HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/7/2016 - STAFF REPORTS - 2.B. iy
c
V N
x
S
Fe0R`'`P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 7, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: APPEAL BY DENLAR LLC OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
TO DENY AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED MAJOR
ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION FOR A REDUCTION IN THE SIDE
YARD SETBACK OF A NEW HILLSIDE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 2110 NORTH LEONARD ROAD; ZONE R-1-13 (CASE
3.3817 MAJ).
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Department of Planning Services
SUMMARY
This is a� request for the City Council to consider an appeal filed by DenLar LLC,
regarding the action of the Planning Commission on July 27, 2016, to deny an
amendment to an approved Major Architectural Application (3.3817 MAJ) for a new
single-family residence that is under construction at 2110 N. Leonard Road. The house
was approved by the Planning Commission in December 2015 with a 16'-9" setback
from the north property line. While in the construction phase, the applicant rotated the
structure to the west and decreased the setback to 10'-0" without seeking an
amendment to the approved plan. Upon issuance of a stop-work order by the Building
& Safety Department, the applicant submitted an amended plan for consideration by the
Planning Commission to allow a setback reduction to 10'-0", to reflect the as-built
condition. The Planning Commission denied the requested amendment; the applicant
has filed the appeal in hopes of continuing construction on the structure in its current
location.
ISSUES:
• The structure as constructed conforms to minimum setback requirements,
although it is inconsistent with the site plan approval granted by the Planning
Commission in December 2015.
• The increased side yard setback approved by the Planning Commission was
intended to reduce impacts to the adjacent property to the north.
• Denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission
would require the applicant to demolish the unfinished structure and rebuild
according to the approved application, or modify the structure to conform to the
16'-9" side yard setback as approved by the Planning Commission.
ITEM NO.��_
City Council Staff Report
September 7, 2016 -- Page 2
3.3817 MAJ -Appeal
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony.
2. Adopt Resolution No. , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY AN AMENDMENT TO A MAJOR
ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A 0.59 ACRE HILLSIDE PARCEL LOCATED AT 2110
NORTH LEONARD ROAD, ZONE R-1-B (CASE 3.3817 MAJ)."
BACKGROUND:
Related Relevant City Actions
The Planning Commission approved a Major Architectural Application
for the construction of a 3,483 square-foot residence on the subject
04/08/15 property, with a 10'-6" setback from the north property line. The
applicant later elected not to proceed with construction of the
proposed design.
The Engineering Division issued a grading permit for the parcel, after
finding the grading plan consistent with the site plan approved by the
07/28/15 Planning Commission in April 2015. The applicant did not submit a
revised grading plan when the site plan was revised in December
2015.
The Planning Commission approved a Major Architectural Application
12/09/15 (3.3817 MAJ) for a revised design on the subject property, depicting
a 2,772 square-foot residence located 16'-9" from the north property
line.
The Department of Planning Services signed off on construction
02/01/16 documents for the proposed residence; the construction drawings
depicted a 16'-9" setback along the north property line in accordance
with the December 2015 approval by the Planning Commission.
The Building & Safety Department approved a building permit for the
03/15/16 proposed residence, based on the plans showing a 16'-9" setback
from the north property line.
The Building & Safety Department issued a stop-work order upon
06/08/16 verifying that the foundation placement did not meet the approved
plans submitted with the building permit application.
The applicant submitted an application to modify the approved site
07/07/16 plan to allow the structure to remain in the location as constructed as
a means to correct the violation.
07/27/16 The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to the
approved plan and voted to deny the request by a vote of 7 to 0.
02
City Council Staff Report
September 7, 2016-- Page 3
3.3817 MAJ -Appeal
An application to construct a house of approximately 3,500 square feet was approved
by the Planning Commission in April 2015; the house as proposed was to be located
10'-6" from the north property line. The applicant resubmitted the project later that year,
and in December 2015, the Planning Commission approved a 2,772 square foot
residence located 16'-9" from the north property line.
A grading plan for the project was submitted to the City for review in June 2015 prior to
the approval of the revised application. The grading permit was approved in July 2015,
based on plans depicting the residence located 10'-0" from the north property line. The
applicant did not submit a revised grading plan when the amended application was
approved by the Planning Commission in December 2015.
Construction documents for the residence were submitted in January 2016. The
construction documents reviewed by the Department of Planning Services and
approved by the Building & Safety Department are consistent with the December 2015
Planning Commission approval.
�. 1-0, ,
j ;--------- --1--- ---------------,
1 I I
1 1
I I
I I
a
0 I I
o I I
<
Z
1 ; I
J 1
I 1 I I
25' i i 15' I
I 1 I
--- ----- -------- ------------I ; Y
20'
'\.-.-.-.-.---.-.-.-416--.-.-.-.-.- SCALE:NTS
CASE NO. 3.3817 MAJ
PROPERTY LINE APPROVED LOCATION
2110 LEONARD ROAD ---- SETBACKBOUNDARY - PROPOSED LOCATION
Figure 1: The illustration above shows the location of the approved footprint of the residence (in red) and
the as-built footprint(in blue).
03
City Council Staff Report
September 7, 2016-- Page 4
3.3817 MAJ -Appeal
Construction on the structure proceeded until June 2016, when a stop-work order was
issued by the Building & Safety Department upon verifying that the structure had not
been constructed in the location shown on the approved construction documents. As
constructed, the structure is located 10'-0" from the north property line and has been
rotated to the west, instead of being located 16'-9" away from the property line as
depicted in the approved construction documents. To correct the discrepancy, the
applicant was provided the option of tearing down the structure and rebuilding to the
approved setbacks, or submitting an amendment to the approved Major Architectural
Application. The applicant elected to submit a revised application, which was reviewed
by the Planning Commission on July 27, 2016. The Planning Commission voted 7 to 0
to deny the amendment to the application, finding that it was not appropriate to modify
the December 2015 approval, and that the applicant had intentionally disregarded the
approvals that had been granted. Members of the Planning Commission noted that
while the structure conformed to minimum setback requirements, the increased side
yard setback (at 16'-9") helped to resolve issues with the abutting property that had
been raised during the hearings on the application.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant estimates that the structure is currently about 40% complete. While the
applicant changed the placement of the structure on the property, there have been no
changes to the square footage, floor plan or elevations as approved by the Planning
Commission. The entire footprint of the house has been rotated towards the west, but
continues to conform to the required front and side yard setbacks.
It should be noted that by virtue of rotating the house closer to the north property line, a
portion of the structure will exceed the maximum permitted 12-foot height at the setback
line. The submitting drawings show that the structure will be 12'-7" high at the setback
line; the height of the structure would need to be reduced to conform to the height
envelope requirement. As an alternative, the applicant would need to request an
Administrative Minor Modification to obtain a waiver from the height limit.
The applicant has stated that moving the placement of the structure accomplishes three
things:
• Rotating the house to the west achieves a better view corridor;
• The new location of the structure will have less impact on the ground-mounted
solar panels located on the abutting property to the north; and
• Grading and boulder removal issues are lessened by the new location of the
structure.
The applicant also provides the following justifications for the changes to the approved
site plan in the appeal letter:
Appellant: "Some mistakes were made inadvertently on the footprint of the
house...but it is important to know how we got to this point, and how the
04
City Council Staff Report
September 7, 2016 -- Page 5
3.3817 MAJ -Appeal
mistake was made. l want to make it very clear that l thought at all times
that the change was being processed per city requirements (as it did not
impinge on any required setback minimums)."
Staff Response: The process for making modifications to an approved site plan vary
depending on the original approval process. For ministerial applications (administrative
approvals), modifications may be approved at a staff level if the proposed changes are
in conformance with zoning code requirements. For discretionary approvals, major
modifications require the approval of the body that took final action on the application.
This particular application required discretionary approval as it is a hillside lot, pursuant
to the requirements of Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) Section 93.13.00 and Section
94.04.00. In all cases, changes to an approved site plan should be submitted to the
City for review and approval prior to construction.
The construction documents submitted to the City as part of the building permit
application demonstrated conformance to the discretionary approval granted by the
Planning Commission. The applicant made changes to the project in the field without
submitting revised drawings to the City for review.
Appellant: "We understand the frustration of the Planning Commission's comments
regarding continued cooperation with developers who come to them with
mistakes and ask for forgiveness. On the other hand, we are disappointed
that they chose to make our mistake a reason to set an example by
denying our request."
