HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution _6273- Case 3.854 MAARESOLUTION NO.6273
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING CASE NO. 3.854 — MAA TO ALLOW A
REMODEL AND NEW 746-SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO
A HILLSIDE LOT LOCATED AT 1843 LEONARD ROAD,
ZONE R-1-A, SECTION 3.
WHEREAS, Phil Lumpkin and Bill Tedford ("Applicant") has filed an application with the
City pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a remodel and
construction of a 746-square foot master bedroom suite, and a 78-square foot den
addition located at 1843 Leonard Road, Zone R-1-A, Section 3; and
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2012, the Architectural Advisory Committee met and voted to
recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2012, a public meeting on the application for architectural
approval was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and has been determined to be
Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (single-family residence) pursuant to
Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the
evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not
limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines,
the proposed project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303(a) (New Single-
family residence).
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, the
Planning Commission finds:
1. Site layout, orientation, location of structures and relationship to one another and
to open spaces and topography. Definition of pedestrian and vehicular areas,
i.e., sidewalks as distinct from parking areas,
The location of the proposed 746-square foot room addition at the southwest corner
of the existing house will maintain the same orientation, relationship and site layout
as existing house. The revised site plan will correct an assumed property
encroachment condition and building setback issue. The proposed project is
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6273
Case 3.854 MAA
June 13, 2012
Page 2 of 3
designed according to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and within the
development standards of the City of Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC).
Code (PSZC).
2. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and
in the context of the immediate neighborhood community, avoiding both
excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if
warranted,
The surrounding properties are developed with single-family residences. The
demolition and construction of a new master bedroom addition in a similar style and
design as the original home will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The new addition will conform to all required rear and side yard setbacks.
3. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings,
AND
4. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure,
including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously,
AND
5. Consistency of composition and treatment, 0
The remodel and design of the addition to the existing house will utilize aluminum
frame doors and windows; exterior walls painted a light gray color consistent through
out the exterior will blend in with the desert surroundings. The elevation of the new
addition will be similar in roof style, window sizes, and exterior materials as the
existing home.
6. Consistency of composition and treatment;
The building is consistent in style, colors and design features to other single-family
residences in the Little Tuscany neighborhood.
7. Location and type of planting, with regard for desert climate conditions.
Preservation of specimen and landmark trees upon a site, with proper
irrigation to insure maintenance of all plant materials,
The existing parcel is heavily landscaped with mature trees, shrubs and ground
vegetation to remain. The proposal to remove the existing pool to be replaced with
future landscaping and other hardscape improvements will meet this finding.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6273
Case 3.854 MAA
June 13, 2012
Page 3 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning
Commission hereby approves Case No. 3.854 MAA, subject to the conditions of
approval attached herein as Exhibit A.
ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2012.
AYES: 5, Roberts, Munger, Klatchko, Calerdine and Chair Donenfeld
NOES: None
ABSENT: 1, Conrad
ABSTAIN: 1, Vice Chair Hudson
ATTEST:
r ' A, in CP
Dir or of PI g Services
G
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
EXHIBIT A 0
RESOLUTION NO. 6273
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO.3.854 MAA
1843 LEONARD ROAD
JUNE 13, 2012
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning Services, the Chief of Police,
the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the
condition.
Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
ADMINISTRATIVE
1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations
of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes,
ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations.
2. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul,
an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or
administrative officers concerning Case No. 3.854 MAA of Palm Springs will promptly
notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm
Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the
City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by
the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of
any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless
the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to
settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the
City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or
abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause
a waiver of the indemnification rights herein.
0
GENERAL CONDITIONS/CODE REQUIREMENTS
3. Commencement of use or construction under this Architectural Approval shall be
within two (2) years from the effective date of approval. Extensions of time may be
granted by the Planning Commission upon demonstration of good cause.
4. The appeal period for a Major Architectural Application is 15 calendar days from the
date of project approval. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period has
concluded.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Prior to any construction on -site, all appropriate permits must be secured.
