for the construction of a 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 27 111,2012.
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
18
-
_!
Pia,~ing Commission Minutes
October 24, 2012
Calerdine, Kathy Weremiuk
ABSENT: .
3.
Chair Donenfeld
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
2:27pm.
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.
19
5
l
\
)
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 2:59pm.
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.
20
6
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2012
28. Case 5.1285 CUP- A resolution of denial for the installation of tennis court
lighting, and the approval of Case 3.3594 SFR for the construction of a new
6,283-square foot single family residence within the Estancias Development
at 3181 Las Brisas Way, Zone R-1-8, Section 35. (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 3:59pm.
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
21
,.....-------------------------------------
•
'
Planning Commission Staff Reporl
Date:
October 24, 2012
Case No.:
5.1285 CUP- Lighted Tennis Court /3.3594 SFR
Type:
Conditional Use Permit for Lighted Tennis Court I
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 0. 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.
22
October 22, 2012
Page 2 of 9
Planning Commission Staff lort
Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA
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 SETIING:
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-B I PD-262, and is within the Canyon Park Specific
Plan (SP-1A). When Preliminary PD-262 was approved, certain modifications of the R1-B Zone development standards were allowed, including a twenty-foot front yard setback 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-B Zone.
ESTANCIAS
House Site
Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA
•
October 22, 2012
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-B I 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 singlefamily homes to provide two covered parking spaces per dwelling unit. The parking
standards are met by the proposed four car enclosed garage.
Lighted Tennis Courl requires Conditional Use Permit:
Pursuant to PSZC Section 93.01.01 (A)( f), "Night lighting of tennis courls 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 Project
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 165square 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.
Planning Commission Staff l o r t
Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA
October 22, 2012
Page 4 of9
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.
10---\ -
L~~
Ort~~~
W~y
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.
October 22 , 201 2
Page 5 of9
Planning Commission Staff l o r t
Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA
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 845square foot casita is permitted . Therefore, the proposed 608-square foot casita is
consistent with the Zoning Code.
West Casita Elevation
26
Planning Commission Staff.ort
Case No. 5.1 285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA
October 22 , 2012
Page 6 of 9
~
North and South Casita Elevations
Details of the property development standards for the proposed project in relation to the
requirements of the R-1-B zone are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Development Standards (Minimums, unless otherwise statedl
R-1-B
Proposed Project
Lot Area
15,000 square feet
42,253 s_guare feet _(_mer-g_ed lots)
Lot Width
120 feet interior- 130 feet 175 feet and 122 feet (conforms)
corner
Lot Depth
122 feet (conforms)
120 feet
25 feet
25 feet (conforms)
Front Yard
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 PO 262
Estancias Develo__gment_(_conforms)
Building Coverage 35%
6.7% (conforms)
(max.)
Casita allowed
Greater than 1/50th of the 608-square foot casita (conforms)
lot requires CUP (1/50th of
42,253 =845 sf.
Covered off-street Minimum 2 car 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 (1 0) 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 wal l. Ten (1 0) total tennis court
27
•
Planning Commission Staff-ort
Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA
October 22, 2012
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.
n
J -r ~--- -:tc-+ --~--;_.,:·~---=--~-c":~-:::5-:____
M
···--·-:.:::.:....-=:==...-
.•-
1
==:"'
•
1
!I
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 finds as follows:
lort
Planning Commission Staff
Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA
a.
•
October 22, 2012
Page 8 of 9
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-B I 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
29
Case No. 5.1285 CUP & 3.3594 MAA
•
October 22, 2012
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 Ill exemption and is categorically exempt per Section 15303(a) (New Singlefamily 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.
r;dtat~~Gienn Mlaker, AICP
Assistant Planner
~:~e~~·
Principal Planner
Attachments:
- Vicinity Map
- Draft Resolution
- Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
- Reductions of site plan and elevations
- Material Board
.30
I
Lot45
I
I
I
.......
§
~~~I!
I
l •
6N
..