Staff Response: Discretionary approvals by the Planning Commission must be based
on findings of fact relative to adopted criteria. In granting approval of the site plan in
December 2015, the Planning Commission noted that the increased side yard setback
assisted in alleviating impacts to the adjacent property, and that the additional setback
was warranted. In denying the applicant's requested modifications to the approved site
plan, the Planning Commission upheld their original decision based on the findings they
had made at the December 2015 hearing.
Appellant: `As background, we submitted a first design of approximately 3600 square
feet, which went through the entire process approved by Planning,
Engineering and Building Department ready for permit...(t)hat home was
positioned at a 10 foot setback from the North property line.
After further study of the market we decided to redesign to a smaller home
of approximately 2800 square feet with the intention of keeping the
conditions of approval the same...(w)e did not realize the new setback
was 16'-9" at the time of submittal. We only discovered this when the
engineer set the building corners at the time we started construction so we
instructed him to make the correction. He made us aware of a change
from our approved plan but indicated he would submit an "as built"...at no
05
City Council Staff Report
September 7, 2016 -- Page 6
3.3817 MAJ -Appeal
time did we exceed or modify the building envelope and we stayed within
normal setbacks. As a side note, we only had one approved grading plan
and that was for the original plan of 3600 feet signed off by the
engineering department."
Staff Response: The applicant is correct in stating that an earlier design had been
approved by the Planning Commission in April 2015, which had allowed the structure to
be located 10'-6" from the north property line. As previously noted, the applicant
submitted a revised application to reduce the overall size of the house to 2,772 square
feet and provide a 16'-9" setback from the north property line, which was approved by
the Planning Commission in December 2015. The applicant is also correct in stating
that the structure as built conforms to all setback requirements. However, modifications
to an approved site plan require approval by the City prior to construction.
Appellant: "The final issue is an encroachment on the approved height limitation by 7
inches at the North West corner of the closest point to the property line.
When we rotated the house to meet the 10-foot setback we didn't realize
that the last two square feet of the parapet exceeds the height based on
the average calculation for the slope of the property. We do have the
ability of lowering the parapet but it will be difficult to roof that small corner
since the parapet is only 9 inches high off the roof deck. The 7 inches in
our view will not adversely affect any residence either above us or to the
North. The adjoining residence to the North is significantly lower than ours
and is set back down the slope of his property with a large side yard
setback."
Staff Response: In locating the house closer to the north property line, the structure
now exceeds the height limit permitted at the setback line. In the R-1-B zoning district,
structures are limited to a maximum of 12 feet in height at the setback line. The
structure as constructed is 12'-7" at the setback line, which is seven inches higher than
what is allowed by code. If the City Council were to approve the appeal, the structure
would need to be modified to conform to the required height limit. As an alternative, the
applicant could submit an application for an Administrative Minor Modification pursuant
to PZSC Section 94.06.01, which is permissible for hillside development.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant did not follow the proper procedures in making a modification to an
approved site plan. The structure as constructed does conform to the minimum setback
requirements of the R-1-B zoning district, but is contrary to the setbacks approved by
the Planning Commission and does not conform to the height limit at the north setback
line. The Planning Commission acted appropriately in its decision to deny the
modifications to the approved site plan, as their decision was based on the findings of
fact made in December 2015 that an increased setback would alleviate impacts to the
adjacent property.
06
City Council Staff Report
September 7, 2016-- Page 7
3,3817 MAJ -Appeal
Fli n Fagg, AICP Marcus Fuller, MPA, P.E., P.L.S.
Director of Planning Services Assistant City Manager/City Engineer
David H. Ready, Esq., D.
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Resolution
3. Appeal Letter
4. Stop Work Order— dated 06/08/16
5. Public Comment Letters
6. Planning Commission Staff Report and Backup Documents — 07/27/16
(Modification Request)
7. Planning Commission Staff Report and Backup Documents — 12/09/15 (Previous
Approval)
8. Excerpts of Planning Commission minutes — 04/08/15, 12109/15, 07/27/16
9. Plans, Elevations, Photos — July 2016
07
ATTACHMENT # 1
`O`PPLM Sp4�1
Department of Planning Services
.. ' Vicinity Map N
gIIR00.H
.... VIA OL'IVERA
O y
VIA LIVORNO LU
y a,
= I
U
(A '
VIA ESCUELA
H
9
to
z
O
Q
5
Legend
®Site
Q 500'RaOlus -
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO: 3.3817 (MAJ) DESCRIPTION: Appeal of the Planning Commission
action to deny an amendment to an approved Major
APN: 504-192-031 Architectural application for development of a single-
family residence on a hillside lot located at 2110 North
APPLICANT: Denlar LLC Leonard Road (Zone R-1-13) Section 03/T4/R4.
09
ATTACHMENT # 2
10
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING AN APPEAL
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY
AN AMENDMENT TO A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL
APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A 0.59 ACRE HILLSIDE PARCEL
LOCATED AT 2110 NORTH LEONARD ROAD, ZONE R-1-
B (CASE 3.3817 MAJ).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FINDS AND
DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
A. DenLar, LLC ("Applicant"), filed a Major Architectural application with the City
pursuant to Palm Springs Zoning Code (PZSC) Section 94.04.00 for construction of a
single-family residence on a hillside parcel.
B. On November 23, 2015, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) met and
voted to recommend approval of the architectural design to the Planning Commission,
and requested that the applicant submit a revised landscape plan.
C. On December 7, 2015, the AAC met and voted to recommend approval of the
revised landscape plan to the Planning Commission.
D. On December 9, 2015, a public meeting to consider Case 3.3817 was held by
the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law. After considering the
evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, the Planning
Commission found the project to be consistent with the City's adopted codes and
regulations, and voted to approve the project.
E. On June 8, 2016, the Building & Safety Department issued a stop-work order to
the Applicant upon verifying that the foundation placement did not conform to the
approved plans submitted with the building permit application.
F. On July 7, 2016, the Applicant submitted a request to amend the approved Major
Architectural application to accommodate a revised placement of the residence on the
parcel.
G. On July 27, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to consider
the amendment to the approved plan in accordance with applicable law.
H. The Planning Commission carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in conjunction with the application, including but not limited to, the staff
report, and all written and oral testimony presented, and voted to deny the amendment
upon making a finding that the site plan as approved in December 2015 addressed
impacts to the adjacent property, and that the Applicant made changes to the location of
11
Resolution No.
Page 2
the structure without first obtaining approval from the City to do so.
I. On August 2, 2016, the Applicant filed an appeal of the action of the Planning
Commission to deny the amendment to the approved Major Architectural application.
J. On September 7, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the
appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny the modification of the Major
Architectural application.
K. The City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in connection with the hearing on the application, including, but not limited to,
the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented, and hereby denies the
appeal request, finding that the Planning Commission acted appropriately in voting to
deny the modification to the approved Major Architectural application.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above findings are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission acted appropriately in denying the
request to modify the approved Major Architectural application, based upon the
following findings:
1. The application, as approved by the Planning Commission in December
2015, was a discretionary action, and the additional setback required at
the north property line assisted in alleviating impacts to the adjacent
property to the north.
2. The Applicant did not follow adopted procedures in obtaining approval to
modify the location of the structure prior to its construction.
SECTION 3. The Applicant shall be required to pursue one of the following
actions relative to the partially-constructed structure:
1. Demolish the structure and rebuild the structure to the approved location;
2. Demolish the structure and redesign the project, subject to approval by the
City through the Major Architectural application process; or
3. Modify the structure as currently exists to conform to the required 16'-9"
side yard setback from the north property and conform to all other zoning
requirements and conditions of approval.
ADOPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016.
12
Resolution No.
Page 3
David H. Ready, City Manager
ATTEST:
James Thompson, City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
James Thompson, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs, California
13
ATTACHMENT # 3
RECEIVED
DenLarLLC CITY OF PALH SPRING_
72287 Desert Drive 2016 AUG—3 AMID: 38
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
JAHE5 THOHPSC�
August 2,2016 CITY CLERK
City Council
City of Palm Springs
3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92263
Re: Case 3.3817 Leonard Road
Dear Council Members:
This letter shall serve as a formal appeal from a July 27, 2016 decision by the
Planning Commission relating to Case no.3.3817 Leonard Road. I have been a
builder in the City for longer than 1 like to admit and have had a great relationship
with both City staff, Planning Commission and Council for more than four decades. 1
have been out of the building business for several years as I had to heal from the
wounds of the great recession. This is the first house 1 have worked on since that
time and this is the very first house I have ever built in Palm Springs on a hillside.
