Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/18/2007 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.B. Jay Thompson From: Craig Ewing Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:14 AM To: Daniel in the Desert Cc: Edward Robertson; TOm.Wllson@palmsprings-ca.gov, Chris Mills; David Ready; Ginny Foat, Jay Thompson; Martha Edgmon; Michael McCulloch; Ron Oden; Steve Pougnet; Bill Scott (SCOT7INPS@aol.com); Dianne Marantz; drracer@aol.com; Jon Caffery jon@firstprioritymortgage.corn)I Leo Cohen (ps4leo@aol.com); Rick Hutcheson (rick@vacationpalmsprings.com); Toni Ringlein (tringlein@earthlink.net); Christopher Sahlin (chris@chrissahlin.com); Donald Wexler(wexlerdon@aol.com); Douglas Hudson (doughud@aol.com), James Cioffi; Jeffrey@)jandadesign.com; Lance O'Donnell (Dearth@aol.com); Michael King (mking@soaltd.com); paul@desertgardencenter.com Subject: Stephen Van's Hillside Project-350 El Portal - Response to Neighbor's Questions Daniel, In response to your question: 1. You mentioned that we should contact Edward Robertson to find out what is happening with Mr. Van's plans. May l assume he might be able to give us more advance notice about an AAC hearing than the l+riday before the hearing? A. The reason we do not provide mailed notice of AAC meetings is that the Architectural Advisory Committee's purpose is to provide expert advice to the Planning Commission,not process public testimony—that is the Planning Commission's job. The AAC has no decision-making power,but only recommends to the Commission or staff based on its members' expertise as architects and designers. The AAC meetings are open to the public, but it does not open "hearings"on each item. It receives public comment at the beginning of its meetings, as required by State law. Conversely, it very much is the Planning Commission's role to receive public testimony and consider it with other facts—applicant's project description, staffs report,the AAC's recommendation, etc. —before making a decision. The Commission's decision-making power over hillside homes has been delegated to it by the City Council, and the Council did not give this power to the AAC or staff. Notice of the Planning Commission heanng will be mailed ten clays or more in advance of its meeting. Edward Robertson will know in advance on which AAC meeting Mr, Van's project is scheduled. The AAC agendas are not finalized until the week before—often on Friday. Still,he will be your best resource for the status of Mr. Van's project and can fill you in on the latest review schedule. Edward just reported to me that Mr. Van will host a neighborhood meeting on his project in the near future, with advance notice being provided to surrounding properties—this was at the direction of the City Council on July 25`I'. We have suggested to Mr. Van that he provide notice to properties within 400 feet of his site,but that decision is entirely at his discretion Keep on the lookout for Mr. Van's notice. 1 hope this information is helpful. Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive Palm Springs,CA 92262 760-323-8245 From: Daniel in the Desert [mailtc:danielitd@earthlink.net•] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:30 AM To: Craig Ewing Subject: thanks and one more quick question 8/16/2007 Hello Craig, Thank you very much for your quick and comprehensive response. I really appreciate you taking the time to get back to me. Not enough advance notice for AAC activity. 1 am certainly not blaming you for this but it does not seem fair that the schedule for AAC meetings is not made public until the Friday before the meeting which occurs the following Monday. That hardly gives our neighborhood sufficient time to study the plans and make the decision it it's necessary to show up at the AAC hearing in opposition. You mentioned that we should contact Edward Robertson to find out what is happening with Mr. Van's plans. May 1 assume he might be able to give us more advance notice about an AAC hearing than the Friday before the hearing? Thanks again Craig, Daniel PS —The "Mr. Hogan" stuff is polite but please call me "Daniel". At 09:03 .AM 8/15/2007 -0700, you wrote: Mr. Hogan, Thanks for your e-mail. I am providing responses to your questions below: 1. 1 would like to know if Mr. Van has resubmitted plans for 350 W. El Portal. if so, do you know when it would be on the AAC schedule? A. No plans have been submitted at this time. 2. If not, are you or your staff aware of Mr. Vans intentions regarding a time line? In other words, any idea what will happen next and when it will happen? A. We have not had any meetings with Mr. Van of late; however,there have been some telephone conversations. We have made it clear to him that be must male some changes to his plans before we will restart the process. We will not accept a resubmission of the same plans. 3. And perhaps most important, would we as an abutting neighbor be notified before the AAC meeting? A. Notice is not provided of AAC meetings, only the Planning Commission and City Council. However,the meetings are scheduled Aug. 20, Sept. 10 and 24, Oct. 8 and 22,Nov. 13 and 26, and Dec. 10 for the rest of this year. You may contact the planning department the Friday before each meeting and obtain a copy of the agenda or call Edward Robertson (323-8245)to find out the latest on Mr. Van's project. 4. 1 am also very interested in the results of a closed session between the AAC and Planning Commission where one of the topics involved determining what qualifies as a hillside lot. I noticed this item on the city web site but do not see anyplace where one can view the minutes. 1 made the assumption that closed sessioumcans the public is not invited. Is that correct? A. The meeting you are referring to was not a closed session—the Commission may not conduct closed sessions. It was a Study Session, which the Commission holds on the first Tucsday of each month. They are open to the public. The purpose of study sessions is to explore issues related to planning;however,no specific 8/16/2007 development projects are discussed and no decisions arc made. The study session in August was unusual in that it included the AAC—they do that about twice a year. 5. Are you aware of how 1 might obtain the minutes from that closed session or can you or- someone on your staff inform me as to the outcome of the meeting specifically regarding the hillside lot issue. A. I was on vacation during that session, so was not in attendance. I believe they dtrcctcd staff to include in our pending update of the zoning code a clarification of the definition of a hillside lot. Minutes should be available late next week. Plcasc call Tent Hintz at 323-8245 —she prepares the minutes and will have a better idea of when thcy'tl be available. I hope this information is helpful. Let me know rf you have other questions. Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-323-8245 From: Daniel in the Desert [mailto:danielitd@earthlink_neL] Sent. Wednesday, August 15, 2007 7:56 AM To: Craig,Ewing@palmsprings-ca.gov Subject: Two questions from the Mesa Hello Craig, I trust this rinds you doing well. I am Daniel Hogan. You may remember me as one of the Mesa neighbors in opposition to Mr. Vans proposed development at 350 W. El Portal. I'm sure you are busy but I have a few questions. I thought email might be the best way to accomplish this giving you the opportunity to respond as your schedule allows. This is not high priority unless Mr. Van has resubmitted plans. I would like to know if Mr. Van has resubmitted plans for 350 W. El Portal. If so, do you know when it would be on the AAC schedule? If not, are you or your staff aware of Mr. Vans intentions regarding a time line? In other words, any idea what will happen next and when it will happen? And perhaps most important, would we as an abutting neighbor be notified before the AAC meeting? I am also very interested in the results of a closed session between the AAC and Planning Commission where one of the topics involved determining what qualifies as a hillside lot. I noticed this item on the city web site but do not see anyplace where one can view the minutes. I made the assumption that closed sessionmeans the public is not invited. Is that correct? Are you aware of how I might obtain the minutes from that closed session or can you or someone on your staff inform me as to the outcome of the meeting specifically regarding the hillside lot issue. Thank you in advance for any time you spend answering this. Email, phone or if you would like 8/16/2007 me to drop by,just let me know. What ever is easiest for you Craig. Tale care, Daniel Daniel Hogan Computer Tutor 760.320.7960 www.danielhogan.com 8/16/2007 y REQUESTING YOUR V'1;Il1TION OF SUPPORT. It is unfortunate that the bias voice of a select few is the only one being heard by the City of Palm Springs: The plans for a multi-million dollar 2-Story Tuscan estate has been in a prolonged stalemate due to the contention it is an invasion of privacy of a select few. Considering the eclectic landscape and diversity of homes scaling the hillside and overlooking other properties, this is an illogical and discriminatory claim. The development of this residence has an enormous potential to increase the property values of the Mesa and the surrounding area. Considering the present condition of the vacant property (adjacent to 356 El Portal), the estate will only bring beauty and value to the entire neighborhood. Your support is needed to approve the development of this residence that has exceeded every requirement to meet the Palm Springs Municipal Codes. ADDRESS J i,kAjE 4GNAflj1 - DATE a/Y- 1 Y/-r/- 4:7 -7 3. _ �S, �- I � � a .f ls�� 4 G' nJ ELt� r � 5 s &2-FA L AE rat 9 U Qt-5 b 10 �6 L" 6 ILA - �5-- 07- 12 13 f 7 9£ Sc bE £E z£ I OE 6z 8z LZ 9Z SZ tz Ez zz IZ �r r ` ' 1 � ��� OZ 61 1 8 I LI r b l BSW LITERARY AGENCY INC. 303 CRESTVIEW OF7VE;=?AL d;5FRINGS, CA 92264 2��3@0-6$� FAX(7660)320-6842 �. .. Xj i16,, ' 2007 Mr. Names Thompson City Clerk 3200 E . Tahquitz Canyon Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re : Case 3 . 299 SFR and 7 . 127.5 Dear Mr Thompson: a . unable to attend the Juiy 18th meeting of the City Council, at which the building plans of the property located at 350 E1 Portal Road will be on the agenda, and T therefore request- that this letter be read into the record. I have resided at 323 W. Overlook Road since 1963 , and have much enjoyed the serenity of thee neighborhood, in contrast to the more urbane parts of Palm Springs _ it isn' t- surprising that I find the plans proposed by the present owner of the abovementioned property to be grossly inappropriate, disruptive, and an intrusion on the privacy of me and my neighbors . Moreover, I find it deeply disturbing that the applicant agreed when asked by the Architectural Advisory Committee, at the March 28th meeting, to revise his original proposal, but instead presented the same proposal at the Planning Commission' s May 23rd meeting, which was turned down unanimouly. Now he is appealing that decision. Such arbitrary and uncooperative actions can only be interpreted as an insult not only to concerned residents, but to the City of Palm Springs as _ well, and anv accommodation made to further the applicant ' s present proposal will, I Fear, set a dangerous precedent . Sincerely, Suzanne Stein c : Sohn Harrell �i77onl,��. �FALM SA c u v * M -0`'FOR` CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 18, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: AN APPEAL BY STEVEN VAN, OWNER, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF MAY 23, 2007 DENYING CASE NO. 32999 SFR / CASE NO. 7.1216 AMM AN APPLICATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A TWO STORY HILLSIDE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 350 EL PORTAL. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: The Planning Department SUMMARY The City Council will consider an appeal by Steven Van requesting that the Council reverse the Planning Commission's action to deny Case No. 3.2999 SFR / 7.1215 AMM to construct a new home at 350 El Portal. A hearing has been noticed on this item. RECOMMENDATION,- 1 Adopt RESOLUTION NO. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL BY STEVEN VAN AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CASE NOS. 3.2999 SFR AND 7.1215 AMM". BACKGROUND On December 21, 2006 the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the project and voted 6-0-1 (Donald Wexler was absent) to recommend approval to the Planning Commission. On February 14, 2007 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on and voted to continue the item to the February 28, 2007 meeting. On February 28, 2007 the Planning Commission held a second Public Hearing and voted to refer the project back to the Architectural Committee to review building height, roof lines, ridge lines, window locations and consideration of the project architecture and ITEM NO. I� City Council Staff Report July 18, 2007 Case 3.2999 and 7.1215 Page 2 of 4 its fit into the neighborhood character. The Commission continued its hearing on the project to March 28, 2007 to allow for the AAC review. On March 26, 2007 the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the project based on the Planning Commission's direction. The Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) asked the applicant to consider a redesign of the second story and the applicant agreed. On March 28, 2007 Planning Commission held a third public hearing, wherein staff, based on the recommendation of the Architectural Advisory Committee and the agreement of the applicant, moved to continue the item to an indefinite date, to allow redesign the proposed project. Subsequently the applicant asked staff to seek AAC review of the original project, with no revisions. Staff declined to return to AAC without project revisions, but would instead forward the project to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial. On May 23, 2007 the Planning Commission held a fourth Public Hearing. The applicant proceeded to present the original project as submitted to the Planning Commission at previous hearings. At this meeting the applicant asked for a continuance in order to submit redesigned plans. The Planning Commission determined that the continuance was not warranted and then voted to deny the project by a vote of 6-0-1 (Caffery recused). STAFF ANALYSIS, The project is a new single family home located on a vacant hillside lot on El Portal, west of South Palm Canyon Drive. As a hillside property, development is subject to Architectural Review (SFR). Since a second story is proposed, an Administrative Minor Modification is also required. The project description and analysis are contained in the attached Planning Commission staff reports. Planning Commission meeting minutes related to the application are also attached. Following Commission denial of the request on May 23, 2007, the applicant fled an appeal with the City Clerk (letter attached). Staff has reviewed the appellant's letter of June 4, 2007 and identified the following reasons by which the applicant seeks to overturn the Planning Commission's denial. Staffs response to each is provided immediately following each statement. The decision not to continue the item to a future date to permit the submission of modified plans. The applicant asserts that the Planning Commission should have granted his continuance on May 23, 2007 in order to explore the possibility of a redesign. However, two continuances for redesign had already been granted and each time the applicant made no changes but insisted on review of the original design. Staff believes the Commission provided ample opportunity for the applicant to modify the project, but the 000002 City Council Staff Report July 18, 2007 Case 3.2999 and 7.1215 Page 3 of 4 applicant refused to do so. The denial of the project based on the findings contained in resolution 7002, including but not limited to Finding No. 2 with respect to the Minor Modification and Finding No. 2 of the Architectural review. The applicant asserts the findings made by the Planning Commission in the attached resolution are in error; however, no specific evidence is provided by the appellant to substantiate the claim. The two findings cited are as follows: Minor Modification Findings No. 2 The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification. Architectural Review Factor No. 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 Planning Commission held three hearings, received two staff report, and considered public testimony and all other information related to the project. During its deliberations, the Commission determined the proposed project was not sympathetic to the natural slope of the lot, the size and topography of the lot did not justify a dwelling of the proposed size, and that the balconies and windows of the second story did not take into consideration the privacy of the neighbors down slope of the proposed residence. Thus, the Planning Commission determined the size, massing, and character of the proposed project would adversely affect neighboring properties and not be in harmonious relationship with existing and adjoining developments. In conclusion, staff believes the Commission's actions at the May 23, 2007 hearing were based on facts reasonably related to the required findings. Administrative Minor Modifications (AMM's) are a discretionary action. Second stories are not allowed by right of zone. Second stories are only allowed in hillside areas by AMM when specific findings are made based on the facts of the individual project. After reviewing the staff report and receiving testimony from the applicant and from neighbors, the Planning Commission concluded that it could not make the findings necessary to approve either the Administrative Minor Modification or the Architectural Review. RECOMMENDATION Based on the Commission's actions to provide opportunities for redesign and its use of facts related to the site and project design to deny the request, staff recommends the City Counsel deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission as set forth in Resolution 7002, denying Planning Case No. 3.2999 and 7.1215 AMM. 000093 City Council Staff Report July 18, 2007 Case 3.2999 and 7.1215 Page 4 of 4 FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. C E g, AICP TThOilspyy��Director of Plannin rvices ity f5fanag.r, Dev" Svcs David H. Ready City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Appeal letter dated June 4, 2007 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7002 4. Planning Commission meeting minutes dated February 14, 2007, February 28, March 28 and May 23, 2007 (excerpts) 5. Staff reports dated February 14, February 28, March 28 and May 23, 2007, with exhibits 00060�t RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL BY STEVEN VAN AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CASE NOS. 3.2999 SFR AND 7.1215 AMM WHEREAS, Steven J. Van ("Applicant") has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code for a single-family dwelling unit located at 350 El Portal, Zone R-1-B, Section 27; and WHEREAS, after meetings with the Architecture Advisory Committee and Planning Commission, the Architectural Advisory Committee met on March 26, 2007 and requested a redesign of the second story, and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2007, a public hearing meeting on the application was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law, and following consideration of the staff reports and all written and oral testimony, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 7002 denying the request; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2007, the applicant, Steven Van, filed an appeal of the Commission's action in accordance with the City's procedures; and WHEREAS, on July 11, 2007 the City Council conducted a hearing on the matter, at which hearing the Council carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with 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. The following required finding for the Administrative Minor Modification (Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code) cannot be met by the proposal, as follows: 2. The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification. Due to differences in site topography between the site and neighboring residential properties, the second story balconies and windows of the project would allow direct observation of neighboring properties located down slope resulting in an adverse affect on neighboring properties. 