-
i;~ g
I
Lot 42
Lot43
I
~--·----....!...·-·-·-·-·-·-·
F ·-·-·-·)
Las 8rtsas Way
.... oo: . .o>J· ...., ~.,..r.,...... -:~~z.- ~·......-er.
::::::=~~=;.::..~•rN
,,
.......
):J .JC.b-..t-a-•!:'-1-Coo.w
""-"'"-·~M>"*'h<h~s.-..~
w
.......
,~
••
•
- ----- - ----- - ------ - ------ - ----- - ------- -
••
•
-~~"""'"
w~
... . . _ . . _ . . . .....«<iot...
w"'
••
c.
~
l:lw!<to
_._,__
.......,.._,....
·~
--~
-0101----•I,., ---·-..-------
..,,
Oo~t
s~te
54.eodl
3 1 &~ 4 3J&4l.MDt~~to~'tVI"f
f'o~b 5pn"¥, CA
121 ,, 2~-4092
..........
" _ ... oa; .. _ _ - - - -
. . . _ _ , I O • U - 70f ,.....__
I"'MCf,.,.,.,I"TllH
Co~n.oa .. "'~:""" ~le b!ll4y rc::Hikn«
nd ').Jnt ~ ~ ~ ,.f'Operty t.o be
~tnoct ...,lltt.d u,-C"iOVft. (CU,.
-Co•tnoct ~ ... _..., ,oot --' '-P...
-Co•cNCt block ..... u.. u allown
3 3 59 /,
t.
.-c,_._
~ ......e~
5 1
Pldn
I
Lot45
I
J
I
I
.........
"t
~
-.I
f
J
~s~N
al~~·1:!
l •
c5N
-
3~~;
I
- ,-,w- -
Lot43
I
~--.-.-
.....!.....-.-.-.-.-.-.F
.-.-.-·)
Las 8nsas Way
- ---- - ---- - ---- - ------ - ------ - ------
c.
--- ............... tlw>lr•
Mr
I SOUAAr.I'OOT'AGt. fAt)UlAll ~
MAIN
UVI~ G
S1te P'.an
AR.IA
"'"""""
"'" ...
(213)
J.W .. GAl'.N:iJl. NfZA.
CA51TA (;,AJ(Jt,Q.
t
STot.A.Gt:
r•OJI'CT 1:11':>00""""
~~fAT105
~t01ANICAL,
5TOIVoCl I
f'OOl. CAfH (MA.IN
ttQlr.')C)
TOTAt.~OWA
•
~n•lr!Afa
C,,.)
N
~263,
41.~1'¥ 1 4o',.,,¥
'k(.;(M'It.lr.o;t
5 12 8 5
~~~~~~
u ~h~;~;
~ ~~~~~
ifil!~H~
fW
?% 40$2
u r..,
TOTAI.LMNC AnA.
tl ~~
~ UH~
Do~~oc:.h
S 1&2 • S l&-rl LM ~•n W"f
,.,.,_.~,.CA
CA:WTA.LM N G~J..
t
3 . 3596
-
l l)
(!)
-·
I
!
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
tl
_L __........
I
t-
I
<(
-;:
<
z
0
6
IU
If)
IU
1:::
If)
~
'
~
j
.'
[~
'Q ·"'"'-'G -~
tr91 C t Z91(
Z~~Z:(CIZI
IP'G~UO(J·~
Mjft - . g H'1
cO
co
z
0
If)
9
-- <n
~ •
,...I
~I
t51
N
"-'
:I:
\
\
I
~\
~\
~~\
I
\
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
1-
.•;,.
L- - - -
I
•)
.
<:ll
~"
0::
j
~
I .
j
3
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.palmspringsca.gov
March 7, 2013
Ms. Claudia Salgado
Bureau of Indian Affairs
P_ 0. Box 2245
RE:
Fax To:
Belinda Ray
(760) 416-2687
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 6:00p.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
512-220-006
512-280-005
512-280-006
512-280-007
512-280-008
Allotment Number
33B, 33BA, 80C
105E
105E
105E
105E
Thank you for your continuous assistance and support. Please feel free to contact me if there
are any questions or concerns, 323-8206.