Some mistakes were made inadvertently on the footprint of the house,which I will
discuss below and which was the subject of the Planning Commission hearing,but it
is important to know how we got to this point,and how the mistake was made. I
want to make it very clear that I thought at all times that the change was being
processed per city requirements (as it did not impinge on any required setback
minimums).
We understand that recently there has been some issues of developers just making
changes on their own and then seeking approval"after the fact". We note that the
Planning Commission was very upset with another developer on such a situation
and dealt with that issue on the very meeting preceding ours. It appeared to us that
we bore the brunt of that unrelated developer issue and are paying the price for that
transgression as the Planning Commission not only voted down our request 7-0 but
gave us no alternatives within which to effect a resolution short of tearing down a
house that is 40%complete.
We understand the frustration of the Planning Commissions comments regarding
continued cooperation with developers who come to them with mistakes and ask
for forgiveness. On the other hand,we are disappointed that they chose to make our
mistake a reason to set an example by denying our request
As background,we submitted a first design of approximately 3600 square feet,
which went through the entire process approved by Planning, Engineering and
Building Department ready for permit This approval process included two
Planning Commission meetings due to the neighbors ground solar system. We
15
accommodated the neighbor by holding the house far enough West from his solar
panels as to provide him with year round exposure. That home was positioned at a
10 foot setback from the North property line.
After further study of the market we decided to redesign to a smaller home of
approximately 2800 square feet with the intention of keeping the conditions of
approval the same. We then submitted a new application to Planning and went
through the process to obtain additional approval from Planning Commission,which
was successful. We did not realize the new setback was 16'9"at the time of
submittal. We only discovered this when the engineer set the building corners at
the time we started construction so we instructed him to make the correction. He
made us aware of a change from our approved plan but indicated he would submit
an "as built". I'm sure you are aware"as builts "are quite common upon completion
of projects. At no time did we exceed or modify the building envelope and we
stayed within normal setbacks. As a side note,we only had one approved grading
plan and that was for the original plan of 3600 feet signed off by the engineering
department. Permits were issued based on these approvals.
Unfortunately in all the years 1 have built in Palm Springs this being my first time on
a hillside project, I did not realize that shifting the house back to the original
approved plan of 10 foot would create such a problem.
By shifting the house back to the 10 foot set back,we were able to enlarge the back
yard,which shifted the house further away from the neighbor's solar panels and
focused the view for a better position down valley.
The final issue is an encroachment on the approved height limitation by 7 inches at
the North West corner of the closest point to the property line. When we rotated
the house to meet the 10-foot setback we didn't realize that the last two square feet
of the parapet exceeds the height based on the average calculation for the slope of
the property. We do have the ability of lowering the parapet but it will be difficult
to roof that small corner since the parapet is only 9 inches high off the roof deck.
The 7 inches in our view will not adversely affect any residence either above us or to
the North. The adjoining residence to the North is significantly lower than ours and
is set back down the slope of his property with a large side yard set back.
We appreciate your consideration in this matter and hope you realize this was a
legitimate change for the betterment of the home. As I think you might be aware
this project is totally framed ready for roofing and will have been sitting for 10
weeks by the time you hear this publicly.
Sincerely,
Partner DenLar, LLC.
16
-t{51
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
RECW By CR 01000085110
PAYOR: DEMUR LLC
TODAY'S DATE: 09/03/16
REGISTER DATE: 08/02/I6 TIME: II:3I
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
OTHER CHARGES SVCS $916.00
CYST ID: APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
----------------
TOTAL WE: $916.00
CHECK PAID: $916.00
CNECE NO: 1111
TENDERED: $916.00
CHANGE: $.00
Ili
17
ATTACHMENT #4
OF ?ALM 8p City of Palm Springs
Department of Building Et Code Enforcement
u` 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs CA 92282
PO Box 2743, Palm Springs CA 92263
• ,+° Tel 760.323-8242 P Fax 760.322.8360 P TDO 760.864,9527
C'gIIFOIL www.Dalmscrinas-ca.00v
June 8,2016
Denlar,LLC
72287 Desert Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA
92270
RE: Permit 2016-127
2110 Leonard Road —Palm Springs,CA
Dear Mr. Freeman:
It has come to our attention that the subject building has not been placed on the lot in accordance
with the approved plans. The Elevation and Location Certification submitted from your Engineer
utilized an out of date Grading Plan which is not in conformance with the conditions placed upon
this property by the Palm Springs Planning Commission. Furthermore,that grading plan does not
match the dimensions listed on the approved site plan.
Therefore, at this time all work must stop and no additional inspections will be performed until the
property is brought into compliance with those conditions.
Your options are as follows:
1. Contact the Palm Springs Planning Department to coordinate another meeting with the
Planning Commission to see if they will consider the current placement of the building on the
property.
2. Relocate the structure so that the set-backs are consistent with the Planning Commission's
conditions.
Since the 4pproved site plan does not match the approved grading plan,you will be required to revise
one of them,depending which course of action is taken for the placement of the building.
S' erely,
Jim Zicaro, MCP
Director of Building and Safety
19
ATTACHMENT # 5
20
30-May-16
Mr. Flynn Fagg
Director of Planning Services
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Dear Mr. Fagg
I live at 2150 N. Leonard Road in Palm Springs. A developer is building a spec house
next door directly south of my house. I am unsure of the address, as it seems to
change from one set of plans and letters to another. However, the latest address
appears to be 2110 N. Leonard Road.
I first became aware of the planning and development process via a letter from Mr.
Ken Lyon, a notice of receipt for application for the construction of the house, dated
April 20, 2015.
Since then the builder has submitted two different sets of plans. The first set of
plans was for a much larger home the developer decided would be outside the price
point for the area and that set of plans was not implemented. The second was for a
smaller home and was approved by the planning commission and those are the
plans the developer is apparently currently building.
A few neighbors and residents of the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization,
including myself, and Renova Solar, submitted letters laying out our issues and
concerns regarding the construction. Those comments apply equally to the current
construction plans as they did to the first. We requested that those letters be placed
in the official record and should be available to you. You will note in the letters my
chief concern was to ensure that any structure built would not obstruct my solar
panels. To that end Renova Solar came out on two occasions to determine if the
construction might shade my panels. The second solar review was based on story
poles the designer placed using the second approved plan and location for the
smaller house now being constructed. The story poles were placed assuming a 16-
foot setback as noted in the plans, and no part of the house being higher than
planned or allowed for in current code. The letters and reports from Renova are
part of the official record.
My most recent concerns relate to issues that city inspectors seem to have noticed
only after I brought it to their attention.
1. The approved set of plans for the smaller house submitted by the builder
show the house is supposed to be 16 feet from our shared property line. It is
six feet closer than the plans call for.
21
2. I pointed this out to Mr.Alberto Gradilla. He has been very kind in assisting
me on this, but he seemed quite surprised to find out the house was 6 feet
closer to the property line than the plans called for.
3. Once that was noted the construction on the house stopped for about a week.
Several days ago the construction started again and I have still not heard
from either Mr. Lyon or Mr. Gradilla.
4. After a couple of emails with Mr. Gradilla regarding this, he called me and
said, and I quote, "they do have some issues with the height closer to that 10
foot side yard set-back". As you will note from the attached email
discussions over several days I requested specific information on what those
"issues"were but have yet to receive any definitive response.
5. At this point I have no idea if the current construction will shade my solar
panels or not since the building is closer than the current plans and the story
pole survey indicated, and apparently has "some issues with the height closer
to that 10 foot side yard set-back".
6. Any part of the house that might shade my panels means decades of reduced
solar production and a very significant loss of money.
I would like to point out that in the comments and concerns noted in the several
letters to the planning commission the only concerns that seem to have been
addressed were ones favorable to the builder. He is not required to build a sidewalk
or to complete Leonard Road to West Via Escuela. And while we supported those
aspects, both of those were huge cost savings to the developer. None of the other
issues of concern to the neighbors were implemented or at this point seem to have
been considered.
I am a citizen who is trying to help improve the quality of life here (as many are), by
putting my own significant financial resources into solar systems, replacing
incandescent lighting with LED, purchasing an electric car and more. The city
should be encouraging such activities not allowing developers to build outside of
approved plans or codes, ignore citizen and neighbor concerns all to the benefit of a
developer. If implementing solar power is important to the city and the state then
the city needs to take a more active role in supporting citizens who are willing and
able to incorporate renewable energy into their homes and properties.