000005 SECTION 2. The following guidelines for architectural review (Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.04.00(D)(2)) cannot be met by the project, as follows: 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 single-family residences, with a mix of one and two stories. The size and mass of these residences are generally smaller then the proposed project. The proposed elevations present imposing fagades to the street and adjacent properties, and do not compliment the neighborhood's historic development patterns for massing and second stories. Consequently, the project does not create a harmonious relationship with the surrounding properties within the context of the immediate area. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby denies the appeal by Steven Van and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission to deny Case Nos. 3.2999 — SFR and 7.1215 AMM. ADOPTED this 11th day of July, 2007. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk 000096 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) 1, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California 000007 Steven J. Van I; 471 Avenida Hokona Gn l Palm Springs, CA 92264 J i CITY t L June 4, 2007 Hand Delivered Office of the City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Case No. 3.2999 SFR and 7,1245 AMM To the City Clerk: Please consider this letter a request to appeal the following decisions of the Planning Commission, May 23, 2007, with respect to the above matter: 1. The decision not to continue the item to a future date to permit the submission of modified plans; and 2. The denial of the project based on the findings contained in Resolution Number 7002, including but not limited to Finding No. 2 with respect to the Minor Modification and Finding No. 2 under Architectural Review. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of$387.00 for the appeal fee. In the event it is determined that this appeal is subject to publication and notice requirements, additional fees will be submitted for that purpose. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Steven 7. V cc: Craig A. Ewing, AICP—via email Christopher Ison, Planning Technician—via email Maureen F. Guinan, Esq- 000098 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RECVB BY: CR 010000D0256 _ PAYOR; STEVEN S VAN TO➢AY'S ➢ATE: 06/04/07 REGISTER DATE: 06/04/07 TIME: 14:28 ➢ESCRIPTION AMOUNT OT}ER CHARG=S SVCS 53".0❑ CUST ID: APPEAL FROM PC TO CC ---------------- TOTAL DUE: S397 0❑ C}ECK PAID: $387.00 CKECK NO: 2346 TEN➢ERE➢: $387.00 ChANGE: $.0❑ Q d Q RESOLUTION NO. 7002 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA FOR THE DENIAL OF CASE NO. 3.2999 (350 EL PORTAL) —A SFR, ZONE R-1-13, SECTION 27. WHEREAS, Steven J. Van ("Applicant") has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code for a single-family dwelling unit located at 350 El Portal, Zone R-1-13, Section 27; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2007, the Architectural Advisory Committee met and requested a redesign of the second story; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2007, a public hearing 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 an 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 project is Categorically Exempt, Class III, per Section 15303(a), new construction of a single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. Section 2: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 94.04.00(E) and Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, in accordance with the guidelines established in Section 94.04.00(D), the Planning Commission has reviewed the following: The required findings for the Administrative Minor Modification (Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code) are as follows: 1. The requested minor modification is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance_ The Administrative Minor Modification meets all the requirements of General Plan 000010 Planning Commission Resolution May 23, 2007 Case 3.2999, 7.1215 Page 2 of 4 Policy 3.4.4. There are no Specific Plans associated with this parcel, and the manner of the modification is specifically allowed by Section 94.04.01(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code. 2. The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification. Due to site topography of the neighboring residential properties Staff has determined a detrimental impact can be expected. Specifically, the second story balconies and windows are oriented in such a way as to allow direct observation of neighboring properties located down slope from the proposed project. 3. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. All construction will be built to the Uniform Building Code, Palm Springs Zoning Code as modified by this Administrative Minor Modification, and Fire Code. 4. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of the property or neighborhood. The modification is warranted due to topography of the site which has an undulating surface with slopes of 10% or more. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: The Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.04.00(D)(1-9) provides guidelines for the architectural review of development projects conformance is evaluated, based on consideration of the following. 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, Access to the proposed project is designed according to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and within the development standards of the City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance. The buildings are centrally massed with a secondary garage located in the rear of the property, and the primary garage facing the primary street. The recreation area is located to the north eastern corner of the parcel. 2. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and in the context of the immediate neighborhood community, avoiding both excessive oonnii Planning Commission Resolution May 23, 2007 Case 3.2999, 7.1215 Page 3 of 4 variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted; The surrounding properties are single-family residences, with a mix of one and two stories. The size and mass of the residences are smaller then the proposed project, The project does not create a harmonious relationship with the surrounding properties within the context of the immediate area. The proposed pad does not compliment the neighborhood's historic development patterns for massing and second stories, thus presenting an imposing fagade to the street. The proposed project is excessive in size and mass, and does not follow the historic development of the neighborhood. 3. Maximum height, area, setbacks and overall mass, as welf as parts of any structure (buildings, walls, screens towers or signs) and effective concealment of all mechanical equipment The building is proposed on a hillside lot with a tri-level pad allowing for the most discretion in building height to a maximum height of 26 feet, 4 feet less than the allowed 30 feet height for hillside lots. The yards meet or exceed minimum requirements and a masonry wall will conceal any mechanical equipment. 4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings; AND 5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously, AND 6. Consistency of composition and treatment, The building configuration uses the available space to create a large central mass. Door and window architectural features and overhangs are designed in a Mediterranean style. The proposed color palette is muted and reflects colors found in the mountains and desert vegetation. 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 site contains a number of mature trees and plants that will be removed. The majority of the specimen trees will be preserved and relocated throughout the proposed landscape. The landscape design proposes drought tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcover with an emitter irrigation system. 000012 Planning Commission Resolution May 23, 2007 Case 3,2999, 7.1215 Page 4 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies Case No. 3.2999— SFR and 7,1215 AMM. ADOPTED this 23rd day of May, 2007. AYES: 6, Hutcheson, Scott, Marantz, Hochanadel, Ringlein, Cohen NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: 1, Caffery ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA wing,,Dirof Al la es I ., oot�ora CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 14, 2007 Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present Present Year: FY 2006/2007 This Meeting: to Date: Excused Absences Chair Marantz X 15 1 Vice Chair Hochanadel X 15 1 Cohen X 12 4 Ringlein 13 3 Hutcheson X 15 1 Caffery X 12 1 Scott X 13 0 REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: The agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board (west side of Council Chamber) and the Planning Services counter by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 9, 2007, 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (Three minute time limit.) Chair Marantz opened Public Comments. -John Herrall, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition to Consent Agenda, Item 2C, concerned with the height and mass- -Beatrice Dann, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition to Consent Agenda Item 2C, concerned with the height and mass- -Daniel Hogan, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition to Consent Agenda Item 2C; concerned with the water drainage. -Dan Valentino, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Consent Agenda, Item 2C, concerned with the scale of property. -Steve Van, applicant rebuttal, for Consent Agenda, Item 2, provided additional information pertaining to the height, elevations and lot line adjustment. There beinq no further comments, Public Comments was closed. M 014 City of Palm Springs nning Commission Minutes of uary 14,2007 CONSENT AG A: Commissioner Hutches requested Item 2C be pulled from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. M/S/C (Scott/Hutcheson, 6 0, 1 abs Ringlein) To approve, Items 2A and 2B, as part of the Consent Agenda. 2A. Minutes of December 13, 2006 and Decembe 2T, 2006. Approved, as part of the Consent Agenda. 2B. Case 3.2978 (7.1231 AMM) / 3.2979 / 3.2980 (7.1232 AM A request by Tuscan Homes LLC, to construct three single-family residences; ?p�roximately 3,600, 4,400 and 3,300 square feet located at 2100, 2150 and 2200 Tu �an Road, Section 03, Zone R-1-A. (Project Planner: Christopher Ison, P1 ing Tnrhnirian' - Ap rn is . ad of the 2C. Case 3.2999 / 7.1215 AMM - An application by Steven J. Van, owner, for a request to increase building height to construct an approximate 6,355 square foot single-family residence on a parcel approximately 0.435 acres or 15,116 square feet located at 350 El Portal, Section, 27, Zone R-1-13. (Project Planner: Christopher Ison, Planning Technician) Christopher Ison, Planning Technician, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated February 14, 2007. Craig A. Ewing provided further clarification on the size of the substandard lot and stated that the language from the zoning code and the general plan would be provided at the next meeting pertaining to the hillside ordinance. M/S/C (Caffery/Hutcheson, 6-0, 1 absent/Ringlein) To continue, to an indefinite date, and direct planning staff to prepare an analysis of the proposed height of the home in comparison to the surrounding homes. 3. Case 3.2984 M PD 307 - An application by H $ H Investments, LLC., for the approval of final dove lans for Pads D and E of the previously approved Planned Development Distric 7 called "Tahquitz Plaza" located on the northeast comer of Tahquitz Canyon Sunrise Way, Zone C-1AA, Section 14, APN: 508-070-035 and 508-070-042. (Probe r: David Newell, Assistant Planner) 2 Onnn15 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2007 2A. Minutes of January 24, 2007. M/S/C (Ringlein ' Chair Hochanadel, 5-0, 2 absent/Hutcheson/ Caffery) To approve, minutes of January 2 , 07. 28. Draft Resolution for Minor anges to Planned Development Districts. (Project Planner'. Craig A. Ewing, ' ector of Planning Services) Craig A. Ewing provided further details relating to in . ificant changes and setbacks to Planned Development Districts, Commissioner Caffery entered the Council Chamber at 1:41 p.m. M/S/C (Scott/Cohen, 5-0, 1 absent/Hutcheson, 1 abstained/ Caffery) To ap ve, draft resolution, as submitted. OTHER BUSINESS: 3A. Case 3.2999 SFR / 7.1215 AM - An application by Steven J. Van, owner, for a request to increase building height to construct an approximate 6,355 square foot single-family residence on a parcel approximately 0.435 acres located at 350 El Portal, Section, 27, Zone R-1-B. (Project Planner: Christopher Ison, Planning Technician) Christopher Ison, Planning Technician, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated February 28, 2007. The following persons came forward and spoke.- -John Harrell, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project, requested the balcony to be removed. -Daniel Hogan, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project, voiced concerns with the balcony affecting his privacy, size of proposed structure and the drainage problem- -Jane McFee, Palm Springs, concerned with the drainage problems on this lot. -Earl Rose, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project; concerned with the density of the project and drainage problems. -Tom Warrick, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project; suggested a revision to the plans. -Steven Van, applicant rebuttal, provided additional details pertaining the 2 story neighboring homes, height, elevations, setbacks and lot size- -Bill Beck, seller of the property, spoke in favor of the project and provided additional details relating to the property and the flooding concerns. 2 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2007 Marcus Fuller, Assistant Director of Engineering, provided additional details pertaining to the storm water runoff and indicated the property is not in a designated flood zone and a standard condition is required for the provision of a hydrology study. The Commission discussed privacy concerns, height and setbacks. Further discussion was made pertaining to the Zoning Code regulations and the findings for the Administrative Minor Modification. Staff provided an additional map and details to the adjacent properties. Commissioner Scott stated he was not in favor of this project because he felt the neighboring properties will be adversely affected as a result of the approval, it is not justified by environmental feature or historic development patterns of the property or neighborhood and is not a harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments. M/S/C (Scott/-1, -) To deny, Case 3.2999 and 7.1215 AMM. THE MOTION DID NOT RECEIVE A SECOND AND WAS LOST. M/S/C (Ringlein/Vice Chair Hochanadel, 2-4/Cohen/ Chair Marantz/ Scott/ Caffery), 1 absent/Hutcheson) To approve, subject to Conditions of Approval. MOTION FAILED. M/S/C (Caffery/Chair Marantz, 6-0, 1 absent/Hutcheson) To continue to March 28, 2007, project referred back to the Architectural Committee to review project height, roof lines, ridge lines, window locations and consideration of the project architecture and its fit into the neighborhood character. esisi anning Services for a request to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to et and the rear setback from 15 feet to 13 feet located at 2313 Camino Pelic Section 12, Zone R-1-C. (Project Planner: Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning ices) Craig A. Ewing provided background in Lion as outlined in the staff report dated February 28, 2007. =b_ Commissioner Caffery concurred with Vice Chair Hochanade also suggested a reduction of the building size to the applicant. � a 3 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of March 28,2007 4. Case 3.2999 SFR / 7.1215 AMM - An application by Steven Van to construct an approximate 6,355 square foot single family residence, with an increase of building height to 26' located at 350 El Portal Zone R-1-13 Section 27. (Planner Christopher Ison, Planning Technician) Commissioner Scott requested the Planning Commission minutes pertaining to this project be made available to the Architectural Advisory Committee meeting. M/S/C (Ringlein/Cohen, 7-0) To continue to an indefinite date; to resend to the Architectural Advisory Committee for a restudy. ease e_P" 878-24e-appFieetien , final development plans (Smoke Tree Cottages) for a previously approved anned Development District 323 consisting of 49 residential lots with 52 co es located at 1850 Smoke Tree Lane, within the Smoke Tree Ranch, Zone G-A(6), Section 25, APN: 510-011-006, 510-020-032 and 510-090-001. (Project inner: Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services) Vice Chair Hochanad tated he had a business related conflict of interest and would not participate in the disc ion and vote. He left the Council Chamber at 2:06 p.m. Craig A. Ewing, Director of PI ing Services, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated Ma 28, 2007. Staff also recommends a condition of the Final Development Plan that all fut dwellings within PD 323 be subject to Minor Architectural Approval. -Tracy Conrad, Chief Operating Officer, Smoke e Ranch, complimented staff and was available for questions. Commissioner Caffery noted his appreciation for the gree technology incorporated into the single family dwelling, M/S/C (Scott/Cohen, 6-0, 1 abstained/ Vice Chair Hochanadel) To a ove, subject to Conditions of Approval. Vice Chair Hochanadel re-entered the Council Chamber at 2:10 p.m. 4 �da91U CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 2007 Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 CALL TO ORDER: 4', J The meeting was called to order at 1:34 p.m" IN, ROLL CALL: Present Present -< ``• Year.