Sincerely,
Kathie Hart, CMC
/kdh
Encl:
Public Hearing Notices (6 copies)
Envelopes ( 10 pre-stamped)
34
Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743
,----------------------------------------------
Kathie Hart
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Glenn Mlaker
Monday, January 14, 2013 9:33AM
Kathie Hart; Craig Ewing; Edward Robertson
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
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
GlennI 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 <[email protected]> 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
From: Don Skeoch
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 9:08 PM
To: Glenn Mlaker
Cc: Don Skeoch
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 2:30PM, Glenn Mlaker <[email protected]> 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
3200 E. Tahquit2 canyon Way
2
36
760-323-8245
From: Don Skeoch
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 6:47PM
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 2:12PM, Don Skeoch <[email protected]> wrote:
Glenn-
Wednesday, Feb. 6th will be fine.
3
37
-----------------------------------------
Thank you.
-Don
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:03PM, Glenn Mlaker <[email protected]> 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 8:50PM
To: Glenn Mlaker
Cc: Don Skeoch
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
38
Thanks-
-Don
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:23PM, Glenn Mlaker <[email protected]> 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
760-323-8245
5
39
Palm Springs City Planning
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
December 10, 2012
Dear City Planning,
On November 23'd, I sent 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 16'h, 2013.
I have already asked my employer to grant me a vacation day on January 16'", 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
40
SUBMITTED BY
APPELANT
BOARD OF APPEALS-TENNIS COURT LIGHTING
3182 LAS BRISAS WAY
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
MARCH 20™, 2013
41
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPEAL
Case 5.1285
3181 Las Brisas Way
42
•
3182 LAS BRISAS WAY- TENNIS COURT LIGHTING APPEAL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1)
MARCH 2012:
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
43
•
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 e-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?
-I 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 4:38p.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.
44
HOA APPROVAL LETTER
APPEAL
Case 5.1285
3181 Las Brisas Way
45
'
"
Deetz Harrison
•
760-992-9622
p.1
"-Michael Erives, President
Darcey Deett-Harrison, Vice President
Estancias Homeowners Association
[email protected]
[email protected]
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 mv 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 Estanclas
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
standand of 3,500 square feet of covered living space and I have also been informed that 1would be
required to pay a homeowner's fee for the equivalent of two lots (2 x $150/month). 1 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. I 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 thore 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 ofthe Estancias Homeowners
Association should make the approval process go smoothly (as it did In the Alta development).
46
Deetz Harrison
p.2
760-992-9622
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 eKtend beyond my property lines.
Additionally, if there are concerns about late night tennis, I am llappy 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) Agreementthat any tennis will cease prior to 8:30p.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
Estanclas 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 much! !look forward to being a new (part time) resident of Estanclas. 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
Las Brisas Way
Dated:
--'-;2;4--=-/-~;/....:...::/.1..:....:___
President
Estandas Homeowners Association
2_ -
LJ-
l
z...
Estancias Homeowners Association
•
Oated:_-';;l._---'d-'--_-_\-''d=--~_
47
HOA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE APPROVAL
APPEAL
Case 5.1285
3181 Las Brisas Way
48
,
\....
cuSign Envelope ID: FOSEDFE3-319A-4A2A-887E-8544C9A6D1CF
ESTANCIAS AT SOUTH CANYON
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
•
c/o Allen & Associates
PO Box 2805
July 26, 2012
Via Hand Delivery
ATTN: Mr. Terry Tatum
Building & Safety Department
Palm Springs CA 92262
\,_..