Since I do not know the details of the "issues with the height closer to that 10 foot
side yard set-back" or how the new 10-foot setback may affect my property I cannot
provide you with any specifics. However, I would hope any such "issues" will
actually be fixed, instead of what 1 fear, that the developer will simply be forgiven
and get away with building whatever he wants however he wants and neighbor and
citizen concerns ignored. Nothing may come of my concerns, except perhaps
mollifying letters and emails. This is what I think will happen, but I can always hope
I am wrong.
I would appreciate it if you can provide the following:
22
1. Exactly what are these "issues with the height closer to that 10 foot side yard
set-back"?
2. What part of the building and zoning code apply and are in violation?
3. If part of the house is higher than it is supposed to be I want it lowered to
what it is supposed to be because of my concern with blocking my solar
panels and reducing the visual affects of the house on neighborhood views
and because it is a violation of height for the property and the neighborhood.
It should never have allowed to be built that way and probably would not
have if building and zoning had actually determined that the house was not
being built according to the plan approved for the second house, instead of
me having to point this out.
4. 1 would like this letter placed in the official records.
Sincerely,
Robert Doren/sig
Robert F. Doren
2150 N. Leonard Road
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Cc:
Mr. Tim O'Bayley, Co-chair Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization
Mr. Dennis Woods, Co-chair Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization
Mr. Patrick Sheehan, Renova Solar
Mr. David Ready, Palm Springs City Manager
23
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Date: September 7, 2016
Subject: Appeal — Case 3.3817 MAJ
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Kathie Hart, MMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do
hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was published in the
Desert Sun on August 27, 2016.
1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
WdA-
Kathie Hart, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Kathie Hart, MMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do
hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall,
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting board, and in the Office
of the City Clerk on August 25, 2016.
1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Kathie Hart, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I, Kathie Hart, MMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do
hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to each and
every person on the attached list on August 25, 2016, in a sealed envelope, with postage
prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California.
(25 notices)
I`/declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
WaAa
Kathie Hart, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
24
City Council Meeting PIROZZI, VINCENT J PIROZZI,VINCENT J
September 7, 2016 504-193-005 504-193-002
PO BOX 328 PO BOX 328
Case 3.3817 MAJ- Appeal PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-0328 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-0328
DEHERRERA, PAUL 1112932 ONTARIO LTD DOREN,ROBERT F
504-192-032 504-192-021 504-192-008
B NE STREET 58 BROCK ST 2150 N LEONARD RD
ONDIDI JUNCTION,NSW 2022 AUSTRALIA OAKVILLE ON CANAD- PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2700
LEVITT,MICHAEL E KICK,DONALD WESSMAN,HOLDINGS
504-192-003 504-192-012 504-191-009
14322 VALLEY VISTA BLVD 611 S.PALM CANYON DR. STE. I10 555 S SUNRISE WAY STE 200
SHERMAN OAKS CA 91423-4028 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-7453 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-7894
DOMINION, OPPORTUNITY FUND ALOE,JOHN MCBRIDE,JAMES L
504-191-008 504-191-007 504-191-006
1401 DOVE ST STE 640 3040 CAPRI IN 1531 PRINCETON AVE
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2425 COSTA MESA CA 92626-3502 STOCKTON CA 95204-2918
DESERT, WATER AGENCY KICK,DONALD
504-150-007 504-192-013
PO BOX 1710 611 S.PALM CANYON DR. STE. 110
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-1710 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-7453
a�
�3l��i�e�Rkf B�,Q $ORREP
MR PETE MORUZZI
PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE
P.O. BOX 4738
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-4738
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ATTN SECRETARY/3.3817 MAJ
PO BOX 2743
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743
MRS PATRICIA GARCIA-PLOTKIN,
_ MS MARGARET PARK, DIRECTOR DIRECTOR
QE W AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
INDIANS AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA
PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT DEPT. INDIANS
5401 DINAH SHORE DRIVE 5401 DINAH SHORE DRIVE
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264
x -..ol
MR FRANK TYSEN MR JOSEPH ONTIVEROS
SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
1 t §. CASA CODY INN
t 175 S. CAHUILLA ROAD CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGER
'"" " 1""'}'" `= PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 P.O. BOX 487
SAN JACINTO,CA 92581
MR RAYMOND HUAUTE MR MICHAEL MIRELEZ MR DOUG TODD WELMAS
CULTURAL RESOURCE SPECIALIST CULTURAL RESOURCE COORDINATOR TRIBAL CHAIRMAN
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS TORRES MARTINEZ DESERT CAHUILLA CABAZON BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
12700 PUMARRA ROAD INDIANS 84-245 INDIO SPRINGS PARKWAY
BANNING, CA 92220 P.O. BOX 1160 INDIO, CA 92203
THERMAL, CA 92274
MS JACQUELYN BARNUM
ENVIRONMENTAL DIRECTOR
CABAZON BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
84-245 INDIO SPRINGS
PARKWAYINDIO, CA 92203
«= MR DENNIS FREEMAN MR BRIAN DIEBOLT
iF ? ISO DENLAR LLC DESIGN CONCEPTS
72287 DESERT DRIVE 57445 29 PALMS HIGHWAY,#304
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 YUCCA VALLEY, CA 92284
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
APPEAL OF CASE 3.3817 MAJ
AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR A HILLSIDE HOUSE
AT 2110 NORTH LEONARD 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 September 7, 2016. The City Council meeting begins at
6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way,
Palm Springs.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider an appeal by Denlar LLC of the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny an amendment to an approved Major Architectural Application
for a hillside residence at 2110 North Leonard Road. The applicant had requested an
amendment to the approved plan to allow a reduction of the side yard setback from 16'-9" to
10'0" and an increase in the building height from 12'-0" to 12'-7"; the Planning Commission
denied the request at their meeting of July 27, 2016, and the applicant has filed an appeal of
the decision.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, the project is a Class III exemption and is categorically exempt per
Section 15303(a) (new single-family residence).
REVIEW OF INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this
matter are available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at
(760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents.
Response to this notice can be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the
hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by email at
cityclerk(a)palmsprings-ca.gov, or 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 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 Flinn Fagg at (760) 323-8245.
Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar
con Felipe Primera telefono (760) 323-8253 x 8742.
mes Thompson, City Clerk
25
404 VP LM Fpg2
Department of Planning Services
b,..,e.a • Vicinity Map N
Cq<lFORN`P
,nA OL'lVERA
V
HALWORNO
°a o y4�
z
U
N
VIA ESCUELA
7
zZ
O
SI
Legend
®Site
Q 500'Radius
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO: 3.3817 (MAJ) DESCRIPTION: An amendment to an approved Major
Architectural application for development of a single-
APN: 504-192-031 family residence on a hillside lot located at 2110 North
Leonard Road (Zone R-1-B) Section 03/T4/R4.
APPLICANT: Denlar LLC
26
Flinn Fagg
From: Flinn Fagg
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 1:58 PM
To: Flinn Fagg
Subject: FW: House construction on 2110 N. Leonard Rd. Palm Springs, CA 92262
From: Robert Doren [mailto:bdoren@dc.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 12:05 PM
To: Flinn Fagg
Cc: Dennis Woods (den nis.l.woods@gmail.com); Tim O'Bayley (tim@obayley.net)
Subject: Re: House construction on 2110 N. Leonard Rd. Palm Springs, CA 92262
Dear Mr, Fagg,
Thank you very much for the information. I had assumed they would not want to move the house even though they placed it
incorrectly in the first place. However, even though I would certainly have preferred the house be placed where it was
approved to be, that is probably going to be given to them and they will get a free pass for what I consider an egregious
violation on their part.
I also asked several specific questions in my letter but have not received any answers to those questions. My issue is based on
the setback requirements and the setback slope required. Since they placed the house six feet closer to my property than was
approved,the side of the house closest to my property no longer(according to Mr. Alberto Gradilla) meets the slope of 4:12
as required by code. In a phone call, Mr. Gradilla stated that he had measured the slope and the nearest height of the house
and that it was approximately 18—24 higher that the code allows. He said it would have to come down by the required
amount. I want any area of the house that does not meet the code to be lowered to meet the slope requirements. This is
clearly their mistake and I should not have to accept having their construction six feet closer than approved and also two feet
higher than code allows. I looked at the plans and I see a small red triangle on one roof area, however,there is no explanation
of what that means so I have no way of judging any intention of lowering the roof to meet the slope requirements. And since
my questions remain unanswered I also have no understanding of what code violations occurred that caused the stop work
order, and what zoning and code enforcement would require as a remedy. While these issues are apparently of no concern to
the builder who is simply building a spec house for as much profit as he can get, these issues are extremely serious to me and
to other homeowners in our neighborhood, especially regarding setting bad construction precedents for other builders. The
idea that spec builders can come into a quiet family neighborhood, violate building codes, build something that is not
approved and then simply walk away after most likely having been given a free pass is quite disturbing to say the least.