-,AFY 2006/2007 This Meeting: to Date_f' Excused�Absences: Chair Marantz X 24 "<+' ]a. ''' , 1 F 1` Vice Chair Hochandel X 24 w `" `„1• Cohen X 21 -` 4 Ringlein X ,,21 4 Hutcheson X Caffery X Scott X 19 3 REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: The agenda was available,for public-access at,the City Hall exterior bulletin board (west side of Council, Chamber)' artd the,PJah ing-'Services counter by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 18, 2o67: Craig.A.':'Ewing noted a`request fora-,continuance was received for Item 3 Case 3.2999 SFR / 7:121-5 AMM. - i 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (Three minute time limit.) Chair Marantz opened'Public Comments- -Earl Rose, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3; voiced concern with the scale and density of the project, as well as the balcony views infringing on the neighbors privacy. -Bill Byrne, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3; concerned with the 2-story height" -Marjorie Conley Aikens, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3; concerned with the percentages stated for the 2-story homes in surrounding area. a GOD 19 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2007 -Maureen Guinan, on behalf of the applicant, regarding Item 3, Requested a continuance or approval of the project. -Beatrice Dunn, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3; concerned with the mass. -Daniel Hogan, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3; voiced concern with the height, size and privacy issues. -Steven Van, applicant for Item 3, stated the property is small�ii°'a�200 square foot lot and requested a continuance for this project. ^`_ -Tom Warrick, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item,3;•'co�tCerned with the height. -Dan Valentino, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of IteMrr 3; rditerated concern with the hillside status given to this parcel of land. jam` -John Harrell, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition.vof Item 3, provided 'details using an aerial photograph of the proposed parcel. ' -Franklin Burns, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3, stated this`.(aroject does not fit into the general character of the La Mesa neighborljaod, ana ewa an James McKinley, Palm Springs;.' in opposition of Item 8; vo d concern with the health and safety hazards of ihd ' indmills. 'i _yv r•rt '4i :: �A There be no further comments, Public"Goili[pant was closed` CONSENT CALE Commissioner Hutcheson ted'his abstention on Item 2B. Chair Marantz noted her abstention on Item 26.' x.. M/S/C (5,egtt/Cchen,,._7-0)r6' appre``'as apart of the Consent Agenda. (Noting Commissioner Hui cheson's abstention .Item 2B and Chair Marantz's abstention on Item„2� `` � "•- 2A. DraftMinutes of Apiij 11, 2007 Approved, as ' t of the Consent Agenda. 213. Case 5.1046 `PD232 / TTM 33341 - An application ti Greg Trousdell on behalf of Aqua Palm Springs, LLC, requesting a one-year a extension for Final Planned Development 232 for the re-subdivision of` acres and construction of 156 condominiums located at 2705 East Tahqu Canyon Way, zone P, Section 13. (Project Planner: Bryan Fernandez, A istant Planner) (Noting Commissioner Hutcheson's and Chair Marantz's absten ) Approved, as part of the Consent Agenda. 2 Dd02�1 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2007 MISCELLANEOUS 3. Case 3.2999 SFR 17.1215 AMM - An application by Steven Van to construct an approximate 6,355 square foot single family residence, with an increase of building height to 261, located at 350 El Portal Zone_ R-1-13 Section 27. (Planner Christopher Ison, Planning Technician) Commissioner Caffery noted his abstention and would�'n t.'be participating in the discussion and vote. He left the Council Chamber 2:08�15:/m. The Commission and staff discussed the request,.f6e a continuance. Commissioner Hutcheson requested the applicant statebis intent for a`.,cOntinuance. Mr. Steven Van responded his intent is to appeaseJhe en4iir4'neighborhood and plans to proceed with a 2-story home. c. Commissioner Hutcheson stated he is':not„in favor of this •project. He noted that the Commission has previously heard a lofof-pUblic testimony..`,apdfeels an obligation to protect the character of the neighborhood. M/S/C (Hutcheson/Scott,,;,6-0;�,.1 abstaine&taffery) To`deny, Case No. 32999 SFR and 7.1215 AMM. Craig A. Ewing note&.,'this'., action may be'- appealed to the City Council in accordance with.,city regula'tio_rs;: Commtssroner Caffe'ry''r'e,-entered'the Council Chamber at 2:13 p.m. esi=,;LLC, to amend the existing architectural approval to replace the app Carport trellis with a fabric sail located at 2855 North Palm Canyon Drive, Zon ,Section 3. (Project Planner: Christopher Ison, Planning Technician) `` ,711 Chair Marantz noted her abstention a uld not be participating in the discussion and vote. She left the Council Chamber at 2:1 Commissioner Hutcheson noted his abstention and would not be participating in the dis n and vote. He left the Council Chamber at 2:14 p.m. Christopher Ison, Planning Technician, provided background informatio outlined in the staff report dated May 23, 2007. 3 aaaa1211 R4 pA1M S� U is a ���►F����* Planning Commission Staff Report Date: February 14, 2007 Case No's: 3.2999—SFR and 7.1215 AMM Type: Single Family Residence Location: 350 El Portal APN: 513-380-059 Applicant: Steven Van General Plan: L2 (Low Density Residential) Zone: R-1-13 (Single-family Residential) From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services Project Planner: Christopher Ison, Planning Technician PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is a request by Steven J. Van, owner, for architectural approval and Administrative Minor Modification for an increase in building height in order to construct an approximately 6,355 square foot single-family residence on a parcel approximately 0.435 acres or 15,116 square feet, located at 350 El Portal. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve Case No 3.2999 SFR and 7.1215 AMM, a two story single-family residence located at 350 El Portal. BACKGROUND AND SETTING: The proposed residence will be located on an interior lot bounded by single family residences. The parcel is a curved lot with an approximate average depth of 120 feet and an approximate average width of 110 feet. The lot has an average slope of 8%; 000022 Planning Commission Staff Report February 14, 2007 Case 3-2999 Page 2 of 6 However, Pursuant to Section 93.13.00 hillside lots are defined as any parcel of land within the city of Palm Springs which contains any portion thereof with a grade of ten percent or more, the lot has an undulating topography with slopes in excess of 10%. Access to the proposed site will be provided from El Portal off of South Palm Canyon Drive. The surrounding Land Uses are tabled below: Table 1 Surrounding land uses General Plan Zone Land use North L2 R-1-B Single-Family Residence South L2 R-1-B Sin le-Famil Residence East L2 R-1-B Sin le-Family Residence West L2 R-1-B Sin le Fa mil Residence PRIOR ACTIONS: On December 21, 2006 the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the project and voted 6-0-1 (Donald Wexler was absent) to recommend approval to the Planning Commission. ANALYSIS: GENERAL PLAN The General Plan Designation of the subject site is L2 (Low Density Residential), Low Density Residential allows for single and multiple family dwellings to a maximum density of 2 dwelling units per acre. Based on the L-2 Designation the subject site may be developed with one dwelling unit, and is consistent with the General Plan. Also, General Plan Policy 3.4.4 allows for an increase in building height to a maximum height of 30 feet, on hillside lots. ZONING ORDINANCE The proposed project is a single-family residence within the R-1-B Zone. Pursuant to the City of Palm Springs Zoning Code, Section 92.01.01(A) (1), permanent single-family dwellings are permitted within the R-1-13 Zone, and may exceed the 18 foot height limit on hillside lots with an Administrative Minor Modification. 000023 Planning Commission Staff Report February 14, 2007 Case 3.2999 Page 3 of 6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The City of Palm Springs ,Zoning Code Section 93,06.00 (29) (a.) requires all single- family homes to provide two covered parking spaces per dwelling unit, and this requirement is met by the two proposed two car garages. Details of the property development standards for the proposed project in relation to the requirements of the R-1-13 zone are shown in Table 2- Table 2 Development Standards R-1-B W Proposed Project(approx.) Lot Area 15,000 square feet 15,116 Lot Width _ 130 feet 110 feet Lot Depth 120 feet 120 feet Front Yard 20 feet 23 feet Interior Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet y Rear Yard 15 feet 15 feet Building Height 12 feet at setback 12 feet at setbacks 18 feet maximum 26 feet maximum by AMM Building Coverage 350% 23% Dwelling size 1440 square feet 6,533 square feet minimum The proposed development conforms to the R-1-B development standards, as modified by Administrative Minor Modification. ARCHITECTURE: The proposed residence is styled as Spanish Colonial architecture with a Mediterranean influence including a pool and spa. The proposed structure incorporates a variety of architectural features such as clay tile roofs, columns, a cantilevered second floor, and a stucco exterior- The color palette is brown with desert hues, and red brick accents. REQUIRED FINDINGS: The only required findings for this project is for the Administrative Minor Modification, Pursuant to Section 94,06.01(A)(8)of the Palm Springs Zoning Code: 1. The requested minor modification is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance. 000924 Planning Commission Staff Report February 14, 2007 Case 3.2999 Page 4 of 6 The AAM meets all the requirements of General Plan Policy 3.4.4, there are no Specific Plans associated with this parcel, and the manner of modification is specifically allowed by Section 94.04.01(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code. 2, The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification. Staff has determined there will be no detrimental effect to the surrounding properties as the structure is a multi-level pad incorporating the proposed residence into the hillside without a significant impact to the scenic corridor. All windows of the second floor are oriented away from private property where possible, and the home is less then the maximum height of 30'. The Architectural Review process guarantees the architectural character of the dwelling is of high quality. 3. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. All construction will be built to the Uniform Building Code, Palm Springs Zoning Code as modified by this Administrative Minor Modification, and Fire Code. 4. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of the property or neighborhood. The modification is warranted due to topography of the site which has an undulating surface with slopes of 10% or more, in accordance with Section 94.06.01(A)(8), which requires approval be based on the finding that such minor modification will not have detrimental effect upon adjacent properties; which is covered in finding two above. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: The Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.04.00(D)(1-9) provides guidelines for the architectural review of development projects to determine that the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants as well as being compatible with the character of adjacent and surrounding developments, and whether aesthetically it is of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Conformance is evaluated, based on consideration of the following: 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; nnnn,� Planning Commission Staff Report February 14, 2007 Case 3.2999 Page 5 of 6 Access to the proposed project is designed according to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and within the development standards of the City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance. The buildings are centrally massed with a secondary garage located in the rear of the property, and the primary garage facing the primary street. The recreation area is located to the north eastern corner of the parcel. 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 single-family residences, with a mix of one and two stories. The project creates a visual harmony within the neighborhood through use of a desert palette and Spanish architecture which is in keeping with the historic development of the neighborhood. 3. Maximum height, area, setbacks and overall mass, as well as parts of any structure (buildings, walls, screens towers or signs) and effective concealment of all mechanical equipment; The building is proposed on a hillside lot with a tri-level pad allowing for the most discretion in building height to a maximum height of 26 feet, 4 feet less than the allowed 30 feet height for hillside lots. The yards meet or exceed minimum requirements and a masonry wall will conceal any mechanical equipment. 4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings; AND 5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously, AND 6. Consistency of composition and treatment, The building is a square shaped mass. This configuration uses the available space adequately to balance living space with open space_ Door and window architectural features and overhangs are designed in a Mediterranean style. The proposed color palette is muted and reflects colors found in the mountains and desert vegetation. 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 site contains a number of mature trees and plants that will be removed. The majority of the specimen trees will be preserved and relocated throughout the proposed landscape. The landscape design proposes drought tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcover with an emitter irrigation system. nnnn •Ir Planning Commission Staff Report February 14, 2007 Case 32999 Page 6 of 6 CONCLUSION: The proposed project is allowed by right-of-zone and is consistent with the land use policies of the General Plan and the City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, as modified by Administrative Minor Modification. The Architectural Advisory Committee recommended the project for approval. Therefore, Staff is recommending approval of Case 3.2999 — SFR and Case 7.1215, subject to the conditions of approval attached herein as Exhibit A. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303(a)(New Single-family residence). Wil , Ch 'stop r S. Ison eraig,40ing, AP Planning Technician Direc r of Pla in Services Attachments: - Vicinity Map - Draft Resolution - Conditions of Approval - Reduced copies of site plan and elevations 000027 Department of Planning Services N Vicinity Ma W+E C�tlF°a�*• C EL CAMINO U P_p _ G> m vR p7 CR _ O� �Q OVERLOOK RD O OJ R\p0K� - f EL aoaraL o P�Tur�s Y _ Legend Project Area 400'Buffer CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DESCRIPTION: Application for architectural review CASE NO: 3.2999 SFR and 7.1215 and administraive minor modiflcatio for a6.355 s.f. SFR APPLICANT: Steven J. Van located at 350 El Portal Zoned R-1-13 Section 27, APN:513-380-059 000029 RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA FOR THE APPROVAL OF CASE NO. 3.2999 (350 EL PORTAL) — A SFR, ZONE R-1-B, SECTION 27, WHEREAS, Steven J. Van ("Applicant') has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a single-family dwelling unit located at 350 El Portal, Zone R-1-13, Section 27; and WHEREAS, on December 21, 2006, the Architectural Advisory Committee met and voted to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2007, a public hearing 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 project is Categorically Exempt, Class III, per Section 15303(a), new construction of a single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. Section 2: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 94.04.00(E) and Section 94.06-01(A)(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, in accordance with the guidelines established in Section 94.04.00(D), the Planning Commission has reviewed the following: The only required findings for this project is for the Administrative Minor Modification, Pursuant to Section 94.06.01(A)(8)of the Palm Springs Zoning Code: 1. The requested minor modification is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance, The AAM meets all the requirements of General Plan Policy 3.4.4, there are no Specific Plans associated with this parcel, and the manner of the modification is a n J Planning Commission Resolution February 14, 2007 Case 3,2099 Page 2 of 4 specifically allowed by Section 94.04.01(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code. 2. The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification. There will be no detrimental effect to the surrounding properties as the structure is a multi-level pad incorporating the proposed residence into the hillside without a significant impact to the scenic corridor. All windows of the second floor are oriented away from private property where possible, and the home is less then the maximum height of 30'. The Architectural Review process guarantees the architectural character of the dwelling is of high quality. 3. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. All construction will be built to the Uniform Building Code, Palm Springs Zoning Code as modified by this Administrative Minor Modification, and Fire Code. 4. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of the property or neighborhood. The modification is warranted due to topography of the site which has an undulating surface with slopes of 10% or more. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: The Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.04.00(D)(1-9) provides guidelines for the architectural review of development projects conformance is evaluated, based on consideration of the following: 9. 