•
Re:
ATTN: Craig A. Ewing, AICP,
Planning Services
Palm Springs CA 92262
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 HOA") 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,
DoeuSign.cl by:
~ l:::,w;-~-'-1.\-~
•
•hteety•Oeetz-Harrison
Vice President of the Board and Member of the Architectural Review Committee,
The Estancias at South Canyon Homeowners Association
Page 1 of 1
49
----------------
VISUAL RENDERINGS OF TENNIS
COURT LIGHTS
APPEAL
Case 5.1285
3181 Las Brisas Way
50
•
•
Ovc;y~ ~ JwYYJ r!ovnev3t6f b £vi6-d? w~ ~~ic; l6u4 ~--
---
-------
------
• •
--~
__.
_.,..-l,
''
'
•
cn l
N
'
•
•
~cio~ V~
3t~t ~ch ~Js;dS ~ TB7ni<;; rowd
•
MAP INDICATING HOMEOWNER
SUPPORT
APPEAL
Case 5.1285
3181 Las Brisas Way
54
•
•
•
•0
~1D' ~ IIOifWDn AS MniD
:':1
~-="..:'41'1?
AF1DI .......,_,..
:r:
..-...ra.!!T~ arr or ' lUI
~4/llt SID. D"'-
0
PCICIItlE!
, . G.A
........
u$1/!'f
._
A
~ff"~.:U
-...u--
fftt':lt~~rs~
DUTAalr A
.n.rt
~
..,._. II« JIIIE 1Dr -
.illaU'
,,_J;--- ------------~,
!I
" ·
lliLL fiC ~
IN K
~a:;~~
}I
~--.e!P.'-:r~1~~~
1
rJQI·~rv ~
~IOC.....
I'
., ""
'-----------------------
,
J
I
•"
or Hr JDilt' " ' f11t: cuu •r A
lbt/AlD
~ ~L.s.414111
-HI>=
H D - IRL IC
~s. ~Ut.e:.'S'
CJIIlY:
I:"~' J
:sa-
IHL3:t
&e.'S
"'* , ,.:c.s 1Xlr MUr
... ~ QIID1ftl: N<>Jill
f J
aDCAliS ~MD. 1"01 IH~
rJ
.HI::A~ .III(C:QIIO
CMJA ""'
~
~ ~
H»C:.4tc: ACOtP MtA I"'f
m,O.:•
g·
9
•
-
-
...
..
"
H
•
•
•
3182 Las Brisas Way Tennis Court Lighting
Support by Homeowners in the Development
LOT#
Res~onded?
Su~~ort
6 Scott Lissoy (Far West)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Those in Favor:
31
97%
Yes
Yes
Those Opposed:
!
Yes
Yes
TOTAL
3%
100%
12 Jo hn Zernikow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
14 Scott Lissoy (Far West )
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Name
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
25 John H.
Yes
Yes
26 Mary Anne Fenniak
Yes
Yes
Yes
Awaiting Letter
28 Mario
CJ'1
a>
& Laura O'Kane
16 Michele McKee
in Writing
& Cindy Berardi
29 Sue Casagrande
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
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
4 1 Scott Semar
Yes
Yes
42 Don Skeoch
Yes
Yes
43 Don Skeoch
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
45 Gerard
& Janet Biegel
& Neala Mirand
47 Alex & Neala M irand
Yes
Yes
46 Alex
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Homeowners
Percent
Re s~ond ing
Res~ond i ng
32
HOMEOWNER LETTERS OF
SUPPORT
APPEAL
Case 5.1285
3181 Las Brisas Way
57
•
Scott Semar
3645 Vantage Lane
Glenview, lllinois 60026
lof 41
L~&x+ dtz?J
gLoH ~rh_:Mr
November 26, 2012
To Whom it May Concern,
Ivfy neighbor) Don Skeoch, is requesting the approval oftcnni~-: court lighting at his residence in
the E~tancias development ofl'alm Springs. I mn the homeowner of the lot located at 3206 Las
13risas Way, Palm Springs, immediately adjacent to Don's lot.
Jam vvriting to support his rcquesi for appruva] of tennis court lighting.
He has agreed to limit the usc of the lighting ill I 0:00p.m. each day. I Jc has also agreed to
ensure that the tennis court lights arc installed in a manner that is consistent with Palm Spring's
building code.
•
•
Therefore, l would like to strongly endorse the approval of tennis court lighting under these
conditions .