I would please like to have these comments placed in the official record to be available to the planning commission meeting
for the resubmission of the construction plans on July 27th..
Thank you for you assistance in this matter.
Robert Doren
t
27
LITTLE TUSCANY
NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION'
25-)ul-16
Mr. Flinn Fagg,Director
City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services
Re: Notice of Planning Commission meeting to consider an amended application for hillside
development- Case 3.3817 MA) Single Family Residence at 2110 N. Leonard Road
Dear Mr. Fagg:
We,the undersigned board members of the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization have
reviewed the amended application by the developer for this construction and are familiar
with the site. We are disturbed by the fact that the developer clearly violated the terms of
the approved plan and placed the house 6'9"closer to the north property line than was
approved. This decision seems to have been made knowing that this would cause the wall
height at the north setback to be higher than allowed. It seems the developer bet that he
could "game" the system by simply doing what he wanted and coming back later and asking
for"minor" modifications. He may have felt pretty confident that he would receive such an
after-the-fact approval to take such a risk.
When developers choose to violate the terms of their agreements we do not consider that
minor. It seems they were hoping no one would notice. We also feel this sets a bad
precedent for other developers in our city to simply build what they want, irrespective of
what is planned and approved,and then ask for forgiveness instead of permission,as they
should have done.
We do not appreciate developers dismissing the importance of the planning and approval
process. Though we realize it is unlikely,it would send a very strong message to all
developers if you required this developer to rebuild this house in the location where it was
originally approved. In the future,we would hope that the city's planning and building
inspectors would inspect building sites in the earliest construction stages rather than
waiting until a house is practically completed before realizing it is in the wrong place.
We hope the planning commission will not actually agree to allow them to keep the house
where it is. But at the very least we expect the wall that is now in violation on the north
setback will be lowered to within the legally required height.We would like to be assured
that the city inspectors will be more diligent with inspections of this house and other
construction in the future to ensure compliance and not allow this developer to continue to
disregard planning commission code requirements.
Sincerely, NG�
Tim 0"Bayley, Co-ChiliC
Dennis Woods, Co-Chair
~ /
'font' Hoetker; Board Member 4Z�
Robert Doi en,Secretary=fry surer
28
25-Jul-16
Mr. Flinn Fagg, Director
City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services
Re: Notice of Planning Commission meeting to consider an amended application for hillside
development- Case 3.3817 MAJ Single Family Residence at 2110 N. Leonard Road
Dear Mr. Fagg:
I ask that you please ensure this letter is entered into the official record and made available for the
Planning Council meeting on Wednesday July 27, 2016.
I own the property just to the north of this construction site. 1 find it upsetting that the developer
has decided to put the house 6'9" closer than approved. It is quite clear this was a deliberate and
well-considered decision on their part. It is beyond credible to assume that licensed, experienced
builders,contractors and designers would "accidentally" make a 41% "error"in their
measurements. The most obvious reason they risked doing this is that had the plans they sent in
for approval been at the 10'location the wall at the nearest location to the property line would have
been too high and city planning would have made them lower it to the proper height for approval
prior to construction. They clearly wanted to keep the wall as planned and place the house at the
10' distance irrespective of wall height.
As speculative builders it is clear they don't seem to care about the integrity of our neighborhoods
or the neighbors and they just assumed they could "game" the system later and get what they
wanted after-the-fact. 1 have a strong hunch this is not the first builder to do this sort of thing.
City code enforcement must share some of the blame for this 41% "error". When 1 pointed out to
the inspector that the house was not 16'9"but 10' from the property line he was quite shocked. He
immediately went about measuring locations and heights and that is when the construction was
stopped. I should not have had to point this out, especially once major construction was already
underway.
I would prefer that you make them move the house to the original approved location,however I
doubt that will happen and they will have been able,at least partly, to successfully"game"the
system.
However, I must insistent that they lower the wall to the required height per zoning code. It is
unconscionable that they could play the system,apparently knowing full well they would probably
come back and get permission, and build a house that violates the terms of the approved plans. I
trust that you will enforce the building codes, particularly for a builder who appears to consider
zoning codes,and planning council approval requirements more of a nuisance than an important
process and way to ensure the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Robert Doren
29
ATTACHMENT # 6
�Ot pp`M SP4�1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
rgit
FORA%
DATE: July 27, 2016 NEW BUSINESS
SUBJECT: A REQUEST BY DENLAR, LLC, FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN
APPROVED MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION TO REDUCE
THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 16'-9" TO 10'-0" FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW HILLSIDE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 2110 LEONARD ROAD; ZONE R-1-13 (CASE 3.3817 MAJ).
FROM: Department of Planning Services
SUMMARY:
This is a request for an amendment to an approved Major Architectural Application
(3.3817 MAJ) to allow for a revised placement of the residence that is currently under
construction on the property. The application as approved required the residence to be
located 16'-9' from the north property line; the applicant has rotated the structure to the
west and is now 10'-0" from the north property line. The revised placement of the
structure still conforms to the required setbacks of the R-1-13 (Single-Family Residential)
zone.
ISSUES:
• The project was approved by the Planning Commission in December 2015 with a
16'-9" setback along the north property line; the applicant has poured the foundation
and framed the residence ten feet away from the north property line. Approval of
this amendment to the Major Architectural Application will allow the applicant to
finish construction of the residence without having to modify the location of the
foundation.
• With the reduced setback, the structure will exceed the maximum permitted height
by seven inches at the setback line. The applicant will either need to modify the
structure to conform to the height limit, or submit an Administrative Minor
Modification application to request a waiver of the height limit. Staff recommends
that the structure be modified to conform to the height limit so as to minimize
impacts to the abutting property.
• The applicant will be required to comply with all previous Conditions of Approval
adopted by the Planning Commission in December 2015; the conditions have been
updated and included as an attachment to the draft resolution.
31
Planning Commission Staff Report
3.3817 MAJ
July 27, 2016—Page 2 of 7
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the amendment to the Major Architectural Application, subject to modifications
and conditions.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Related Relevant City Actions
The Planning Commission approved a Major Architectural Application
for the construction of a 3,483 square-foot residence on the subject
04/08/15 property, with a 10'-6" setback from the north property line. The
applicant later elected not to proceed with construction of the
proposed design.
The Engineering Division issued a grading permit for the parcel, after
finding the grading plan consistent with the site plan approved by the
07/28/15 Planning Commission in April 2015. The applicant did not submit a
revised grading plan when the site plan was revised in December
2015.
The Planning Commission approved a Major Architectural Application
12/09/15 for a revised design on the subject property, depicting a 2,772
square-foot residence located 16'-9"from the north property line.
The Department of Planning Services signed off on construction
02/01/16 documents for the proposed residence; the construction drawings
depicted a 16'-9" setback along the north property line in accordance
with the December 2015 approval by the Planning Commission
The Building & Safety Department approved a building permit for the
03/15/16 proposed residence, based on the plans showing a 16'-9" setback
from the north property line.
The Building & Safety Department issued a stop-work order upon
06/08/16 verifying that the foundation placement did not meet the approved
Tans submitted with the building permit application.
Neighborhood Notice
07/14/16 A public meeting notice was mailed to all adjacent property owners
pursuant to the requirements of PSZC Section 93.13.00 B 1 .
07/21/16 A notice was emailed to representatives of the Little Tuscany, Old
Las Palmas, and Vista Las Palmas Neighborhood Organizations.
Field Check
Staff visited the site and noted that the parcel has been graded and
07/20/16 the foundation work is complete; framing and sheathing of the
residence is nearly complete.