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; Access to the proposed project is designed according to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and within the development standards of the City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance. The buildings are centrally massed with a secondary garage located in the rear of the property, and the primary garage facing the primary street. The recreation area is located to the north eastern comer of the parcel. 2. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and in the context of the immediate neighborhood community, avoiding both excessive 0 0 0 0 3 Q Planning Commission Resolution February 14,2007 Case 3.2999 Page 3 of 4 variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted; The surrounding properties are single-family residences, with a mix of one and two stories. The project creates a visual harmony within the neighborhood through use of a desert palette and Spanish architecture which is in keeping with the historic development of the neighborhood. 3. Maximum height, area, setbacks and overall mass, as well as parts of any structure (buildings, walls, screens towers or signs) and effective concealment of all mechanical equipment; The building is proposed on a hillside lot with a tri-level pad allowing for the most discretion in building height to a maximum height of 26 feet, 4 feet less than the allowed 30 feet height for hillside lots. The yards meet or exceed minimum requirements and a masonry wall will conceal any mechanical equipment. 4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings; AND 5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously, AND 6. Consistency of composition and treatment, The building is a square shaped mass. This configuration uses the available space adequately to balance living space with open space. Door and window architectural features and overhangs are designed in a Mediterranean style. The proposed color palette is muted and reflects colors found in the mountains and desert vegetation. 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 site contains a number of mature trees and plants that will be removed. The majority of the specimen trees will be preserved and relocated throughout the proposed landscape. The landscape design proposes drought tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcover with an emitter irrigation system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Case No. 3.2999 - SFR. ADOPTED this day of , 2007. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 0 0 0 0 3 Planning Commission Resolution February 14, 2007 Case 3 2999 Page 4 of 4 ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Planning Commission Chairman Planning Commission Secretary 00003? EXHIBIT A CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE 3,2999 -SFR LOCATION 350 EL PORTAL FEBRUARY 14, 2007 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 fomn approved by the City Attorney. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 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 3.2999, The City 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 000033 adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 3. That the property owners) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation sidewalks, bikeways, parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, signs, walls, and fences between the curb and property line, including sidewalk or bikeway easement areas that extend onto private property, in a first class condition, free from waste and debris, and in accordance with all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner's sole expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the property if required by the City. 4. This project shall be subject to Chapters 2,24 and 3.37 of the Municipal Code regarding public art. The project shall either provide public art or payment of an in lieu fee. In the case of the in lieu fee, the fee shall be based upon the total building permit valuation as calculated pursuant to the valuation table in the Uniform Building Code, the Peeing being 112% for commercial projects or 1/4% for residential projects with first $100,000 of total building permit valuation for individual single-family units exempt. Should the public art be located on the project site, said location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning and the Public Arts Commission, and the property owner shall enter into a recorded agreement to maintain the art work and protect the public rights of access and viewing. 5. Pursuant to Park Fee Ordinance No. 1632 and in accordance with Government Code Section 66477 (Quimby Act), all residential development shall be required to contribute to mitigate park and recreation impacts such that, prior to issuance of residential building permits, a parkland fee or dedication shall be made. Accordingly, all residential development shall be subject to parkland dedication requirements and/or park improvement fees. The parkland mitigation amount shall be based upon the cost to acquire and fully improve parkland. 6- Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 a filing fee of$64,00 is required. This project has a de minimus impact on fish and wildlife, and a Certificate of Fee Exemption shall be completed by the City and two copies filed with the County Clerk. This application shall not be final until such fee is paid and the Certificate of Fee Exemption is filed. Fee shall in the form of a money order or cashier's check payable to Riverside County. Cultural Resources 7, Prior to any ground disturbing activity, including clearing and grubbing, installation of utilities, and/or any construction related excavation, an Archaeologist qualified according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and 000034 Guidelines, shall be employed to survey the area for the presence of cultural resources identifiable on the ground surface. 8. A Native. American Monitor shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities,' a. Experience has shown that there is always a possibility of buried cultural resources in a project area. Given that, a Native American Monitor(s) shall be present during all ground disturbing activities including clearing and grubbing, excavation, burial of utilities, planting of rooted plants, etc. Contact the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Cultural Office for additional information on the use and availability of Cultural Resource Monitors. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor shall contact the Director of Planning Services and after the consultation the Director shall have the authority to halt destructive construction and shall notify a .Qualified Archaeologist to investigate and, if necessary, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a treatment plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Coordinator for approval. b. Two copies of any cultural resource documentation generated in connection with this project, including reports of investigations, record search results and site records/updates shall be forwarded to the Tribal Planning, Building, and Engineering Department and one copy to the City Planning and Zoning Department prior to final inspection. FINAL DESIGN g. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning Services prior to issuance of a building pen-nit. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. GENERAL CONDITIONS/CODE REQUIREMENTS 10.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. 11.The appeal period for Case No. 3.2999, an Architectural Approval application is 15 calendar days from the date of project approval. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period has concluded. 12.The project is subject to the City of Palm Springs Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The applicant shall submit an application for Final Landscape Document Package to the Director of Planning and zoning for review and 000035 approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Refer to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 13.Prior to.issuance of a grading permit, a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Building Official. Refer to Chapter 8.50 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. - 14.The grading plan shall show the disposition of all cut and fill materials. Limits of site disturbance shall be shown and all disturbed areas shall be fully restored or landscaped. 15.All materials on the flat portions of the roof shall be earth tone in color. 16.No exterior downspouts shall be permitted on any facade on the proposed building(s) which are visible from adjacent streets or residential and commercial areas. 17_The design, height, texture and color of building(s), fences and walls shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 18.The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. 19.Submit plans meeting City standard for approval on the proposed trash and recyclable materials enclosure prior to issuance of a building permit. 20.Details of pool fencing (material and color) and equipment area shall be submitted with final landscape plan. 21.No sirens, outside paging or any type of signalization will be permitted, except approved alarm systems- 22.No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of the proposed plan. 23.Prior to the issuance of building permits, locations of all telephone and electrical boxes must be indicated on the building plans and must be completely screened and located in the interior of the building. Electrical transformers must be located toward the interior of the project maintaining a sufficient distance from the frontage(s) of the project. Said transformer(s) must be adequately and decoratively screened. POLICE DEPARTMENT 24.Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. 000036 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 25.Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured. FIRE 26.Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. (901.4.4 CFC) Show location of address on plan elevation view. Show requirement and dimensions of numbers in plan notes. Numbers shall be a minimum 4 inches, and of contrasting color to the background. 27.Residential Smoke Detector Installation With Fire Sprinklers: Provide Residential Smoke Detectors (FIREX # 0498 accessory module connected to multi-station FIREX smoke detectors or equal per dwelling and fire sprinkler flow switch). Detectors shall receive their primary power from the building wiring, and shall be equipped with a battery backup. (310.9.1.3 GBC) In new construction, detectors shall be interconnected so that operation of any smoke detector causes the alarm in all smoke detectors within the dwelling to sound. (2-2.2.1 NFPA 72) Provide a note on the plans showing this requirement. 28.Access: Fire department access roads shall be provided so that no portion of the exterior wall of the first floor of any building will be more than 150' from such roads. CFC 902.2.1 29.Water Systems and Hydrants: Underground water mains and fire hydrants shall be installed, completed, tested and in service prior to the time when combustible materials are delivered to the construction site. (903 CFC). Installation, testing, and inspection will meet the requirements of NFPA 24 1995 edition. Prior to final approval of the installation, contractor shall submit a completed Contractor's Material and Test Certificate to the Fire Department. (9-2.1 NFPA 24 1995 edition) 30.Operational Fire Hydrant(s): Operational fire hydrant(s) shall be installed within 250 feet of all combustible construction. No landscape planting, walls, or fencing is permitted within 3 feet of fire hydrants, except groundcover plantings. (1001.7.2 CFC) 31.Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic fire sprinkler system is required by local ordinance and will include the proposed guesthouse. Only a C-16 licensed fire sprinkler contractor shall perform system design and installation. System to be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA standard 13D, 1999 edition, as modified by local ordinance. The contractor should submit fire sprinkler plans when the building plans are submitted. This allows concurrent review of the fire sprinkler and building plans. 000037 32.Fire Flow: Fire flow will be 1125 gallons per minute with fire sprinklers. Construction site Security and Protection: 33.Fencing Required: Construction site fencing with 20 foot wide access gates is required for all combustible construction over 5,000 square feet. Fencing shall remain intact until buildings are stuccoed or covered and secured with lockable doors and windows. (8.04,260 PSMC) 34.Fire Apparatus Access Gates: Entrance gates shall have a clear width of at least 15 feet and be equipped with a frangible chain and padlock. (8.04.260 PSMC) 35.Access Gate Obstructions: Entrances to roads, trails or other access ways, which have been closed with gates and barriers, shall be maintained clear at all times- (902.2.4.1 CFC). ENGINEERING STREETS 36.Engineering Division recommends deferral of off-site improvement items 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, and 46 at this time due to lack of full improvements in the immediate area. The owner shall execute a street improvement covenant agreeing to construct all required street improvements upon the request of the City of Palm Springs City Engineer at such time as deemed necessary. The covenant shall be submitted with the Grading Plan, and shall be executed prior to approval of the Grading Plan or issuance of grading or building permits. A covenant preparation fee of $135 shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. 3TAny improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. 38.Submit street improvement plans prepared by a registered California civil engineer to the Engineering Division. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. EL PORTAL 39.Dedicate an additional 5 feet to provide the ultimate half street right-of-way width of 25 feet along the entire frontage, 40.Dedicate an easement 2 feet wide along the back of the driveway approach for sidewalk purposes. DDDD3�? 41.Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, 18 feet north of centerline along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200. 42.Construct a 6 inch concrete driveway, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, from the property line to the existing back of curb. 43.Construct a driveway approach(es) in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201. 44.Construct a 5 feet wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. 45.Construct pavement with a minimum pavement section of 21/2 inches asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inches crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal, from edge of proposed gutter to clean sawcut edge of pavement along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110. (Additional pavement removal and replacement may be required upon review of existing pavement cross-sections, and to ensure grade breaks of the pavement cross-section do not occur within a travel lane.) If an alternative pavement section is proposed, the proposed pavement section shall be designed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer using "R" values from the project site and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. 46.Construct 2 inch asphalt concrete pavement over compacted native subgrade or install appropriate landscaping and ground cover to provide adequate dust control measures, meeting the approval of the Director of Planning Services and City Engineer, from edge of pavement to property line along the entire frontage, excluding approved driveway locations_ 47.All broken or off grade street improvements shall be repaired or replaced. SANITARY SEWER 48.All sanitary facilities shall be connected to the public sewer system. New laterals shall not be connected at manholes. GRADING 49.Submit cut and fill quantities to City Engineer to determine if a Grading Plan is required. If required, the Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to Issuance of grading permit. If the earthwork quantity is less than 50 cubic yards, a formal grading plan is not required. To quality for the exemption, a signed original written statement of design earthwork quantities from the owner (or design professional, prepared 7 000039 on company letterhead) shall be provided to the Engineering Division, Exemption of a formal Grading Plan reviewed and approved by the City Engineer does not exempt the applicant from a site grading plan that may be required from the Building Department, or any other requirement that may be necessary to satisfy the Uniform Building Code. a. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and/or its grading contractor and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall be required to comply with Chapter 8.50 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, and shall be required to utilize one or more "Coachella Valley Best Available Control Measures' as identified in the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook for each fugitive dust source such that the applicable performance standards are met. The applicant's or its contractor's Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by staff that has completed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Class. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall provide the Engineering Division with current and valid Certificate(s) of Completion from AQMD for staff that have completed the required training- For information on attending a Fugitive Dust Control Class and information on the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook and related "PM10" Dust Control issues, please contact AQMD at (909) 396-3752, or at www.AQMD.gov- A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, in conformance with the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook, shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Grading plan. b. The first submittal of the Grading Plan shall include the following information: a copy of final approved conformed copy of Conditions of Approval; a copy of a final approved conformed copy of the Site Plan; a copy of current Title Report; a copy of Soils Report; and a copy of the associated Hydrology Study/Report_ 50.Prior to approval of a Grading Plan, the application shall obtain written approval to proceed with construction from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist. The applicant shall contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Richard Begay (760-883-1940), or the Tribal Archaeologist, Patty Tuck (760-883-1926), to determine their requirements, if any, associated with grading or other construction. The applicant is advised to contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist as early as possible. If required, it is the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate scheduling of Tribal monitors during grading or other construction, and to arrange payment of any required fees associated with Tribal monitoring. 