58
Gmail - Skeoch Tennis Court Lighting/Estancias
Michael Brown< [email protected]>
To: Don Skeoch <[email protected]>
Page 1 of 1
Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:13AM
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 "light 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
•
59
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=617876884e&view=pt&search=inbox&th= 13d3 b8b... 3/5/2013
•
~a/- !4
(p f ~~l J~
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 3:01AM
nA._ _ _1 ' .
To: Darcey Deetz
';?1T ~
Cc: Michele McKee; Mario & Cmdy; michael erives; Sue Casagrande; [email protected]; Alex
Mirand
~l VJ ~.2Vndf
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
•
60
Lot 11
•
From: Sue Casagrande [mailto:[email protected])
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:58 PM
s[;te~~ Vd,rJe
To: Darcey Deetz
Cc: Michele McKee; Mario & Cindy; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Alex Mirand
Subject: Re: FW: Estancia Tennis Court Lighting
5
I give my approval for the tennis court lighting.
Sue Casagrande
•
61
. Lc+ ~~
•
D•=Y DeeU
313 PM (22 ho"ffi •go)
1o J"dy, M"io, mich'''·"''"'· 5"', judy,
lk11= J~4uj
kpb,nett, Alex);- i ~h fuVV/ '£/,
To all Architectural Committee and HOA 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
M 760.808.14491 T 760.537.29141 F 760.537.2914
[email protected]
•
62
lck 4&~4~
•
•rom• ME< MmAJ<O [m,ll<o"mlmrnl@m'".rom]
l :&h
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:28AM
A ~
To: Darcey Deetz; judy [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Estancia Tennis Court Lighting
1
f_\t,e
jh j
S1
michael.erives@yahoo.~;.
~ •flUIok)
~~
t;;
I v;;;;t-/J
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
•
63
•
John Pavelak 10:33 AM (9 hours ago)
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
•
•
64
Lei 2t
•
~~?vy Ahrn-knnt.;k
Mary Anne Fenniak 1:51 PM (5 hours ago)
to me
All things considered, I would be in favor of the lighting .
•
65
¥'
•
FAR WEST INDUSTRIES
2922 Daimler St.
October 24,2012
Planning Commission
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' tall 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.
2.
The block wall be built with natural earth tones.
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
,/C//;?~7
v~ /7f-<t?/2._
~ ~~/JAl-66
•
ESTANCI
••
..,..
-sew.:.r
=
•
-
Water
6"curb
6?
•
On Wed, Uoc 12, 2012 "4•59 PM, 1llie< llioll"1 <gj
Don:
(L~4t;
·.
bicgd@,dn<;>olaJ~ +~. kh (vJ
W' (
h1tl
I/O~J
Just wanted to add our support to your new home in our community. £we are located directly
behind the proposed te1mis 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
~.:~'"be
4€191~ iJ)Vet ~ i~61
Gerard & Janet Biegel
•
•
-68
PALM SPRINGS TENNIS COURT
LIGHTING CODE
APPEAL
Case 5.1285
3181 Las Brisas Way
6:9
Page 1 of2
13.0~1 Tennis courts.
~lm Springs Municipal Code
Pre~ious
!!P
[iext
Main
~arch
frint
No Frames
ZONING CODE
~pter 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:
l.
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.
c.
The height of any tennis court fence shall not exceed ten (1 0) 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.
•
2.
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)(l)(a)
through (A)(l)(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
offive (5) light standards (fixtures) shall be permitted on each side of the court. The light fixture height'shall be
measured from natural grade.
u.
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.
m.
Quartz light shall be prohibited.
iv.
Lighting shall not be greater than four hundred (400) watts per fixture .
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 (1 0) 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
application shall be filed .
.tp://www .qcode. us/codes/palmsprings/view.php ?topic=zoning_ code-93 _ 00-93_ 0 1_ 01 &frames=on
70
1123/2012
----------------------------------------
To The Palm Springs City Council,
z: 33
In reference to: The appeal for the conditional use permit in EstRilldias ~3 Pi;
lighted tennis court3181 Las Brisas Way
~' , , . ·.