32
Planning Commission Staff Report
3.3817 MAJ
July 27,2016—Page 3 of 7
DETAILS OF APPLICATION REQUEST:
Site Area 77-71
Net Acres 0.59 acres 25,700 Square Feet
Surrounding Existing Land Use Existing General Existing Zoning
Property Per Chapter 92 Plan Desi nation Designation
Subject Property Undeveloped Estate Residential R-1-B Single-Family
Residential
Single-Family R-1-B Single-Family
North Residential Estate Residential Residential
South Undeveloped Estate Residential R-1-B Single-Family
Residential
East Undeveloped Estate Residential R-1-B Single-Family
Residential
Undeveloped; R-1-B Single-Family
West Single-Family Estate Residential Residential
Residential
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
Pursuant to PSZC Section 92.01.03, the following standards apply:
Standard Required/ Provided Compliance
Allowed
Min. Setbacks
.Front 25' 25' Y
,Side (north) 10, 10, Y
•Comer Side (south) 20' 20' Y
•Rear 15, 81'-6" Y
Max. Lot Coverage 35% 15% Y
Max. Building Height @ 12' 12'-7"Feet N
setback
Max. Building Height @ 18, 18' Y
center
Mechanical Equipment Screened Partially N
Screened
The structure exceeds the maximum height permitted at the setback line, the applicant
would either need to modify the height to conform to code requirements or submit an
Administrative Minor Modification application to request a waiver from the height limit.
2An enclosure is shown around one of the condenser units and the pool equipment,-
however, no enclosure is shown around the second condenser unit.
33
Planning Commission Staff Report
3,3817 MAJ
July 27,2016—Page 4 of 7
ANALYSIS:
Permit Approvals:
As previously indicated, the project was approved by the Planning Commission in
December 2015 with a 16-9" setback from the north property line. Construction
documents reviewed by the Department of Planning Services and approved by the
Building & Safety Department are consistent with the December 2015 Planning
Commission approval.
The grading plan for the project was submitted to the City for review in June 2015 prior
to the approval of the revised site plan. The grading permit was approved in July 2015,
based on plans depicting the residence located 10'-0"from the north property line. The
applicant did not submit a revised grading plan when the project was later scaled back
and revised.
Site Plan:
The proposed amendment to the approved plan involves no changes to the square
footage, floor plan, or elevations of the residence, but would decrease the setback from
the north property line and increase the rear yard setback. The entire footprint of the
house has been rotated towards the west, but continues to conform to the required front
and side yard setbacks.
The applicant's justification letter states that moving the placement of the structure
accomplishes three things:
• Rotating the house to the west achieves a better view corridor;
• The new location of the structure will have less impact on the ground-mounted
solar panels located on the abutting property to the north; and
• Grading and boulder removal issues are lessened by the new location of the
structure.
It should be noted that the project is required to provide a temporary on-site
hammerhead at the current termination point of Leonard Road, until such time as the
permanent street is continued to W. Via Escuela. The site plan will need to be updated
to reflect conditions ENG 10 and FID 6, as listed in the Conditions of Approval attached
to this report.
Mass and Scale:
No changes are proposed to the height or massing of the structure. By virtue of rotating
the house closer to the north property line, a portion of the structure will exceed the
maximum permitted 12-foot height at the setback line. The submitting drawings show
that the structure will be 12'-7" at the setback line; the height will need to be modified to
conform to the height limit, or the applicant will need to request an Administrative Minor
Modification to obtain a waiver from the height limit. Staff recommends that the
structure be modified to conform to the height limit so as to minimize any further impact
to the abutting property to the north.
34
Planning Commission Staff Report
3.3817 MAJ
July 27,2016—Page 5 of 7
Building Design and Detailing:
No changes are proposed to the exterior materials, colors, or exterior details of the
residence. The plans submitted in conjunction with this amendment do not show any
screening around the condenser unit on the north side of the residence; the unit will
need to be screened in accordance with the requirements of PSZC Section
93.01.00(G).
Landscaping and Buffers:
No changes are proposed to the landscape plan for the site. Despite the changes in the
placement of the structure on the site, the landscape plan can still be carried out with
only minor modifications to the placement of materials.
FINDINGS—MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION:
Section 94.04.00(D) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) requires an evaluation of
the proposed development to determine if it will provide a desirable environment for its
occupants, be compatible with the character of adjacent and surrounding developments,
and whether it is of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Conformance
shall be evaluated based on the following criteria:
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 lot areas.
The structure is sited to minimize the amount of cut-and-fill and grading on the lot
and to take advantage of views. The modified location of the structure conforms
to required setbacks.
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 structure will be harmonious with the eclectic styles that already exist in this
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 structure conforms to setback, lot coverage, and overall height limits. The
height of the structure at the north property line will need to be reduced to
conform to the 12-foot height limit. The condenser unit on the north side of the
residence will need to be screened in accordance with code requirements.
39
Planning Commission Staff Report
3.3817 MAJ
July 27,2016—Page 6 of 7
4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings.
The structure is proposed in neutral colors and will utilize materials that are
consistent with other structures in the neighborhood and sympathetic with desert
surroundings.
5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure,
including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously.
The proposed materials, colors and other components of the structure are
adequate.
6. Consistency of composition and treatment.
There is consistency in the composition and treatment of the structure as
proposed.
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 proposed landscape plan includes plants that are appropriate to the desert
setting.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines, the project is a
Class III exemption and is categorically exempt per Section 15303(a) (new single-family
residence).
CONCLUSION:
While the applicant erred in revising the placement of the residence without prior
approval, staff finds that the residence is still in conformance with setback requirements.
The height of the residence adjacent to the north property line will need to be reduced to
12'-0" in accordance with the height limits of the R-1-B zoning district; staff does not
support the submittal of an Administrative Minor Modification application to waive the
height requirement.
L�-E .
Jinn Fagg, AIC
Director of Planning Services
36
Planning Commission Staff Report
3.3817 MAJ
July 27, 2016— Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Draft Resolution
3. Conditions of Approval
4. Justification Letter
5. Stop Work Order—dated 06/08/16
6. Public Comment Letters
7. Staff Report and Backup Documents— 12/09/15 (Previous Approval)
8. Plans, Elevations, Photos—July 2016
37
i --------- --1-- - ---------------,
I
I
I
o
oI
I
o � I
z I
1
o
I I
I I
25' i i 15'
I
�--- ------------ ___ I
SCALE: NTS
CASE NO. 3.3817 MAJ PROPERTY LINE APPROVED LOCATION
2110 LEONARD ROAD ----- SETBACK BOUNDARY PROPOSED LOCATION
JULY 27, 2016
w
00
j {
Oc51gn Concepts
D.afbng ! De,,ign 5c,n P Ftinne (760)365 87-12
57115 29 Fehns Hi y., Suite 304 Fax'760)365-8743
Yucca VaUcy, CA 92284 E-Mail: dcsgn onln ic{'ti,vcmm�.nr3
July 6,2016
Planning Commission
City of Palm Springs
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262-3200
RE: Leonard Road Lot I RS 0331072 APN: 504-192-031
Major Architectural with AMM
Case 3.3817 AMND
Planning Commission,
This letter is in reference to 2110 Leonard Rd. It was approved by the planning commission with a North
setback of 16'-9". This project comes back to you today as a result of rotating the dwelling to the North
West and is now resting at the 10' allowed side setback line.
During the construction staking 3 items were noticed:
1. It was noticed that a better view corridor would be achieved with these new setbacks.
2. There was a concern by the neighbor that we might shade his ground mounted solar rack.
Although a sun study at the time of our first submittal proved we would not shade the panels in
any way,we chose to move the house farther away.
3. Grading,rock moving and available fill dirt necessitated building the pad closer to the street.
As a result of moving the house we are non-compliant on one corner of our structure. The parapet at the
mechanical room (see drawings) is 7"higher than the approved building envelope. We are asking for this
increased height since it affects such a small area. See the areas in red on the attached plans.
Thank you in advance for considering this preject.
Brian Diebolt
Y
39
umH e[ouewexrs� I
n=smr
.�.a...�.�...s.
:....w......m —� � '«.----- sratnqu
AERIAL MAP
.m.w
r
g
a �
a
mw m
I +I r �
.me
_ ' �wr
xi n.oawimnr.mm: '�
..�. -I • naoirrii.neo.r mieun i�'.�' /711
I
a
0
re re
m, q)
xxc�sY o
rn
s
.Ibol i M 1
r
e
i 1
ei
R�
mvn anrvvaF on
1 NYIMMiY�IY MN YpIY1Y1
71NINOs rnm beaus
R,ght Elevation "�'""`
711—L
I
p
s
Rear Elevatwn ja jHill
IAIA
\ tj
00 � �
I oo '
��PaRrx
RIM!