END OF CONDITIONS
N
N
RESOLUTION NO.6272
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING CASE NO. 5.0845-PDD 262-AMEND,
AN AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR
FIFTEEN VACANT LOTS WITHIN THE ESTANCIA
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 500 ACANTO WAY.
WHEREAS, Far West Industries ("Applicant") has filed an application to amend the
Final Development Plans of PD 262, Case No. 5.0845, involving modifications to the
designs and architecture of single-family residences located within the Estancia
development located at 500 Acanto Way, Zone R-1-13 1 PDD 262, Section 35; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 94.03.00(G) of the Zoning Code, the Planning
Commission may approve minor architectural or site changes that do not affect the
intent of the PD; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2012, a public meeting on Case No. 5.0845 PDD 262 AMEND
was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
the proposed amendment has been determined to be a project subject to
environmental analysis under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the
evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not
limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was previously adopted by the
City Council on October 4, 2000 for the Estancia development. Pursuant
to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Act (CEQA), the
preparation of additional environmental documentation is not necessary
because the proposed amendment will not change the circumstances
related to the project. Furthermore, the amendment will not result in any
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects. Therefore, the proposed
amendment could not result in any new environmental impacts beyond
those already assessed in the previously adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6272
Case No. 5.0846 PD 262 -- AMEND
May 23, 2012
Page 2 of 2
Section 2: The use and density of the subject property remains the same and are not
affected by the proposed changes. The architecture will consist of non -
discrete shapes and forms. Custom colors and materials will be selected
for each home. All homes will have a three car garage 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning
Commission hereby approves Case No. 5.0845 PD❑ 262 — AMEND, subject to all
Conditions set forth in Exhibit A of City Council Resolution 19917, and the following:
1. The rear yard wall 1 fence on Lot Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 is permitted at six feet in
height as a combination of three foot block and three foot wrought iron.
2. Plan 3A shall not be constructed on Lot Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 15.
3. Prior to issuance of Building Permit for Lot Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20, the applicant
shall submit a conceptual landscape plan for the rear yards of Lot Nos. 17, 18,
19 and 20.
4. Prior to final occupancy of Lot Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20, the rear yard landscape
shall be installed per the approved plan.
ADOPTED this 23'd day of May 2012.
AYES: 6, Calerdine, Munger, Conrad, Klatchko, Hudson and Chair Donenfeld
NOES: 1, Roberts
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
A wing CP
Di or of Pla ni g Services
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
E0,
Es
RESOLUTION NO.6271
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR
OF PLANNING SERVICES AND DENYING AN
APPEAL BY MARY ESPER TO RE -ROOF FLAT
PORTIONS OF HER RESIDENCE A TAN COLOR
AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED 1855 WEST
CRESTVIEW DRIVE, APN 513-363-038.
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2012, the Planning Director approved a re -roof of the
flat portions of the roof of a single-family residence located at 1855 West
Crestview Drive, and required the roof color to be tan; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2012, the property owner, Mary Esper, filed an appeal
request of the Planning Director's decision; and
WHEREAS, Sections 94.04.00(E)(2)(b) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code allows
decisions by the Director of Planning Services to be appealed to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public
review of the appeal request, including all of the evidence presented in
connection with the matter, including, but not limited to, the staff report prepared
on the matter, and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That the decision by the Director of Planning Services to require a
tan re -roof was justified based on the following:
1. Staffs decision to require a tan roof color was based on the
guidelines of Section 94.04.00 "Architectural Review" of the Zoning
Code; specifically, subsection (D)(4) states, "Building design,
materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings."
A white color roof is too reflective and not sympathetic with the
desert surroundings.
2. The Planning Commission's direction has more recently been to
require tan or beige roofs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the
Planning Commission hereby rejects the appeal and upholds the decision of the
Director of Planning Services for the re -roof to an off-white color at the property
located at 1855 West Crestview Drive.
ADOPTED this 23'd day of May 2012.
AYES: 7, Conrad, Roberts, Munger, Klatchko, Calerdine, Hudson and
Chair Donenfeid
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
ig ing, #PP
Director of Planning Services
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
x