8 51.Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks to keep - nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways, or gutters. 52.A Geotechnical/Soils Report prepared by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer shall be required for and incorporated as an integral part of the grading plan for the proposed development. A copy of the Geotechnical/Soils Report shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of a grading plan_ ' - - 53.In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project, applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the export of soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved "Notification of Intent To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties' (RIFA Form CA-1) prior to approval of the Grading Plan (if required). The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert(Phone: 760-776-8208). DRAINAGE 54.All stormwater runoff passing through the site shall be accepted and conveyed across the property in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. For all stormwater runoff falling on the site, on-site retention or other facilities approved by the City Engineer shall be required to contain the increased stormwater runoff generated by the development of the property. Provide a hydrology study to determine the volume of increased stormwater runoff due to development of the site, and to determine required stormwater runoff mitigation measures for the proposed development. Final retention basin sizing and other stormwater runoff mitigation measures shall be determined upon review and approval of the hydrology study by the City Engineer and may require redesign or changes to site configuration or layout consistent with the findings of the final hydrology study. No more than 40-50% of the street frontage parkway/setback areas should be designed as retention basins. On-site open space, in conjunction with dry wells and other subsurface solutions should be considered as alternatives to using landscaped parkways for on-site retention. 55.The applicant shall accept and convey all stormwater runoff across the property and conduct the runoff to an approved drainage system. On-site retention may be allowed on that portion of the property where historically, stormwater runoff is conveyed. The incremental increase of stormwater runoff due to development of the property shall be retained on-site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g nnnn4l 56.The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees. The acreage drainage fee at the present time is $ 7271.00 per acre per Resolution No. 15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. ON-SITE 57.The applicant shall provide a copy of an executed and recorded reciprocal access agreement for the joint use of the common driveway located on Parcel B of Lot Line Adjustment No. 05-16, recorded 2/14/2006 prior to approval of a grading plan. GENERAL 58.Any utility trenches or other excavations within existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development shall be backfilled and repaired in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. The developer shall be responsible for removing, grinding, paving and/or overlaying existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets as required by and at the discretion of the City Engineer, including additional pavement repairs to pavement repairs made by utility companies for utilities installed for the benefit of the proposed development (i.e. Desert Water Agency, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, Time Warner, Verizon, etc.). Multiple excavations, trenches, and other street cuts within existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development may require complete grinding and asphalt concrete overlay of the affected off-site streets, at the discretion of the City Engineer. The pavement condition of the existing off-site streets shall be returned to a condition equal to or better than existed prior to construction of the proposed development. 59.On phases or elements of construction following initial site grading (e.g., sewer, storm drain, or other utility work requiring trenching) associated with this project, the applicant shall be responsible for coordinating the scheduled construction with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Arachaeologist. Unless the project site has previously been waived from any requirements for Tribal monitoring, it is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Richard Begay (760-883-1940), or the Tribal Archaeologist, Patty Tuck (760-883-1926) for any subsequent phases or elements of construction that might require Tribal monitoring. If required, it is the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate scheduling of Tribal monitors during construction, and to arrange payment of any required fees associated with Tribal monitoring. Tribal monitoring requirements may extend to off-site construction performed by utility companies on behalf of the applicant (e.g. utility line extensions in off-site streets), which shall be the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate and arrange payment of any required fees for the utility companies. t0 000042 60.All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground. 61.AII existing utilities shall be shown on the improvement plans required for the project, The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line. 62.Upon approval of any improvement plan by the City Engineer, the improvement plan shall be provided to the City in digital format, consisting of a DWG (AutoCAD 2004 drawing file), DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange file), and PDF (Adobe Acrobat 6.0 or greater) formats. Variation of the type and format of the digital data to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon prior approval of the City Engineer. 63.The original improvement plans prepared for the proposed development and approved by the. City Engineer (if required) shall be documented with record drawing "as-built" information and returned to the Engineering Division prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Any modifications or changes to approved impravement.plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to construction. 64.Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the comer cut-off area of any driveway which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.02.00, D. TRAFFIC 65.Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a minimum, all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State of California, Department of Transportation, "Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones" dated 1996, or subsequent additions in force at the time of construction. 66.This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee which shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit. tl ftfiflll � 'Z 9NIM t 5 � � I � � s 4� EW ED OCT 20 2006 MANNING SERVICES 3 , � 9 AN f esi erne mmmmm r� �A ESpri,ryaI, Cdlifornia I � ' @n al.�.•_1•• 5�0 I H I a o-4 RECEIVED E- PLANNING SERVICES 3 ? 9G mmmmm VAN Rgf ence , J J� 350 El Portal Palm SPhM15, Califorr)i �'• 9 s i F P� � 9 �Q ` II RECEIVED r- OCT 20 2006 PLANNING SERVICES 3 2 � • mmmmm R Lip �_ VAN ReSi ence IF 350 El Portal �= Palm Springs, CaliFornia aE•.•.;• L�DGO0 7f 1 Aw ad m ul - RECEIVED OCT 20 2006 PLANNING SERVICES 2 9 9 mmmmm VAN Reniden ce 350 El PorW PAIM Sprin45, California *,i EMIJ jw ACEIVED OCT 20zoos PIANIVINGSERVICEs kw- 3 29 VAN Re5i er)ce 3PalD Em 5prmys, cahromia *j 5l Po F �v CD 0 4 yr y '' •� �- aR I a �• � Z z >n >� �' � k r •Y x SE• .r; I � � x ss � 1 3 Z922f L9 L! c).ww� ';]„ la'� ,:J(Y•:fl �Y�'.ei• /r�7:rir.Y.S� lYrr L• _ I ` ON4 �e/J i cli I FtirbS 1.r�syr""nr 1 �r.•rL'".r � e ea l�Ay 6b@ � 4 Ni fire 1 �: mr,.m�ovr. LICENSED LAND SUJRY£YORS MAP OF ASUB"Y/S/ON QFLOT/O GIF PALM CANYON Alz-5A TRACT UNIT N'z ._ S vrys✓elJhe rcgvrsl�'AS.R'cr`--St,Mi.r/,JCa aemiscav s frrama,E rxer ' Ri✓rwsme,G�.e'avur� - .SceecJ-R1 Nox/9.� 0 CD ri, d 29-b5 rMs MAP IS' Far 513-38 T.R.A. 011-O03 Par. 5112 NE114 SEC.27, T.4S., RAE. car ruxroses crcr 3 6 rrys sfi r:- ICYII I ]/ fi..f. I D IIR+ I. • f! ,yP lo!a rr� I![YJ Y S •.I/ y Pen A + der s S o.vAa Os_PR:AY - 1 !� .A • II ��, o.a uc y•rvv L f - _ rvi 1• 2} 2i - .✓`» wq !P A✓y .• ' ` auYr !� l rK 3-! rn nl b s r i Lar! anc rrw IIr Par 3-,atw/u 94 "`� �FT' �3 s: e w u r! n Q c 'III. $ [� 705 _ a•ar tens/ '.f f;' 1 F II,5r j3 o ns.. a 'Ai'r 3Y•rY ]] � t _ t� rr rc 9a _ t ii nJb- 9 L s 9f n 0e1rIR.S#/+r,Ja/II�lE//Sri[/]]. 9/Sf � 4 em s r er.v M.8.1 E/4,42.AALM CANYON MESA NO R.S. 9/57 SURDIVISION OF LOT 10. m ar ar r vn rr,.s/ a RS. 46/95 R.S.30/41 4 PM.51/85 Para0 Map N0. 8875 PM 100/43 I8163 PIN. 158/4g-9 " / `I 03755 ASSESSOR IS MAP M 513 PC 3i RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIF Q Q Q �I s0000 ® 1 R' RECEIVED OCT 20 2096 PLANNING SERVICES 3 . 2990 D01�0 JQM4L% : � VAN Res0ence 350 El Portal hirn 5prinq5, callromla v-1 To Planning Commissioners Re Proposed project at 350 E1 Portal Case No. 3.2999 SFR and 7.1215 General Concerns As an abutter of this property, I have had an opportunity to voice concern and provide data for your consideration but there are puzzling aspects for which I find no venue for review.I did not receive notice when this project was seen by the "Design Committee," which might have been a more appropriate time and place. Therefore I am writing this memo and thank you in advance for your consideration. There is no association of homeowners in The Mesa, although discussion of the need is ongoing. However, while I appear as a lone voice,I assure you I am not the only owner with the concerns included in my comments. A.The recorded sale of 356 El Portal, APN 513-380-059_ a 34,858 sq. ft. lot with existing house of 2618 sq. ft,, in April 2006 for$499,000 is alarmingly out of sync with real estate values in The Mesa. Local realtors say that the lot alone is worth closer to 2 million. At the time of sale, there is reference to subdivision for a roughly 13,000 sq. ft. lot . If there is an agreement to transfer a portion of the property to the seller after division I think this should be part of the disclosure to the City. B.Aspects of the current proposal carry the taint of gerrnmandering(the gerund of a verb meaning "manipulate to gain advantage"). The 13,000 sq-ft. parcel (see above)was, I believe, found substandard. In addition, the existing access to the garage for 356 El Portal would be compromised by ANY building on the eastern part of the property. So an easement has been proposed between the two parcels. The impact of that easement on the proposed project is dramatic. 1.It increases the square footage of the eastern parcel to 15,100. 2.ft includes terraced portions of the western parcel and an aberrant"tail" at the northwest corner that has been interpreted as sufficient"slope" to qualify as hillside. C.Is it appropriate that the land dedicated as an easement which is required for access, and therefore, by definition, laud that CANNOT be built on, be used in the calculation of a lots size OR in the determination of the slope of the land on which a building can be placed? D.If indeed the access provided by the easement is for both parcels, why is there a second curb out and driveway to a garage on El Portal for the eastern parcel? RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2907 John Harrell, at 325 W Ov4okad PLANNING SERVICES 0 0 0 0 t,� To Planning Commission Re, Case No-32999,350 El Portal Analysis of Density and Scale Data taken from public records for these properties on El Portal and W.Overlook Road west of Mesa Drive,the immediate impact area affected by the new house proposed at 350 El Portal. Yg is building size divided by lot size,an objective way to compare the relative amount of house on land for a collection of properties of various sizes and types of houses. Address Lot size S" Firs % Zoned Comm 1885 Mesa 16,988 2724 1 16 Ric 1907 " 18,731 2456 1 13 R1 235 El Portal 10,454 1580 1 15 Ric 240 " 16,553 3330 1 20 Ric 245 " 16,117 1511 2 9 R I c I room on 2nd FI 266 15,246 4689 1 31 Ric New courtyard house 277 18,295 4746 2 26 Ric Itahanate on double lot 288 14,375 2313 1 16 Rl 302 11,326 2208 1 19 Ric 305 10,119 2628 2 26 Ric Redone 2006 325 10,454 3349 1 32 Ric 344 9,583 1912 1 20 RI 345 27,007 M13 (1) 19 Rl/R1b Spanish Colonial estate 355 10,019 3074 2 31 RI Cubist contemporary 356 34,858 2618 1 8 Rl To he subdivided for 350* 368 14,810 2850 1 19 Ric 375 59,677 2304 1 4 Ric 382 21,780 2965 2 14 Rlc Garage under 1 floor. 386 16,117 1750 1 11 Ric 390 54,450 1296 1 2 Ric 223 W Ovrlk 24,394 3054 1 13 Ric 226 32,234 1647 1 5 7 232 14,375 3391 1 24 7 241 17,424 5606 1 32 7 In 3 separate bldgs 254 13,939 3813 1 27 7 267 13,503 2340 1 17 RIG 279 8,276 1822 1 22 Ric 290 10,454 1536 1 _ 15 7 291 8,712 2136 1 25 Ric 299 8,276 1229 1 15 Ric 300 12,632 1566 1 12 Ric 301 8,712 2253 1 26 Ric 319 11,760 1484 1 13 Rl 324 10,018 740 1 7 7 Portion of Gillette Estate 325 16.800 2300 1 14 Rl 333 11.326 2222 1 20 Ric 303Crstview26,136 5003 1 19 Rl Wouk Estate * If you divide this property into 2 lots,356 becomes a 19,759lot with 2618 bse(or 13% coverage)and 350,a 15,100 lot with 6355 hse(or 42%)nearly two-and-a-half times the average in the impact area,which is 17.5%for El Portal and 18%for Overlook Road. nnnn:;4 Re Case No. 3-2999 SFR and 7.1215 APN 513-380-059 Proposed Single Family Residence 350 El Portal Statement to be read at hearing 28 February 2007 My name is John Harrell,I am an owner of and reside at 325 W Overlook Road, which abuts the proposed new house at 350 El Portal, on the northern side. I am already on record in opposition to this project as submitted because of its negative impact on the character and scale of my neighborhood, The Mesa. You have been mailed two items I prepared for the Commission's consideration: a statement of Q=eral Concerns and an Analysis of Density and Scale_which I assume are now part of the public record. At this time, I ask the Planning Commission to consider a specific and personal objection to the two-story residence being proposed. There are two balconies on the upper floor shown in the plans: A. A wide one accessed through sliders on the east elevation which overlooks an abutting property. (I will let the owners of that house speak of their concerns.) B.A smaller one accessed by French doors on the north elevation which allows a person to look over my privacy wall, into a private back yard, through a large glass wall and directly into my bedroom. While I am surrounded by existing houses on three sides, all are single story and are sited to ensure their and my privacy. If this project is approved in spite of its negative impact on my neighborhood, I ask that you require the removal of:a balcony that will daily and constantly threaten my privacy and that any and all fenestration on the north elevation be redesigned to ensure and protect my privacy. Thank you for your consideration. 000055 Daniel Hogan 344 West El Portal Palm Springs, CA 92264 RECEIVED February 22, 2007 -_a 2 2 2007 Palm Springs planning Commission PMINGS WCES City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Case No.: 3.2999 SFR and 7.1215 Dear Commissioners: We are writing to urge you to not approve the current plans to build on 350 West El Portal. As you noticed by the turn out at the last Planning Commission Hearing regarding this matter, several of our neighbors also have serious concerns regarding this issue. I am very thankful for the opportunity we were given to raise objections during the public comments period of the last Planning Commission Hearing. Unfortunately I did not do a good job describing our primary concerns why the current plans to build on 350 West El Portal should not be approved. We do not argue the fact that Mr. Beck (356 West El Portal) had the legal right to divide his property although we certainly wish he had not done so. We also fully agree that Mr. Van has the legal right to develop his newly acquired parcel at 350 West El Portal in this beautiful mesa neighborhood. We do however have three primary concerns regarding the current plans Mr. Van has submitted. Privacy, Size and Flooding. Privacy. Our property is adjacent (to the east) of the proposed new construction. The plans that have been submitted show a 28' tall, two-story structure that would totally erase the back yard pool area privacy our family has enjoyed in this home for over 30 years. Even with the proposed set back, the second story master bedroom of the new structure would have an unobstructed view of our (now) private back yard. The section of the parcel at 350 West El Portal that will be developed is flat so it does not seem fair that the height restriction would be oan��� waived for a hillside lot. That is simply taking out of context the true meaning of a hillside lot. We believe the parcel does not qualify as a true hillside lot and therefore a two-story structure should not be permitted. We also believe the current plans Mr. Van has submitted unfairly take away our back yard privacy. • Size. Size does matter! Once again we completely agree Mr. Van has a right to build on his newly acquired parcel. However, we (and many of our neighbors) feel a 6,400 square foot structure on a 15,000 square foot parcel should not be approved. It does not fit the feel of this neighborhood at all especially once one gets this far west up El Portal Road. In contrast, our modest home right next door is 2,400 square feet. • Flooding/Drainage. This gets past subjective opinions and deals instead with the fact that we have a drainage issue that will only get worse if 350 West El Portal is developed recklessly. Presently the open land on that parcel absorbs a great deal of water even in a moderate rain. As the water flows off of the mountain, it runs east along the private driveway behind our home and pools where 4 parcels come together on the northeast corner of our property. We feel it is imperative that any new construction at 350 West El Portal takes into consideration the amount of water that land now absorbs and the damage that will result from altering the current situation and the probable liability that will follow. Once again we want to thank the Commissioners for their attention in this matter. We would like to especially thank the Commission Members that took the time and effort to come out and actually look at the parcel in question. That shows us a great deal about our local government and how it works. Sincerely, Daniel Hogan 344 West El Portal Palm Springs, CA 92264 760-323-9770 04 ?AU4Sp U v � �r Planning Commission Staff Report Date: February 28, 2007 Case No's: 3.2999—SFR and 7.1215 AMM Type: Single Family Residence Location: 350 El Portal APN: 513-380-059 Applicant: Steven Van General Plan: L2 (Low Density Residential) Zone: R-1-13 (Single-family Residential) From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services Project Planner: Christopher Ison, Planning Technician PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 14, 2007 to consider an application by Steven J. Van for Architectural Approval and Administrative Minor Modification for a Single Family Residence Located at 350 El Portal, Zoned R-1-13, Section 27. The Planning Commission voted to continue the proceedings to February 28, 2007 in order for Staff to clarify the following issues: • The history of the lot and clarification of the lot lines. • Area of the footprint of the proposed residence in relation to the surrounding properties. • Height and number of stories of the surrounding properties. 