■ ■ Ills
ry
Front Elevation 11
N
19pF'•. 1 9W
tea,
MW
d
Y
t
x�r u y
!r
1 .
I
l
FY, a
if
�o
J S
ii
Y �. �YMI4WiVtiYpyP 1A« '.
M fe{�yyli�r, .1 .
� = 4
r
lk { �'
4.`;f l
a:.
J
i
94�
44
ATTACHMENT #7
�o p/LM sp
O
Y N
Cq!lFCRN,P
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 9, 2015 CONSENT AGENDA
SUBJECT: A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION (MAJ) BY DENLAR, LLC, OWNER,
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW HILLSIDE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 2110 LEONARD ROAD; ZONE R-1-B. (CASE 3.3817 MAJ). (KL)
FROM: Flinn Fagg, AICP, Director of Planning Services
SUMMARY
This Major Architectural application is for development of a 2772 square foot single-family
residence with a 1,038 square foot attached garage and a 987 square foot covered terrace on
a hillside lot at 2110 Leonard Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Class 3 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA and approve the proposed project
subject to Conditions of Approval noted in Exhibit "A" (attached).
ISSUES:
• Significant slopes on the lot.
• Proposed building pad below the average crown of the adjacent street.
• Streets not improved across the lot frontages.
BACKGROUND:
,'R Isted�`Refevi3nt�C ActloRsb ;'P.lannln „Fire�$Bulldfn`- ;3tc �•, _. ,$
April 8, 2015 The Planning Commission approved a different design for the subject site for ausingle family
residence. he applicant elected not to proceed with construction of that home).
November 23,2015 The Architectural Advisory Committee voted to recommend approval to the Planning
Commission of the architecture and restudy of the landscape.
December 7, 2015 The AAC reviewed the revised landscape. (Staff will report on the recommendation of the
AAC at the Planning Commission meeting).
�.l�gr�fi�'' : ' fW e,,,x�F��,` .$ �„-1Most'Rec"kOwne►slil . '� �.-1 -=
September 2014 1 Purchase by current ownedapplicant.
46
Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 of 6
December 9, 2015
Case 3.3817 MAJ—Hillside Home at 2110 N. Leonard Road
NeI hborhood Notfticatfon
NoBficationper Zoning Code 94.04.00, E.(7) completed.
Reid Check _
January 20,2015 Staff visited site to observe existing conditions
Notlflcation
November 9, 2015 Notice of receipt of hillside application sent to adjacent property owners pursuant PSZC
93.13.00, B, 1, b.
November 18, 2015 Notice of planning commission hearing sent to adjacent property owners pursuant to
PSZC 93.13.00, B, 1,c.
lip
Al
SITE
-- - Diitalls oiAppUgaflon R`!gest_
Site Area
Net Lot_Are—a 25,700 square feet
47
Planning Commission Staff Report Page 3 of 6
December 9, 2015
Case 3.3817 MAJ-Hillside Home at 2110 N. Leonard Road
ANALYSIS:
' o n
Subject Property Estate Residential Undeveloped R-1-8 Sin le-Family Residential
North Estate Residential Single-Family Residential R-1-13 Single-Family Residential
South Estate Residential Undeveloped R-1-A Single-Fa il Residential
East Estate Residential Undeveloped R-1-B Single-Fa if Residential
West Estate Residential Undeveloped/Single-Family R-1-131 Single-Family Residential
Residential
Min. Lot Size 20,000 SF 25,700 SF Y
Min. Setbacks
• Front 25 Feet 25 Feet Y
• Side-Comer 20 Feet 20 Feet Y
• Side-Interior 10 Feet 10'-6' Y
• Rear 15 Feet I 47'-T Y
Lot Coverage 35% 22% Y
Buildin Height 18 Feet 1 18'-T Y'
'Due to the location of the finish floor relative to the elevation of the street, the height of the structure is in
conformance with the height limitations as defined in Section 91.00.10 ('Building Height").
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence including an attached garage,
covered terrace and pool area. The home is contemporary in style, and is to be located on the
northeast corner of Leonard Road and Via Escuela Road. Neither street is improved along the
frontages of the lot. The site has significant slopes, and generally slopes downward from north
to south. The proposed pad elevation is slightly below the crown of the road at the
northwesterly corner of the lot, where a segment of Leonard Road is paved.
94.04.00. D. Planning Commission Architectural Advisory Committee Review Guidelines.
The planning commission architectural advisory committee shall examine the material
submitted with the architectural approval application and speck aspects of design shall be
examined to determine whether the proposed development will provide 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 will be evaluated, based on consideration of the following:
1 Does the proposed development provide a Yes The project proposes an ample sized home
desirable environment for Its occupants? with generous covered terrace&
landscaping.
48
Planning Commission Staff Report Page 4 of 6
December 9,2015
Case 3.3817 MAJ—Hillside Home at 2110 N. Leonard Road
2 Is the proposed development compatible with Yes The surrounding neighborhood includes
the character of adjacent and surrounding similar single-family hillside residences in a
developments? variety of architectural styles.
3 Is the proposed development of good Yes The home is proposed in sand finish stucco
composition, materials, textures, and colors? and neutral colors,
4 Site layout, orientation, location of structures Yes The proposed home is sited to minimize the
and relationship to one another and to open amount of cut and fill and grading on the lot
spaces and topography. Definition of and to take advantage of the views,
pedestrian and vehicular areas; i.e., sidewalks
as distinct from parking lot areas
5 Harmonious relationship with existing and Yes The proposed home Is hamtonlous with the
proposed adjoining developments and in the eclectic styles that already exist in this
context of the immediate neighborhood,
neighborhood/community, avoiding both
excessive variety and monotonous repetition,
but allowing similarity of style, if warranted
6 Maximum height, area, setbacks and overall Yes The proposed residence generally conforms
mass, as well as parts of any structure to the development standards of the zone,
(buildings, walls, screens, towers or signs) and effective concealment of all mechanical however due to the topography of the site,
equipment the pad elevation is slightly below the crown
of street at the northwesterly comer of the
lot,which is the only area where the streets
are improved in the vicinity of the lot.
7 Building design, materials and colors to be Yes The building is proposed In neutral colors,
sympathetic with desert surroundings harmonious materials and is sited
appropriately for this hillside location.
8 Harmony of materials, colors and composition Yes The proposed materials, colors and other
of those elements of a structure, including components of the building are adequate.
overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are
visible simultaneously 1
9 Consistency of composition and treatment Yes There is consistency in the composition and
treatment of the building as proposed.
10 Location and type of planting, with regard for Yes The proposed landscape plan to includes
desert climate conditions. Preservation of desert appropriate plants.
specimen and landmark trees upon a site, with
proper irrigation to insure maintenance of all
)ant materials
In addition to the guidelines of PSZC Section 94.04.00 (Architectural Review) above, the
Planning Commission shall consider the following guidelines from PSZC Section 93.13.00.13.4.
(Hillside Development).
In approving renal plans, the planning commission may require conditions which in their opinion
are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, and may include the
following:
49
Planning Commission Staff Report Page 5 of 6
December 9,2015
Case 3.3817 MAJ—Hillside Home at 2110 N. Leonard Road
a. Architectural approval as governed by Section 94.04.00 of the Zoning Code.
Such architectural approval shall consider, but shall not be limited to, the
following:
i. Rock and soil exposure,
The site is generally very rocky with large boulders throughout; the proposed project minimally
disturbs the existing site. It is anticipated that most of the boulders needing relocation will be
retained on site.
ii. Size of building pads,
The building pad is minimal in area in order to accommodate the footprint of the house, garage
and back yard pool terrace. The roofed areas account for approximately 22% of the overall lot
area.
M. Design considerations, such as supporting stilts, colors and building
arrangement,
The building is generally composed in a "rambling" floor plan with common living areas facing
the views to the southeast.
iv. Screening of parking areas,
The parking areas are separated from the adjacent streets by landscape areas. The applicant,
in response to recommendations from the AAC, increased the landscaping around the
driveway to minimize its visual impact.
V. Landscaping plans,
The landscape plan proposes indigenous plantings and minimal disturbance to the natural site
conditions.
vi. Continuity with surrounding development,
The neighborhood in which the proposed home is located has an eclectic variety of
architectural styles, many of which are contemporary. The proposed structure is harmonious
with existing residential development in the vicinity.
vii. Sensitivity to existing view corridors;
The pad height was carefully determined to minimize retaining walls and keep the home's
profile as low as possible. The home sites to the west and north of the site are considerably
higher in elevation and the proposed home will not impact views from adjacent home sites.