CIT...,. 8\
~"
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. I 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."
71
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,I).
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 vety 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 vety
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 worty is the noise that would occur with
night tennis playing. Tennis courts are vety 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
-n
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.
Jessica Norte and Vincent Norte
73
e x~, 'o . \- ~
l
CASE#
TYPE
~ ~HSPB
I'APP DATE
l --------------1 ~
112/2/2008
TIM 30050, 3.31 14 MAJ
---------------------------------
PROJECT NAME:
' ALTA
DESCRIPTION
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 .
) OTHER APN2:
ADDRESSNO
0293
I
lZONE
IR1B
IRELATED CASES2
RELATED CASES
5.0899 PO 271
r-5.0~8~99----"""IPD 271 AMND
jSECTION ' jTOWNSHIP rGE
p5
4
,,GEN PLAN
ER
14
OWNER, LESSEE, AGENT: !APPLAST
Owner
ADDRESS
I~LA~U~T~NE~R~LA~N~E~----------------------------
~~~P~LA_N_N~E-R~~----·rD-A_T_E_A_S"":"S~IG~N~E~D~:~rE'='N~G~I~N~EE~R_: _ __
~Planning Services
APPFIRST
12/3/2008 Rick Minjares
!'C_O_M_P_AN
_Y
---------------,
Zolezzi
iBasellnvestors, Inc.
IAPPSTATE
rPPADDRESS
Planning
i;;(A~P;;;;PE;;;;M;;;;;;;;
AIL;;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;=
[email protected]
(APPCELL:
I
IIPHONE1 :
(760)776-5031
: IADDRESS2
__j ICITY ST ZIP2
ISPONSOR2
: IPHONE2:
~=~=~~~
~~~
Benjamin Herbst,
P.O. Box 2618, 902 BayMcCall, ID 83638
(866)862-8148
Engineer
colt Way
.......
~DDRESS3
=:J
....,_I~I
ISPONSOR5
ADDRESS4
I ;ADDRESS5
j CiTY ST ZIP4
I
J
==;;;;;;;;;;;;;;!I
I
I
----,1
1P_R.;.O_P,;;.ER_T_Y_TY
,...
__P.;.E_____• 1r.DN~P.;.U.;..
: _________ JPROJECT/DPU STATUS
10
1oRCA:
1
I ==='
[email protected]
FAX4:
jEMAIL4:
FAX5:
I EMAIL5:
r-=1=~ r--==~
Received
_AA
_C
_:_ _ ____, HSPB1:
j12122108
r.-lE_M~AI"":"L3_:~""'="'~....;;;:J
;;;
~.;.....;.....;....;..;..;,;;...~r
~Complete
ORCA SECTIONS: ORCA STATUS
INo
summit@parkplacemcca
II. com
,.-----
PHONE4:
I .-,
C-ITY
- ST
- Z- IP
- 5--,IJ,PH
_O_N-E5
-:
r====o;; ~I
~Residential
(208)630-5079
,_fP~H~O~N~E3~:~~- ~jF=AX=3=:
[sPONSOR3
r-C-ITY_s_T_z_IP_3_ _
,_B_e_n-ne_t_tP""u-te-r-ba_u_g_h_
, -~P..----------;;;;;;iiiiiiiiiii;;;,;
(760)320-5103
Landscape
jSPONSOR4
IEMAIL2:
j No
HEARING DATE:
103/11/09 - PC
.-----------;
CITY COUNCIL:
~0-11~28~1~
09~.~
o3~/11~to~9,.~.1 No
1
l
DPUIHSPB UPDATE:
ALTA- For architectural approval of an approximate 1720 sq. ft. guesthouse addition and tennis cou rt 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
1
ADD-ONS:
c.. up u.)O.. s <j.,..
~~~ t~~-
(\.<y
7 4-
e>'£l,..b,+ 6
I
OV\.
I ,
p"-Y- 3
I
C)
ALTA
()
Design Guid40'1ines
For Architectural and Landscaping Control
March I , 2005
i
~
\/
75
1
l
{
\
)
()
2.