000058 The history of the lot and clarification of the lot lines The Palm Canyon Mesa Tract was adopted in 1927; a copy of the map is attached as Exhibit 1. The map consisted of lots one through 71. Lot ten was a large parcel that encompassed the area west of then lot 9, to the north then lot 11 to the south of El Portal. In 1929, lot 10 was further subdivided, Exhibit 2, thus establishing Parcel 2. In 1937 a Grant Deed to one Elizebete Adams was recorded granting the real property, a portion of said Parcel 2, with dimensions of 136 feet wide and 147 feet deep, as shown on the assessor map book 513, page 38 dated March 1969, Exhibit 3. The Applicant Steven Van was granted a lot line adjustment on 2/14/2006. The purpose of this adjustment was to move the property line around the existing swimming pool of the neighboring lot. The Front lot line of this parcel is approximately 134 feet as recorded in the lot line adjustment. Based on this information staff has believes this to be a legal lot of record. Area of the footprint of the proposed residence in relation to the surrounding properties The average square footage for the homes fronting El Portal is 2,558 square feet, with a low of 1,296 square feet and a high of 3,749 square feet over a total of 12 parcels. This figure was derived from taking the tax assessor records available through CityGIS, for each lot that fronts on El Portal and is located on the same map page as the subject parcel. Staff determined these to be the most current and relevant parcels as they are all a part of or abutting the most recent subdivision of land for the Palm Canyon Mesa Tract. The subject parcel has a proposed footprint of 4,156 square feet. Height and number of stories of the surrounding properties Staff could not ascertain the height of the individual developments due to the age of the structures; however, staff was able to ascertain the number of stories. Currently there are seven homes along the north side of El Portal, four of which have two stories, and there are five homes on the south side of El Portal of which four homes are two story residences this gives a 2:3 ratio, or 66% of the developed parcels having two-story developments. CONCLUSION: The proposed project is allowed by right-of-zone and is consistent with the land use policies of the General Plan and the City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, as modified by Administrative Minor Modification. The Architectural Advisory Committee recommended the project for approval. Therefore, Staff is recommending approval of Case 3.2999 — SFR and Case 7.1215, subject to the conditions of approval attached herein as Exhibit A. ooao�s ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303(a) (New Single-family Residence). Oki Al:�� Christophe S. Ison rai . E ing, AI Planning Technician Dire of Planni g ervices Attachments: - Original PC Packet Records of Survey OF PALM Sp R ~ iC U yr t w Planning Commission Staff Report Date: March 28, 2007 Case No's: 3.2999—SFR and 7.1215 AMM Type= Single Family Residence Location: 350 El Portal APN: 513-380-059 Applicant: Steven Van General Plan. L2 (Low Density Residential) Zone: R-1-13 (Single-family Residential) From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services Project Planner: Christopher Ison, Planning Technician PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 28, 2007 to consider an application by Steven J. Van for Architectural Approval and Administrative Minor Modification for a Single Family Residence Located at 350 El Portal, Zoned R-1-13, Section 27. The Planning Commission voted to refer the project back to the Architectural Advisory Committee for restudy of the privacy issues voiced by the neighboring property owners. PRIOR ACTIONS On December 21, 2006 the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the project and voted 6-0-1 (Donald Wexler was absent) to recommend approval to the Planning Commission, On February 14, 2007 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on and voted to continue the item to the February 28th Meeting, OUOp6I On February 28, 2007 the Planning Commission held a second Public Hearing and voted to continue to March 28, 2007; the project was referred back to the Architectural Committee to review building height, roof lines, ridge lines, window locations and consideration of the project architecture and its fit into the neighborhood character. The proposed project will be reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee on March 26, 2007. Staff will make an oral presentation on the proceedings and recommendations of the Architectural Advisory Committee to the Planning Commission on March 28, 2007. Christopher . Ison - � C aig A. 6A4 , ICP Planning Technician Director of Planning Services Attachments: - Original PC Packet of ?ALM s� c V N k 'ISO't ,V- Planning Commission Staff Report Cif!FQ Date: May 23, 2007 Case No's: 3.2999—SFR and 7.1215 AMM Type: Single Family Residence Location: 350 El Portal APN: 513-380-059 Applicant: Steven Van General Plan: L2 (Low Density Residential) Zone: R-1-6 (Single-family Residential) From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services Project Planner: Christopher Ison, Planning Technician PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 28, 2007 to consider an application by Steven J. Van for Architectural Approval and Administrative Minor Modification for a Single Family Residence located at 350 El Portal. The Planning Commission voted to continue the hearing in order to give the applicant, Steven Van, an opportunity to make revisions to the plans as restudied by the Architectural Advisory Committee. PRIOR ACTIONS On December 21, 2006 the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the project and voted 6-0-1 (Donald Wexler was absent) to recommend approval to the Planning Commission. On February 14, 2007 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on and voted to continue the item to the February 28, 2007 meeting. nnnrl, On February 28, 2007 the Planning Commission held a second Public Hearing and voted to continue the project to March 28, 2007; the project was referred back to the Architectural Committee to review building height, roof lines, ridge lines, window locations and consideration of the project architecture and its fit into the neighborhood character. On March 26, 2007 the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the project within the specific guidelines of the Planning Commission. At this meeting the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) asked the applicant to consider a redesign of the second story and the applicant agreed. RECOMENDATION Although the applicant had agreed to modify the project, the applicant has returned with the original project with no alterations to the site plan or elevations. Based the concerns expressed by the AAC and Planning Commission — and the applicant's decision to make no changes - Staff is recommending denial of Planning Case No. 32999 SFR and 7.1215 AMM. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303(a)(New Single-family residence). Ch istopher S. Is *rE wing, PPlanning Techni an P. ni g Services Attachments: -Vicinity Map -Draft Resolution -Staff Report Dated February 14, 2007 -Planning Commission Minutes -Reduced Elevations and Site Plan 000061 Department of Planning Services " Vicinity Map ""+E 5L CAMINO 71 _ "' oR 0 or - w o� �o �a OVERLOOK FZ0 ------Li ~ — - - EL PORTAL Legend Projed Area �- 400'Buffer CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DESCRIPTION: Application for architectural review CASE NO: 3.2999 SFR and 7.1215 and administraive minor modificatio for a6.355 s.f. SFR APPLICANT: Steven J. Van located at 350 El Portal Zoned R-1-B Section 27. APN:513-380-059 1000065 RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA FOR THE DENIAL OF CASE NO. 3.2999 (350 EL PORTAL) — A SFR, ZONE R-1-13, SECTION 27. WHEREAS, Steven J_ Van ("Applicant') has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code for a single-family dwelling unit located at 350 El Portal, Zone R-1-B, Section 27; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2007, the Architectural Advisory Committee met and requested a redesign of the second story; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2007, a public hearing 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 project is Categorically Exempt, Class III, per Section 15303(a), new construction of a single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. Section 2: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 94.04.00(E) and Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, in accordance with the guidelines established in Section 94.04.00(D), the Planning Commission has reviewed the fallowing: The required findings for the Administrative Minor Modification (Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the Palm Springs zoning Code) are as follows: 1. The requested minor modification is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance. The Administrative Minor Modification meets all the requirements of General Plan Policy 3.4.4. There are no Specific Plans associated with this parcel, and the 000066 Planning Commission Resolution May 23, 2007 Case 3,2999, 7.1215 Page 2 of 4 manner of the modification is specifically allowed by Section 94.04.01(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code. 2. The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification. Due to site topography of the neighboring residential properties Staff has determined a detrimental impact can be expected. Specifically, the second story balconies and windows are oriented in such a way as to allow direct observation of neighboring properties located down slope from the proposed project. 3. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. All construction will be built to the Uniform Building Code, Palm Springs Zoning Code as modified by this Administrative Minor Modification, and Fire Code. 4. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of the property or neighborhood. The modification is warranted due to topography of the site which has an undulating surface with slopes of 10% or more. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: The Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.04.00(D)(1-9) provides guidelines for the architectural review of development projects conformance is evaluated, based on consideration of the following: 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; Access to the proposed project is designed according to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and within the development standards of the City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance. The buildings are centrally massed with a secondary garage located in the rear of the property, and the primary garage facing the primary street. The recreation area is located to the north eastern corner of the parcel. 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; a�aos, Planning Commission Resolution May 23, 2007 Case 3,2999, 7,1215 Page 3 of 4 The surrounding properties are single-family residences, with a mix of one and two stories. The size and mass of the residences are smaller then the proposed project. The project does not create a harmonious relationship with the surrounding properties within the context of the immediate area. The proposed pad does not compliment the neighborhood's historic development patterns for massing and second stories, thus presenting an imposing fagade to the street. The proposed project is excessive in size and mass, and does not follow the historic development of the neighborhood. 3. Maximum height, area, setbacks and overall mass, as well as parts of any structure (buildings, walls, screens towers or signs) and effective concealment of all mechanical equipment; The building is proposed on a hillside lot with a tri-level pad allowing for the most discretion in building height to a maximum height of 26 feet, 4 feet less than the allowed 30 feet height for hillside lots. The yards meet or exceed minimum requirements and a masonry wall will conceal any mechanical equipment. 4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings; AND 5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously, AND 6. Consistency of composition and treatment, The building configuration uses the available space to create a large central mass. Door and window architectural features and overhangs are designed in a Mediterranean style. The proposed color palette is muted and reflects colors found in the mountains and desert vegetation. 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 site contains a number of mature trees and plants that will be removed. The majority of the specimen trees will be preserved and relocated throughout the proposed landscape. The landscape design proposes drought tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcover with an emitter irrigation system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies Case No. 3.2999 — SFR and 7.1215 AMM. nnnbsh Planning Commission Resolution May 23, 2007 Case 3,2999, 7.1215 Page 4 of 4 ADOPTED this_ day of , 2007. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NOS.: 3.2999 SFR AND 7.1215 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW) AND ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR MODIFICATION PROJECT LOCATION: 350 EL PORTAL ROAD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of July 18, 2007. 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 the hearing is to consider an appeal by Steven Van of a decision by the Planning Commission to deny the above applications to construct a new single family dwelling on a hillside site. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15303(A) (Class 3 — Single Family Residence) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The proposed application, site plan and related documents are available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8.00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323- 8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009[b][2]). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to David Newell, Planning Services Department at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puefth.ablar . con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245. mes Thompson, City Clerk - AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing, to consider an appeal by Steven Van of the Planning Commission's decision outlined in Resolution 7002, a denial of an architectural approval and administrative minor modification for a single family residence located at 360 El Portal, was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on or before the 6t" day of July, 2007, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U-S- Mail at Palm Springs, California- (11 notices mailed) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Pa / pri gs, California, this 12"' day of July 2007, i CHRISTOPHER" SON PLANNING TECHNICIAN 1�1 513363017 513363020 513363031 DUNN.RONALD&BEATRICE HARRELL,IOHN A&ROSE EARL WOUKJ3ERMAN&BETTY S 319 W OVERLOOK RD 325 W OVERLOOK RD 303 W CRESTVIEW DR PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS. CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 513363032 513380004 513380014 KARVELIS.DONALD S AIKENS,DONALD THOMAS& AIKENS,DONALD THOMAS& 2990 ARABY CIR MARJORIE CONLEY TRUST MARJORIE CONLEY TRUST PALM SPRINGS. CA 92264 368 W EL PORTAL 368 W EL PORTAL PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 513380044 513380057 513380059 HARRISON,KENNETH E HOGAN,A MICHAEL VAN STEVEN,J 355 EL PORTAL 344 EL PORTAL 471 E AVENIDA HOKONA PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 513380069 513380070 LANGMAN,DAVID&ARLINE LANGMAN,DAVID 249 S ROBERTSON BLVD 249 S ROBERTSON BLVD BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 1 s Z1 0 Time Line 350 W. EL Portal 1. Recorded sale of Bill Beck's property at 356 El Portal [APN 513-380-0591, a 2618 sq ft house on a 34,858 sq ft lot, in April 2006 for$499,000.00, with references to a 13000 sq. ft lot [below minimum of 15,0001. The property is unique in The Mesa, with a garage under the rear of the house, which requires a long, buttressed driveway for access. 2. Steve Van applied for a permit to build a 6355 sq ft house on a 15, 116.5 sq ft lot on 20 October 2006 at 356 W El Portal - case No. 3.2999 SI♦R. [Lot line adjustments to create this larger parcel show a new driveway to the old Beck house on a "shared easement" between 350 and 356, its area being added to the substandard lot mentioned above but not available for construction.] 3. Steve Van applied for an Administrative Minor Modification on 8 January 2007,to increase height to 27 feet and reduce front yard setback to 22 feet, Case 7.1215 AMM_ 4. In response to neighborhood concerns about scale and content at the hearing, The Planning Commission voted on 14 February 2007 to continue the item to 28 February. 5. At the public hearing on 28 February 2007, the motion to approve the,proposal failed and the Planning Commission voted to reopen the case for restudy and to send the proposal back to ACC for review of specific items of concern. With the exception of "privacy,"these concerns were not voiced at ACC. Applicant agreed to restudy design of second floor. 6. At a review by the AAC on 26 March 2007, the concerns of the Planning Commission and the neighbors were presented. The applicant reluctantly agreed to restudy and the Planning Commission decided on 28 March to continue the case, 7. Applicant resubmitted the original plans and staff recommended denial of the project at a public hearing on 23 May 2007. The applicant requested continuance to restudy, at the last moment. In direct response to questions by a commissioner, applicant spoke of a preference to keep the size and height. Planning Commission voted UNANIMOUSLY,. to deny the project and the request for a continuance. 