Driveways. Driveways must be placed to minimize their visual impru:t
and street scene disruption.
3.
Driveway Clearance. Driveways that approru:h 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 pewendicular to the
curb.
5.
2]
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.
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.
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.
6:\
\:!;_}
76
( .)
" ·-·
Guidelines, and the Development Restrictions. Lighted tennis and sport
courts will not be allowed.
•'
(J
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 sate11ite 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.
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.
1)
2)
3)
H
The maximum height of the pilasters shall not exceed six
(6) feet.
The m1=1ximnm £1'1te height ~hall not exceed seven (7) feet.
The gate shall be properly engineered using footings and I
or retaining walls to anchor the gate.
\tV
77
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS"
T~l8"'-L PL.o!o.NN>NG
Be
OE.VE~o.OPME.NT
November 26, 2012
Jessica Norte
3195 Las Brisas Way
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 permits 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.
~PJ--
Margaret E. Park, AICP
Director of Planning & Natural Resources
AGUA CALIENTE BAND
OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
MP!dm
T
5401
DINAH
760,699
6800
SHORE
DRIVE.
F
899t6B23
750
PALM
SPRINGS,
CA
92264
WWW.I\GUA.Co\LIENTE-NSN
GOV
78
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 lot/homeowners, 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.
Tha~k you,.~
L~vvZ-\~~
Chad Parsons
Estancias at South Canyon Lot #1
623 Milagro Place
79
November 29, 2012
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.
80
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
Iff
508 Bella Cara Way
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,
Brian Nolan
Art Cook
82
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.
83
March 13, 2013
Dear City Council,
I am against any tennis court lighting being installed in Estancias. When I purchased my home in 2008 I
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,
Dave Wagner (lot 2)
665 Milagro Place
84
MAR. 13. 2013 4:47PM
FAR WEST INDUSTRIES
2013 :·'''1'.,
'".d.
,)
r;•· C:
( L D
FAR WEST INDUSTRIES
2922 Daimler Street •
Sa~ta C~..h~, ,~~
NO. 3644
P. 2
08
Real Estate Development
www.farwestindustrie5.com
92705 • (949) 224-1970• Fax: (949) 224-1963
March 13,2013
VUl Facsimile
James Thompson
Palm Springs City Clerk
3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way
Fax: (760) 322-8332
Re:
Public Hearing before the City Council, March 20, 2013
Appeal ofCase 5.1285- Conditional Use Permit Application for a
Lighted Tennis Court in the Esttmcill$ J)evelopment;
3181 Las Brisas Way,PalmSprings, C4
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This letter shall serve as our objection to the installation of lights for a tennis court currently planned by
Donald Skeoch, owner of the above-referenced property (the "Skeoch Lots"). Our company, Far West
Industries, owns I2 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 1o the Skeoch Lots and another lot, Lot II, 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 ofEstancias being a ~dark" community. As you know, many residents ofPalm 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.
V e.ry truly yours,
Brian Berkson
Project Manager
G:\Eslancios- Palm Sprin;!\03-13-2013 Llr1<1 City Rc Case 5.1285.doc
85
5/8/13
2D13iii.Y-9 PH 2=38
C'
I
•
'~·
>•
: ',
I~
•
In reference: Appeal of Planning Commission.r~iJ~b~:ibh.bn lighted tennis court in
Estancia at South Palm Canyon.
I am sorry I will not be able to attend the meeting on May 15, 2013. I have to be in
Washington DC for work. I previously wrote letters and gave supporting documents
against the lighted tennis courts in Estancia for the March 20, 2013 meeting where a
continuation was granted to Mr. Skeoch. My views and opinions are still the same
and I strongly disagree with granting a conditional use permit for 3182/3181 Las
Brisas Way.
I live directly across the street from the tennis court property. I purchased my home
when it was zoned for 48 individual single-family residences, this change will
completely alter my enjoyment in the community. It also will have many negative
effects from noise issues to disturbing the beautiful night skies. Also subsequently
as people are moving into these newly finished homes the opposition will only
escalate. I had gone into greater detail in my previous letters, so I will just simply
state please uphold the denial for a CUP in Estancias for tennis court lighting.