8. Applicant appealed that decision to City Council on 4 June 2007, JAH11 July 07 000071 Fin John Harrell To Palm Springs City Council Dt 12 July 2007 Re Case No 3.2999 SFR and 7,1215 AMM I am an owner of 325 W Overlook Road, a property that abuts the proposal at 350 W El Portal. My comments at the hearing will focus on one of the engines that has driven the earlier debates—the assertion that the land on which the proposed house would be built can be called"hillside." The materials attached to this letter are extracted from my presentation at that time, but deserve some time for you to study, even a viewing if you have the time. The critical thing to note in the aerial from Goggle Earth is the shape, like a blunt finger, of the hill up which El Portal climbs. The afternoon shadows virtually outline the shape. Google Earth uses the USGS contours to create three dimensional images from aerial photographs. The contour 480' above sea level is traced in red; the last major elevation before the land at the base of the mountain begins to flatten dramatically. A unique feature of the existing house at 356 El Portal—built on the tip of the "forger," is the garage under therm of the one-story structure, requiring a drive curving across the lower"lot" where 350 is proposed, The photographs show the terraces that buttress the pool yard and the wall that supports the drive. The parking surface outside the garage doors is ten feet above the private drive from which one picture was taken. The drive and terracing are man-made features which have been gerrymandered to calculate a slope of more than ten per cent-minimum for a hillside designation- and do not represent natural conditions.The Planning Commission used its discretionary power to disallow the designation of this as hillside. I urge your support of that decision 000072 ( li t I�1 i t A V r / I•IIJJ ''Y'1 Y •I. V Ifr�r,,'1 46 1 r rl Jeri r r'�Yrll 1 S 1 ryT �, ! M % * . hl �i''i''1 ,f 1�"I AJhc '�� � 1 f� 1 �. l Y r r� AI�•,� 4D ram' NII I ff' 1U,,y it r •�n Y t /y ��4�1yy�.dN 0 0 Y I .rrlr it,, 1 r n'r rl OT �r q pp � 11 lil;`IaA� •� ' Y 1 •. � I 1 ._. .Irv. � �� . y q1 - y , l I y, I� R♦ 16 {•f � ]. 1 '�, ; { _� .� III. ' 0.' ' r j A ' — I er - A 1 1 1 1 1 ' I I 1 1 11 I I 1 11 .JI�Yf .._�' � ,•µkb �_`�,': _ V - �' f'� '-�� .: ,,�•Fia �i I,`[;�� - I, C Taken from abutting property, showing drive from El Portal to garage �I behind 356, Proposal relocates it to area now landscaped with mature palms !( _ .,�::�j ,,i slr -a� -.��,:�.,;,'i:lll '�r'l'Il rl Y'i•I'. '�;�' p I 1 . •I•I�: . r — — _ _ I Y ! .�.y •�.PP i' '(-�.f f' it � I, ffll � j I �rr� � 7I _ �,`� I Y::i%' i df.'! yi, tr. r,� 'I '•" s T ' I Q it I I., � 1 I 'I: it • I :I' Litit •. .�:'. - ar I tl' 'I �, I i .j, i. .I f':L:il 4j I :I' Ill - R r .., f ' ,tom ' ss,f,ri.�• ',a s� --`ri,:�. _.^:� - I - X D Taken from private way, showing parking area behind garage . . . OOOG ;y6 - �,S'.'1 � _i •v�{k+•�" ` �, i._ .5 i j1111:1i �'1 •f ��' Ilia ,ya ' n N '• �1. !I�b, p.�l, III In1 SA IVI '!r:' *�' '� �' • '.fib � �� r tt��„ �� 1 0� �• ,; '�`. S L�.• �� �� � _ r ��1 .s 'CAI°1�ylry.',�i,• I r � . :' •:sue= : ' ; i'' I 'r: .l�. e'er'}' �•~ � E wa'j { � t, • I I S ' I 1 I I I I I I I ! I I k l I I I I I To Planning Commission Re. Case No. 3.2999, 350 El Portal Analysis of Density and Scale Data taken from public records for those properties on El Portal and W. Overlook Road west of Mesa Drive,the immediate impact area affected by the new house proposed at 350 El Portal. is building size divided by lot size, an objective way to compare the relative amount of house on land for a collection of properties of various sizes and types of houses. Address Lot size B" Eke. % Z=d BLS 1885 Mesa 16,988 2724 1 16 Ric 1907 " 18,731 2456 1 13 RI 235 El Portal 10,454 1580 1 15 Ric 240 " 16,553 3330 1 20 Ric 245 16,117 1511 2 9 Ric i room on tad tl 266 15,246 4689 1 31 Ric New courtyard house 277 18,295 4746 2 26 Ric Italianate on double lot 288 14,375 2313 1 16 R1 302 11,326 2208 1 19 Ric 305 10,119 ' 2628 2 26 Ric Redone 2006 325 10,454 3348 1 32 Ric 344 9,583 1912 1 20 RI 345 271007 5113 (1) 19 Rl/R1b Spanish Colonial estate 355 10,019 3074 2 31 R1 Cubist contemporary , 356 34,858 2618 1 8 R1 To be subdivided for 350* 368 14,810 2850 1 19 Ric 375 59,677 2304 1 4 Ric 382 21,780 2965 2 14 Ric Garage under 1 floor. 386 16,117 1750 1 11 Ric 390 54,450 1296 1 2 Ric 223 W Ovrlk 24,394 3054 1 13 Ric 226 32,234 1647 1 5 ? 232 14,375 3391 1 24 ? 241 17,424 5606 1 32 ? In 3 separate bldgs 254 13,939 3813 1 27 ? 267 13,503 2340 1 17 Ric 279 8,276 1822 1 22 Ric 290 10,454 1536 1 15 _ ? 291 8,712 2136 1 25 Ric 299 8,276 1229 1 15 Ric 3W 12,632 1566 1 12 Ric 301 8,712 2253 1 26 Ric 319 11,760 1484 1 13 R1 324 " 10,018 740 1 7 ? Portion of Gilleife Estate 325 16.800 2300 1 14 RI 333 11.326 2222 1 20 Ric - - 303 Crstview26,136 5003 1 19 R1 Wouk Estate * If you divide this property into 2 lots, 356 becomes a 19,759 lot with 2618 hse (or 13% coverage) and 350, a 15,100 lot with 6355 hse(or 42%) nearly two-and-a-half times the average in the impact area,which is 17.5%for El Portal and 18%for Overlook Road. To Whom it May Concern: The house proposed for 350 El Portal, Palm Springs, in the Mesa neighborhood, would overwhelm the lot and damage the character of the neighborhood. There are two story homes close by, but their size in relation to their lots and their placement on those lots are appropriate and attractive. Only with major downsizing and modification of plans would the 350 El Portal house compare with those. My wife, Laura Lee, and I have lived at 295 Camino Carmelita for over five years. Franklin J. Burns June 26, 2007 DD0075 BSW LITERARY AGENCY, INC. 303 CRESTVIEW DRIVE, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 (760) 320-6345 FAX(760) 320-6842 May 20 , 2007 Mr. Christopher Ison Dept. of Planning Services City of Palm Springs Re : Case 3 . 299 SFR and 7 . 1215 Dear Mr Ison: I cannot attend the May 23rd meeting, in which the building plans of the property located at 350 El Portal Road will be on the agenda, and I therefore request that this letter be read into the record. I have resided at 323 W. overlook Road since 1983 , and have much enjoyed the serenity of the neighborhood, in contrast to the more urbane parts of Palm Springs . it isn' t surprising that I find the plans proposed by the present owner of the abovementioned property to be grossly inappropriate, disruptive, and an intrusion on the privacy of me and my neighbors . I also find it deeply disturbing that the applicant agreed when asked by the Architectural Advisory Committee, at the March 28th meeting, to revise his original proposal, and is now resubmitting the same design, without changes . Such an arbitrary action can only be interpreted as an insult not only to concerned residents, but to the Planning Commission and the City of Palm Springs as well . Any accommodation made to further the applicant ' s present proposal will, I fear, set a dangerous precedent . Sincerely, Suzanne Stein c : John Harrell QECE1VED MAY 2 2 2007 0 o a a '6NNING SERIES � 1 Mr.Christopher Ison May 18,2007 Department of Planning Services City of Palm Springs Re:Case No. 3.29999 SFR and 7.1215 Dear Mr. Isow My winter home is located at 321 W Overlook Rd (also known as Overlook Glen Rd), in the Mesa area of Palm Springs_ The one-lane access road, which I use to get home, is immediately north of the property now designated as 350 E1 Portal Road. I have several objections to the proposed design, one of which I spoke about in a recent Planning Commission meeting. Difficult though it is (even fox me)to picture in this year of so little rain, during the rainier winters I have lived here, the lower part of the access road can be subject to quite a bit of runoff, since the road leads directly west into an arroyo. At times,the southeast coiner, where the road turns toward El Portal, can be impassable. Having driven up and down the little road usually several times daily,I feel that more excess rainwater is channeled of onto the current dirt surface of the lot in question than is being taken into account. Where will it go if that land is not built upon very carefully? It would be impossible for me not to see how very negatively this house would impact some of my neighbors: those who live in one-story houses in the more immediate vicinity of the proposed new home. One can only think that the property value of at least three homes in the shadow of this large home will be reduced drastically. I heard it mentioned, at the meeting in March, that there are many two-story homes in the vicinity of this project, and that is indeed true. The difference is that the existing homes do not radically affect their neighbors_ The]rouses of Beck, Langman, Callahan and Kuperman are the two-stories mentioned; they either are very large properties or are nestled into the hillside. The lot at issue here is flatter than it may sound, and a large, two-story home built here will "stick out like a sore thumb", and will be very much more intrusive to some people than is being portrayed. Please don't let this project go forward. A single story home is really all that is appropriate in this location. Thanks so much for taking the time to read this. Sincerely, RECEIVED Jane VMcFee 1 AAh1ANN�'1{ 712997 Cc:Mr. Jahn Hard PIING SERVICES Mr. Dw iel Hogan oa© oar Daniel Hogan 344 West El Portal Palm Springs, CA 92264 July 5, 2007 Palm Springs City Council City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Case No.: 3.2999 SFR and 7.1215 Dear Council Members: Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this. I recognize your time is valuable and I will do my best to not waste this opportunity. However this is a serious matter for me, my father and our Mesa neighbors. We are the residents and homeowners of the abutting property to the east of the parcel in question. My Father has lived in this home for over 30 years. I am writing to urge you to deny the appeal on this matter. We are asking you to reject both the appeal for the plans the applicant has submitted and the request for a continuance. As you know the Palm Springs Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the plans the applicant has submitted. Also at that time the Planning Department's recommendation was to deny. We are asking you to not overturn those decisions. Why? Several Mesa homeowners will be submitting written comments that focus on various aspects of this issue. My area of concern primarily involves the AMM or variance for height. As you know, an AMM or variance is granted to allow development of an unusual parcel of land but there needs to be something about that parcel that makes the normal rules unrealistic or impossible to obey. In this case the Applicant wants to build a 26 foot tall home in our historically significant neighborhood where the normal height limit for a single family residence is 19 feet. He is asking you to allow him to not follow the very same rules that we (right next door) would have to obey. The justification for an AMM or variance is that the owner would suffer unique physical hardship under the general zoning regulations because of the shape, size, topography, or location of that parcel. We believe this brings up two simple questions. Please consider the following; 1 - Would the developer experience special physical hardship without an AMM or variance for height? NO! Building a home that did not exceed the normal height restriction of 19 feet would, in no way, inflict a physical hardship on anyone who wanted to develop that parcel. If you have visited the proposed building site you would know for sure that there is no physical need to build beyond the normal height restriction of 19 feet. 2 - Do the plans submitted adversely affect neighboring properties? We believe the answer is "yes" and the Planning Staff's May 23rd report to the Planning Commission came to the same conclusion. The current plans, if approved, would adversely affect neighboring properties for several reasons, one of which is the privacy issue mentioned in the staff report. So, there would be no physical hardship if the applicant followed the normal building code rules like everyone else. And, we believe (and the above mentioned planning staff 0000,3 report agrees) the plans submitted would adversely affect the neighboring properties and the entire neighborhood. The result of these circumstances should spell "No AMM or variance for height" for the plans the applicant has submitted. Hillside or no hillside? The Planning Commission and Planning Department are on the record stating that there are problems with the wording of the current hillside lot code, which is true. We, the homeowners in this neighborhood, should not be the ones to suffer because of a poorly written code. We need you to use your discretionary power to make up for the exceedingly vague wording regarding how this city determines whether a parcel is a hillside lot or not. We have other neighbors that will be writing you specifically regarding the hillside issue. We invite you to please look at the parcel. Once you see the site where the applicant wants to build a 6,300+ square foot, 26 foot tall home we are confident you will come to the same conclusion a majority of our neighbors have. That is not a hillside lot and the plans the applicant has submitted are inappropriate for that parcel in that neighborhood. That brings me to the heart of what I am asking you to consider. The intent of the hillside variance. Even if you decide that the applicant would experience a special hardship by following the normal height limit of 19' (and we believe he would not) and if you feel the parcel is a true hillside lot (which we believe it isn't) then we ask you, just as we asked the Architectural Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, to please consider the "intent of the hillside variance". Do the plans the applicant has submitted use the variance responsibly? We believe the answer is "no". Do the plans create a harmonious relationship with the rest of the immediate neighborhood? We believe the answer is "no" and the above mentioned Planning Staff report concurs. The plans the developer has submitted do not use the slope of the land nor do they remotely resemble a home built on a hillside so is that using the hillside variance responsibly? "NO". In closing, I want to make the point that ours is not a "zero growth" argument. It's a size, scope, height and privacy argument. If the developer submitted a set of plans that fit into that parcel and the neighborhood and showed some concern for the abutting neighbor's privacy I would write letters and stand at City Council meetings in favor of the project. We are asking you to deny the appeal for the continuance and plans the applicant has submitted for 350 El Portal. Once again I would like to thank you for taking the time to read this and for your attention in this matter. My father and I would like to especially thank the City Council members that took the time and effort to come out and actually look at the parcel in question. Sincerely, Daniel Hogan 344 West El Portal Palm Springs, CA 92264 www.danielhogan.com 00008b Donald and Marjorie Conley Aikens 368 West El Portal Palm Springs, CA 92264 July 9, 2007 Palm Springs City Council City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Case No.: 32999 SFR and 7.1215 AMM (350 West El Portal) Dear Council Members: We have been residents of Palm Springs for 48 years and have lived in our present home in the Mesa for 36 years_ Our property is the second house above and just west of ibe subject property. We also own the lot across the street from our home. This lot is approximately one acre in size. We request that you support the denial by The Planning Commission of the above cited case. We feel that the structure proposed by the applicant is too massive in size for the lot. Sincerely, Donald Aikens Marjorie Conley Aikens SLOVAK BARON &ENTEYUP A T T 0 R N E Y S A T L A W TFIOMASS SLOVAX 1800E TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS, CA 02202 ORANGE COUNTY OFFICC ❑AVID L BARON PHONE(760)322-2275 FAX(760)322-2107 650 TOWN CENTER OLVE,SUITE,1400 MARcE EMPEY COS rA MESA,CALIFRONIA 92626 JASON D DABAREINER PHONE(714)435-9591 FAX(714)850.9011 P7ERM Pr1CHNFWI] CHARLEE L CALWGHlR BRINTS CLEMMM $11.5AN W.AusINAN MAt1R126N F GUINAN SHn1INM MURPHY IAMENM ROUINSON INI D OFIIOIRMIC GIIENTHPRA RIGHTER AMIEOSIROH OFCOUNSEL MYRON MEYERS PC 11 NFSL WELLS III July 12, 2007 lLnj ZL) Honorable Mayor Ron Oden f 20J,^ Members of the City Council _,'•i. City of Palm Springs ' 3200 E. Tahquitz Carryon Way 3 24c) g b1 Palm Springs, CA 92262 , -7 — i-Z_ Re: Van Appeal of Decision of Planning Commission Case No. 3.2999 SFR and 7.1245 AMM Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council: This letter is submitted in support of the appeal of Steven and Belinda Van with respect to the above matter and the following actions of the Planning Commission on May 23, 2007: 1. The decision not to continue the item to a fitture date to permit the submission of modified plans; and 2. The denial of the project based on the findings contained in Resolution Number 7002 ("Resolution"), including but not limited to Finding No. 2 with respect to the Minor Modification Finding No. 2 under Architectural Review. The Vans are seeking approval of a single family residence in the Mesa area in South Palm Springs. The project is allowed by right-of-zone and is consistent with the land use policies of the General Plan and the City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance. The lot has been designated as hillside by the Planning Department, and a second story is authorized. The two-story design was deemed of high quality through Architectural Review and Planning Department Staff recommended approval. It was only following the complaints of a few neighbors, originally over O:\BusUcpt\Van,Steve\Ltr Cily Council 7.12.07 doc 0009897 Hon. Mayor Ron Oden City Council July 12, 2007 Page 2 privacy concerns only, that some members of the Planning Commission began questioning elements of the project, and sent the project back to Architectural Review. As it has evolved, the debate centers on two issues: (1) Is the proposed design harmonious with the neighborhood? and (2) Will approval of the minor modification have no detrimental effect upon adjacent properties, considering the orientation of the second story balconies and windows and subjective standards of privacy. It is imperative to note several facts and legal rights pertaining to the home and lot: 1. The Van's property is a legal lot, zoned R-1-B and comprised of approximately .435 acre or 15,116 square feet. It is designated as a hillside lot by the Planning Department, as a "parcel of land containing any portion thereof with a grade of 10% or more." Zoning Ordinance §94.06.01. Accordingly, the height may be increased to 30 feet and front yard setback reduced to 10 feet. 2. The footprint of the structure covers only 27% of the property, well below the permitted 35% coverage per code. §92.01.03.B. The first floor is 3,043 square feet of living space and 1,113 square feet in attached garage space. 3. The home's total height is 26 feet (4 feet under permitted height) with the second story only 6 feet higher than the highest point of the multi-level single-story portion of the home. The roofline is not imposing; it is comprised of varying heights, with a second story area of 2,235 square feet. 4. The placement of the home is well within setback limits on all sides, but dictated to a large extent on a required shared driveway to the west of the property. The front yard setback is 23 feet, substantially greater than the 10 feet that might be allowed for a hillside parcel, but also greater than the 20 feet permitted as of right for a parcel on a curve, which this is. 5. There are no required findings under Chapter 94.04, Architectural Review. The architectural review committee commented favorably on the design and recommended it for approval the first time through. Architectural Finding No. 2 states in part: "The surrounding properties are single-family residences, with a mix of one and two stories. The size and mass of the residences are smaller than the proposed project ... The proposed project is excessive in size and mass, and does not follow the historic development of the neighborhood." 0:\BusDcp6Vun,Swvc\LLr.Gly Council 7.12 07.duc Hon. Mayor Ron Oden City Council July 12, 2007 Page 3 The finding is not accurate for the following reasons: The historic development pattern of the neighborhood includes a mix of homes that are smaller and larger, one and two stories, as noted in both the Planning Commission Resolution and in the schedule attached to the Van's written comments submitted with this letter. The Vans surveyed 25 homes in the immediate vicinity. Eight of the homes are two- story. The Planning Department found about 66% of developed parcels along El Portal to have two stories. (Staff Report, February 28, 2007) The Van's survey finds homes range in size from a substandard 1,296 to 5,617 square feet, with every size in between. interestingly, the Zoning Ordinance sets a minimum size but not a maximum Size for homes. Notably, 277 El Portal is a 5,428 square foot, two-story home built in 1945. The home at 345 El Portal, built in 1981, directly across the street, is 5,617 square feet, and 266 El Portal, built in 1982, is 5,481 square r'eet. The latter two are single story, each with a substantially greater footprint and, as to 266 El Portal, lot coverage, than the Van's proposed home. Some of the smaller homes may be so because the lots are substandard, and therefore are not an appropriate comparison. Architectural Finding No. 2 continues: "The project does not create a hannonious relationship with the surrounding properties within the context of the immediate area. The proposed pad does not complement the neighborhood's historic development patterns for massing and second stories, thus presenting an imposing fayade to the street." According to the Resolution, all of the suggested criteria described in Section 94.04.00.D For Architectural Review have been satisfied with the exception of subsection 2. This section provides that Architectural Review should consider whether a project demonstrates: "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 oFstyle, if warranted." The finding is not accurate for the following reasons: The Mesa area is an eclectic neighborhood, as demonstrated by the photographs and schedule attached to the Van's written comments. The neighborhood contains old G\BusnepiMin,Stcvc\Ltr City Council 7 12 07 doc QGQQ8; Hon. Mayor Ron Oden City Council July 12, 2007 Page 4 and new and a variety of styles coexisting. The homes were built in every decade since the 1940s. Some of the homes would not be approved today, including at least 13 of the 25 lots that are substandard in size and at least I home that is substandard in size, according to Zoning Ordinance §92.01.03.A.1. and B.S. Nonetheless, the harmony of the neighborhood and certainly its development pattern has been disharmonious. The Van's home is similar to the most common design style, however, which is Spanish Colonial with a Mediterranean influence. As noted in the Resolution, the home is has a multi-level pad, and the r00t7ine is staggered with a central mass—not an imposing fagade, especially in light of the fact that it is well within setback requirements, less than the maximum height of 30 feet, and scenic corridors will be preserved. (Staff Report, February 14, 2007) The historical development pattern is eclectic. Moreover, it is clear that homes of the size and style proposed by the Vans are being regularly approved in the City of Palm Springs and in the Mesa neighborhood. Neighbors in the immediate vicinity do support the project. As slated in the Staff Report of February 14, 2007, the "project creates a visual harmony within the neighborhood through use of desert palette and Spanish architecture which is in keeping with the historic development of the neighborhood." It is not possible to conclude that the home as proposed does not fit harmoniously within the neighborhood. AMM Finding No. 2 states: "Due to site topography of the neighboring residential properties Staff has determined a detrimental impact can be expected. Specifically, the second story balconies and windows are oriented in such a way as to allow direct observation of neighboring properties located down slope from the proposed project." This finding is also flawed for the following reasons: The second story windows and balconies are oriented away from private property where possible. (Staff Report, February 14, 2007). The windows and balconies are approximately 40 feet from line to the property to the east. The windows and balconies are over 100 feet from the patio of the property to the northeast (Mr. Harrell), and separated by the homes' recreation areas, two walls and a road_ G\BusDep\vpn,Steve\Ltr.City Council 7 12.07 Joe Hon. Mayor Ron Oden City Council July 12, 2007 Page 5 The property to the west has had the same view from its second story since 1946 as the Van's proposed residence. This is 13 years prior to construction of the residence owned by Mr. Harrell at 325 W. Overlook, who is complaining about his privacy and who maintains no landscape screening to the rear of his property. Pursuant to the proposed conditions of approval dated February 14, 2007, the project will be conditioned upon approval final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans. Landscaping will be used to screen views where privacy issues are a concern_ Privacy is clearly a subjective matter and under the circumstances of this case, does not justify a finding that the proposed residence of Mr. and Mrs. Van will have a detrimental impact upon neighboring properties. Based on the Foregoing, we respectfully urge you to reconsider the findings of the Planning Commission and approve this project. It will be a substantial asset to the Mesa neighborhood and will have a positive impact on property values as well. However, in the event you are not inclined to approve the project as presented, Mr. and Mrs. Van urge you to approve their request to send the project back through architectural review rather than deny it outright. Our clients indicated their willingness to waive permit streamlining timeframes and work with Staff and the Architectural Advisory Committee to revise the project to address some of the concerns of neighbors. Overall the proposed Van residence is a quality design, as indicated by AAC on its first pass through. We ask that the Vans be given that opportunity rather than having to start from the very beginning of the process. Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. Respectfully, S�L]OOV,AK BARON & EMPEY LLP Maureen P. Guinan cc: Craig A. Ewing, AICP Christopher Ison, Planning Technician James Thompson, City Clerk Steven and Belinda Van C\6uaDepl\Van,Steve\Llr City Council 7.12 07 doc 90009� r• ' July 12, 2007 T : ,, • 210I JULG 2 N' Honorable Mayor Ron Oden Members of the City Council City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Appeal of Decision of Planning Commission Case No. 3.2999 SFR and 7.1245 AMM Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council: This letter is in support of our appeal following decisions of the Planning Commission on May 23, 2007, with respect to the above matter. The decision not to continue the item to a future date to permit the submission of modified plans and the denial of the project based on the findings contained in Resolution Number 7002. Proposed Project at 350 El Portal: • We are proposing a multi-level residence with 81 second story. The ground level would have 3043 square feet of living space and two attached garages comprising 1113 sq. ft. The second floor will be 2235 square feet of living space. The height of the second story is 26', only be 6 feet higher than the highest portion of the multi-level single-story portion of the house. Our proposed building footprint covers 27% of the property, well below the allotted 35% coverage per code. We have been trying to get this project approved since submitting on October 20, 2006. Much time, effort, and money has been consumed in this process. We have been to two Architectural Reviews, multiple Planning Commission Meetings, drawn additional exhibits showing topography, line of site and redesigning of the second story_ Though we have not decided to turn in the redesign, the Planning Staff changed their position and recommended the denial of this project. Planning Commission followed suit and denied the project_ Palm Springs Municipal Code: in reviewing the Palm Springs Municipal Code $94.06.01, $94.04.00, and $93.13.00 we feel the project should have been approved as we have met or exceeded the requirements as described below: PCMC 94.06.01 - Planning Staff has determined the site to be a Hillside Area, allowing the two story(26' high) building_ The 23' front yard setback i is allowed per code as a 20' setback is allowed on curved streets. PCMC 94.04.00 - Material boards have been submitted and approved by Architectural Review Board Design aspects - The project is well designed with open and inviting living spaces_ The Mesa area has been eclectic for many years with a Mediterranean Flair being the most common design feature. We feel our design fits perfectly within our neighborhood and will add to the desirability. Our site has been laid out to accommodate the access to the property to the west as they have a rear entry garage. We have been conditioned to provide this access as this property cannot be accessed otherwise. The joint driveway is 6 to 8 feet higher than the lowest portion of the multi-level structure. Landscaping has been designed to relocate existing trees and include Indian Laurels along the north and west property lines as screening from privacy issues. PSMC 93.13.00 - The site does not require grading of existing natural resources as it has been used as a garden portion of the westerly property for many years. The building pad will be multi-level, matching the existing terraced planters and average of the lower elevation_ Pad size is well within the allotted area and has been located in an area currently consisting of clusters of Palm trees and Citrus trees. The view corridors will not be impeded by this development. . Local Development: If one was to drive through the Mesa area of Palm Springs, they would find a wide range of design, age, size, sprawl and landscape. It is a community with no apparent design criteria. The lots vary from 7000 square feet to over 35,000 square feet in size. Construction dates back to the 1930's and currently has various states of development We have researched a good portion of El Portal as well as samples from neighboring streets and found this to be consistent throughout. If consistent describes the area then inconsistent would also describe the area. Many homes have been updated and/or remodeled taking on a more Mediterranean look. We have tabulated the sample referred to above in the following table for your review and comparison. Pictures are also included. We respectfully request your approval of our project. We have been residence of Palm Springs for some 15 years and wish to continue residency in our new home. Should you decide not to approve this project as presented, we ask for the opportunity to go back Architectural Review rather than starting over at square one. Respectfully, 2 000093 E� ✓ti«srtrGi "f a• I nL iL na I I / 4- • yyn�'°•U FV''r, •,'�:'4t +i.� r..i�v�rt ��� /.M"�e, I,.Kn. .qA. ::nAM1 �I('l�✓6 ...I` n �I e + IW ��► CO�(le� © "�h{ prorpef4j{ r v9 `I , near r &44rctJn.j� -}� -� k e. I l� r-k H-arJw, _ p I is a I lk", �n�l 61 4k"- �ro��s�d otU,J f Gd(i9�S ��atl n a+ + I � t1a f�� l �o� �� �tj OA 4 C L � 1•� -� )! _11.: .,;=�..,�`�y rq I it 111 r.. _ S1 :,h.h;N_; �l 1l+ �I•i �t Ir. aM1"' ✓— r a -. .rP`�yi� 4 .rrv'TrnA�Pw'�,arrri•wv;.m1�� J.. y _ _ '�• r.Y.-Mi(A. �'1�'I,fl:1u'.� ine vl^,r d ♦•I'rA.Ai Y�W r � ... J'��AnW.nrv. rll .d➢1Ni ,yV1Yi'd'�1,r .r .l, ray fir' - v11XdWl�[•w• "f Fh 15.°M�F."�Y +yr'^tl�+,"5°V'".+rt.-.s ,"i�'.".^'Pr,iFASn•...W r 1 �u�`li war70 n\4 rIA I (Icipi ext,41r', % ✓kw� 0.T Ow Come.- OT -rr-o` �ar4. . . ff _ A• ry �X • �!'-`�tlJ��J�":a ,i�,::.a, •✓ —'ten '•'�/a�/� i J'�I+�•\w��:�, ,'`` - _ Ir 'y44�•=it '.ewYd �fdQW41 C,�t} + �nl+R' -^ �. {l. .,.,.7 �'�14'X11:'�-`i.. � '.#u y' �.ayy.._ .. ,a=`+rY.s i.! �► '�.-'� `� ,I ���i`'jai nq InI ��� Gev7Ter m �or ct a.4 4k 2 G ter JJI�t I �ne 'Prof 2r�� joo�,j IdvA gcrc,,sS garr'-e�ll . rof�Cerl � GGdG96 THE MESA PROPERTY DATA Address # Stories Year Size Lot Size Photo ID 245 El Portal 2 Story 1935 1511 16117 277 El Portal 2 Story 1945 5428 18295 #1 &#3 305 El Portal 2 Story 1981 3204 10018 #4 325 El Portal 1 Stoix 1955 3748 10454 #2 ** 345 El Portal 1 Story 1981 5617 27007 #5 &#7 355 El Portal 2 Story 1976 3650 10018 #8 390 El Portal 1 Story 1956 1296 54450 386 El Portal 1 Story 1959 1750 16117 382 El Portal 2 Stv 1945 4100 21780 #6 368 El Portal 1 Story 1945 3270 14810 #11 **356 El Portal 2 sto 1946 3520 34848 #9 * 344 El Portal 1 5to 1968 2392 9583 #12 302 El Portal 1 Story 1992 2912 11325 #10 288 El Portal 1 Stmy 1940 2713 14374 #15 266 El Portal 1 Story 1982 5481 15246 #13 1885 Mesa Dr. 1 Story 1952 3080 16988 1907 Mesa Dr. 1 Story 1940 2856 18730 232 Overlook 1 Story 1998 4189 14300 241 Overlook 2 Story 1935/49 3359 1000 #16 254 Overlook 1 Story 2004 4347 13939 #14 270 Overlook 2 Story 2005 3235 8403 #19 301 Overlook 1 Story 1957 2713 8712 #22 * 325 Overlook 1 Sto 1959 2192 6969 210 Crestview 2 Story 1936 3711 9600 #18 265 Crestview 2 Story 2006 3495 9180 #17 266 Crestview 2 Story 1988 2410 10454 #20 285 Buena Vista 2 Stp 2007 n/a n/a #24 Note: The data shown was taken from the County GIS and Property Information Reports from Data Tree. Areas are shown in square feet and size includes roofed improvements. " Denotes adjacent Properly owner in favor of denial. Denotes adjacent Property owner in favor of Approval Page 1 of 1 000097 * Mr. Harrell (325 W. Overlook) has lived adjacent to the property for over 10 years and has been in conflict with this project from the beginning. He has complained of massive sprawl and balconies allowing the intrusion over his privacy. If this was such an issue to him, why has he left his southerly walls open to the south for this long. The properties to the south and southwest have been looking over his walls this entire time. We do propose to plant Indian Laurels to heights great enough to block viewing from either property. . Mr. Hogan (344 El Portal) has lived adjacent to the property for 30 years and also has expressed his concerns for privacy. The west wall common to both properties has been lined with oleanders for many years and will remain lined with screening plants throughout this development and afterwards. ** Mr. Beck (356 El Portal) has lived on the subject property and the adjacent property to the west since the 1050's. The Beck's have been looking down on, over and across the Mesa for many years. From their balcony (located on the easterly side of the house) they have been able view the areas being questioned as privacy infringements even prior to these homes being constructed_ The screening that exists today and the only apparent screening has been on their property (the current subject property). �Gd098 RIVERSIDE COUNTY GIS � 1 C 9L CAMO.Y'1y 8 - L. 0 �^ 4 Ir't''OR 23 ctt�TM" a i 2E 7 1A .1 OVE OOKRO 22 Hic, 6 11 9 10 15 13 VVVV\\\\ EL PORTAL EL PORTAL x 9 5 & 7 2 4 PALM SPRTNG5 � a GA 1 m 0 AL,ryRpS ,t w • - a O 6lrFNA V 157E yr I 24 Y'p 4 op. - Riverside County GIS ll40311 Selected parcel(s): 513-362-014 513-362-015 513-363-020 513-371-004 513-372-020 513-373-019 513-380-003 513-380-004 513-380-008 51$-380-009 513-380.010 513-380-044 513-380-057 513-380-070 513-380-077 513-380-078 513-390-OD1 513-390-002 513-390-030 513-390-043 513-400-022 LEGEND CIRCULATION ELEMENT ®SELECTED PARCEL ❑PARCELS ULTIMATE RICHT-OF-WAV PALM SPRINGS APPROX) 'IMPORTANT" This information is made available through the Riverside County Geographic Information System The inform2ti0n is for reference purposes only.It is intended to be used as base level Information only and is not intended to replace any recorded documents or other public records.Contact appropriate County Department or Agency if necessary Reference to recorded documents and public records may be necessary and is advisable. REPORT PRINTED ON, Man Jul 09 15:24.09 2007 C00699 j 1 1 1 S llr I,°r . ,wlp1 • .1 ,M ' •fI � � �,9 n.�.'Ir i u arU mow'-..'� ( - ��T'p• .,, J1a, .' Fir I — •�'� .... 1.1� __.. I �r_•-•v ftt e .. „✓rN'A.M a.. :~I ••d;? .�;� r -�.. !Ii �,'r' it I>r•§x it r�.� �• 1 —f ti .. MAPN� A�1� III t' -�Q r4.• -'^= `�✓.'^e; � _ �'0'I •' j.A...i�'Wn � 'ul r A '� �--� .,,Y► � r i,:I - -_4,:r• ` � .;� -I , �` :- ---'- :I tip, __.�i,;y" nJ •rA,iA: ",a mew,.�. �,�M,. ,., t..�.;�6 (_,+ � =- 'I + � •.,u s • i �'¢ _ ... .. . .. ..—'�. _• Mrs-�r . - �=�- I = _= i �J ���=IIIIIIIIIIIII ��': '��SUj11 .I III - . •_� I � �--- r -�loti C� —nos — lit ,:• '� a' - = ....gip+" - w -may-�. • __ tok.I Pat ---_All; ................. mill, Ti lT 4w, 1 L c ,e. ria•:l�Y=j�1 _ ^vfir�n�:'I�p�i�.�:"'rl".. 'ti';.rYNF'�N ..Y� I s�''ti�A+ ��=�Fvu}�,•.� IudF, �, . � ^� :1•r- 'i.J. ';� ilk �I1G..�.. I£rl r I 1'�•. D 000103 ti ii 1 40 00 � M ������ � '" a "� j`;. �'�✓_ a,' ur w �WNMr.,�1Ne M r •t J1'�{Y.ViAp$�rA {IYfI :W�'1n a /t MirfF�A'��:IVyW T.� �• '•. F j . 1,`. M a i ^ �'�`� -� . : - 7 •,«'b'1.1 1.fi�4rs 1'WW -�,•�rv�—y{ - , I- J 0 � ,• III - - � �` � �r� �Ir _ yr. fir,n1 n.