Thank you,
J>-~ fl.-vb_
jessica Norte and Family
86
September 9, 2013
2C!I:J~:·,
I 0 PH 2: 19
In reference: September 18,2013 City Council Meeting. Conditional use permit for a
lighted tennis court at 3182 Las Brisas Way
::1 T · · '
I have previously sent letters objecting to the conditional use permit being granted. I
just want to go on record once again stating I am strongly against the tennis court
lighting. The canyon areas are an area like no other and should remain in its natural
setting. Tennis court lighting will change this beautiful area of town in a negative way.
To allow this type of lighting will hinder resident's night sky views and disrupt the quiet
area that makes the Canyon area special.
Vincent Gonzales Jr.
835 Dogwood Circle
87
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
"Dave Gmail" <[email protected]>
Hearing
September 7, 2013 3:38:15 PM PDT
"Jessica Norte" <[email protected]>
2D 13 ~a I Q i<1 ?: I 9
.,.. '
,-'
~·
::
:•
To whom it may concern,
As a resident of Estancias we owners purchased in the far south end because of the quiet rural dark
setting. We purchased homes or land with the understanding that this neighborhood was being developed
with 48 single family homes with no club house or other facilities. Having tennis courts in the
neighborhood is not desirable and lighting would completely change both our environment and resale
options. Although most of the residents have come to terms with the tennis courts, allowing lighting would
present both a living and financial hardship for the rest of the neighbors.
Sincerely,
Dave Wagner
665 Milagro Place
88
September 10, 2013
In reference: The appeal for the conditional use permit in Estancia- lighted tennis court
at 3182 Las Brisas Way
My name is Jessica Norte and I am writing to you once again on behalf of my husband,
my children, and myself.
I have written several letters previously on my objection to the tennis court lighting. This
issue is very personal to me because my home is directly across the street from the
accessory lot. I purchase my home when it was zoned and it is still zoned for 48
individual single-family residences. Mr. Skeoch merged his two lots and put in a tennis
court in Estancia at South Palm Canyon. I was not happy about this but figured I could
live with the tennis court. What I cannot live with is the lighted tennis court.
Lighted tennis courts are not the norm in this side of town and it would definitely not
blend in with this neighborhood. The individual owned tennis courts in the surrounding
communities do not have tennis court lighting at all. The reason I am sure is because, it
goes against the natural landscape and beauty of the Indian Canyon neighborhoods.
People move to this area so they can look at the stars and go outside and enjoy the
peace and quiet from their backyard.
Also, there is a definite financial loss to me if I ever have to sale my home. My home
being directly across the street from lighted tennis courts will harm my property resale
value. No one wants to buy a home across the street from tennis court lighting. Where
tennis games could go on at night hours, with no way to enforce a time regulation. Also
no matter how great the intention of an individual may be, the CUP goes with the
property and once the lighting goes in, it is in. It also will cause a hardship on my
children. My kids have an 8 pm bedtime, how will they be able to sleep with tennis ball
echoes occurring while they are trying to go to sleep for school the next day. I have
gone into greater details in my previous letters, but would like to leave you with a simple
please uphold the denial for a CUP in Estancia for the tennis court lighting.
Thank you,
Jessica and Vincent Norte
3195 Las Brisas way
C":i
---'
-; ..
89

city council staff report

Transcription

Similar documents

How to Get Tennis Channel Everywhere for Desktop

How to Get Tennis Channel Everywhere for Roku

at David Lloyd Leisure

Court Opening Press Event- PDF Flyer

here - Ruttgers Bay Lake Lodge

GAYLAN`S LUNAR ECLIPSE 6/23/97 – 6/22/09

Issue 91 November 2014, Pages 1-4

Expo_AU_Open_Infographic

Hello everybody. On behalf of the committee I would like to wish

rush-copley - Plainfield SD 202