50
Planning Commission Staff Report Page 6 of 6
December 9, 2015
Case 3.3817 MAJ—Hlllside Home at 2110 N. Leonard Road
NOTIFICATION:
Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 93.13.00(B)(1)(b) and (c): Written notice was mailed to all
adjacent property owners informing them of the City's receipt of the application and informing
them of this public meeting. Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 94.04 the agenda for this
meeting was also provided to recognized neighborhood organizations.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is
Categorically Exempt per CEQA Section 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction — Conversion of
Small Structures). Class 3 consists of projects characterized as new or small structures as
described below:
a. One
single
-ffamily residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone.
Ken Lyon, RA, Flinn Fagg, AICP
Associate Planner Director of Planning Services
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Draft Resolution with Conditions of Approval as noted in Exhibit "A"
3. Draft AAC minutes from the meeting of November 23, 2015
4. Plans and Elevations.
51
`e,r�lM r•'�4
Department of Planning Services
Vicinity Map N
T _
VIA dL'IVERA
VIA LIVORNO 6� y,4%•�--
t Z0
,z
(03
VIAESCIIELA
I
0
Legend — -"
®site
Q500'Raalus '---_._...-----
--T
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO: 3.3817 (MAJ) DESCRIPTION: A Major Architectural application for
development of a single family residence on a hillside
APN: 504-192-031 lot located at 2110 North Leonard Road (Zone R-1-B)
Section 03/T4/R4.
APPLICANT: Denlar LLC
52
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING CASE 3.3817, A MAJOR
ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
ON A 25,700 SQUARE FOOT HILLSIDE LOT
LOCATED AT 2110 NORTH LEONARD ROAD, ZONE
R-1-B.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
A. Denlar, LLC, ("Applicant') has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section
94.04.00 (Architectural Review) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code for construction of a single
family residence on a hillside lot.
B. On November 23, 2015, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) met and voted to
recommend approval of the architecture to the Planning Commission and recommended
revisions in the landscape by the applicant.
C. On December 7, 2015, the AAC met and voted to recommend approval of the
landscape to the Planning Commission.
D. On December 9, 2015, a public meeting to consider Case 3.3817 was held by the
Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law.
E. The proposed development 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 3 exemption (New structures) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
F. The Planning Commission 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.
G. Pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, the Planning
Commission finds:
The planning commission has examined the material submitted with the architectural
approval application and specific aspects of design shall be examined to determine
whether the proposed development will provide 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 will be evaluated, based on consideration of the following:
53
Planning Commission Resolution No. December 9, 2015
Case 3.3817 (MAJ)—SFR at 2110 N. Leonard Road Page 2 of 4
1 Does the proposed development provide a Yes The project proposes an ample sized home
desirable environment for its occupants? with generous covered terrace landscaping.
2 Is the proposed development compatible with Yes The surrounding neighborhood includes
the character of adjacent and surrounding similar single-family hillside residences in a
developments? variety of architectural styles.
3 Is the proposed development of good Yes The home is proposed in sand finish stucco
composition, materials, textures, and colors? and neutral colors.
4 Site layout, orientation, location of structures Yes The proposed home is sited to minimize the
and relationship to one another and to open amount of cut and fill and grading on the lot
spaces and topography. Definition of d to take advantage of the views.
pedestrian and vehicular areas; I.e., sidewalks an g
as distinct from parking lot areas
5 Harmonious relationship with existing and Yes The proposed home is harmonious with the
proposed adjoining developments and in the eclectic styles that already exist in this
context of the immediate
neighborhood/community, avoiding both neighborhood.
excessive variety and monotonous repetition,
but allowing similarity of style, if warranted
6 Maximum height, area, setbacks and overall Yes The proposed residence generally conforms
mass, as well as parts of any structure to the development standards of the zone,
(buildings, walls, screens, towers or signs) and however due to the topographyof the site,
effective concealment of all mechanical
equipment the pad elevation is slightly below the crown
of street at the northwesterly comer of the
lot,which is the only area where the streets
are improved in the vicinity of the lot.
7 Building design, materials and colors to be Yes The building Is proposed in neutral colors,
sympathetic with desert surroundings harmonious materials and is sited
appropriately for this hillside location.
8 Harmony of materials, colors and composition Yes The proposed materials, colors and other
of those elements of a structure, including components of the building are adequate.
overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are
visible simultaneously
9 Consistency of composition and treatment Yes There is consistency in the composition and
treatment of the building as proposed.
10 Location and type of planting, with regard for Yes The proposed landscape plan to includes
desert climate conditions. Preservation of desert appropriate plants,
specimen and landmark trees upon a site, with
proper irrigation to insure maintenance of all
plant materials
H. In addition to the guidelines of PSZC Section 94.04.00 (Architectural Review) above,
the Planning Commission considered the following guidelines from PSZC Section
93.13.00.B.4. (Hillside Development) and finds:
In approving final plans, the planning commission may require conditions which
in their opinion are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general
54
Planning Commission Resolution No._ December 9, 2015
Case 3.3817(MAJ)—SFR at 2110 N. Leonard Road Page 3 of 4
welfare, and may include the following:
a. Architectural approval as governed by Section 94.04.00 of the Zoning Code.
Such architectural approval shall consider, but shall not be limited to, the
following:
i. Rock and soil exposure,
The site is generally very rocky with large boulders throughout. The proposed project
minimally disturbs the existing site. It is anticipated that most of the boulders needing
relocation will remain on site.
ii. Size of building pads,
Building pad is minimal in area in order to accommodate the home and modest back
yard pool terrace. The filled area will be retained using boulders relocated from
elsewhere on the site.
iii. Design considerations, such as supporting stilts, colors and
building arrangement,
The building is generally composed in a unified floor plan with common living areas
facing the views to the southeast. There are no unusual structural systems required for
the construction of the proposed home.
iv. Screening of parking areas,
The parking areas are screened to the extent possible by landscape boulders and
shrubs.
V. Landscaping plans,
The landscape proposes indigenous plantings and minimal disturbance to natural site
conditions.
vi. Continuity with surrounding development,
The neighborhood in which the proposed home is located has an eclectic variety of
architectural styles, many of which are contemporary. The proposed structure is
harmonious with existing residential development in the vicinity.
vii. Sensitivity to existing view corridors;
55
Planning Commission Resolution No. December 9,2015
Case 3.3817(MAJ)—SFR at 2110 N. Leonard Road Page 4 of 4
The pad height was carefully determined to minimize retaining walls and keep the
home's profile as low as possible. The homesites to the west and north of the site are
considerably higher in elevation and the proposed home will not impact views from
adjacent homesites.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Case 3.3817 (MAJ) for
construction of a 2,772 square foot single-family residence with an attached 3-car 1,038
square foot garage and a 997 square foot covered terrace on a roughly 25,700 square foot
hillside lot subject to the conditions of approval attached herein as Exhibit A.
ADOPTED this 9th day of December, 2015.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
Flinn Fagg, AICP
Director of Planning Services
56
Architectural Advisory Committee Minutes
November 23,2015
SQUARE FEET TO DESERTSCAPE AT LATITUDE 33 APARTMENT
MPLEX LOCATED AT 449 EAST ARENAS ROAD, ZONE HR (CASE 3.1328
M . (GM)
Associate Plan r Mlaker presented the proposed landscape plan.
Member Fauber que 'oned if a sign was part of the applicatio,ssslllll,,
Member Song verified if t exterior painting was approv VIIII11III���j��
ERIC MUNOZ, representing th pplicant, respondel� t41 [�uestioH�llrgm the Committee.
II�IIII11,,,, 11I;�III�II
Member Song asked questions a ut the he • At of the slope m�l1 Ing relative to
sidewalks (approx. 2'); and height an evatlR I Desert Spoon relativ I rim trees.
IIIIIt
Member Secoy-Jensen requested a des ' tio� IB�I ill,
in6' stones, diPnensions and
finish. III �� III �I
Chair Fredricks questioned if the mou �i �{�I enc ch o�1) arjip line of the olive tree.
(The applicant stated no,) He requ te dl� ll tion I'border to separate the
rock/gravel. IIIIIIII is�Ilsl � lllll�
Member Hirschbein �i� � 'f addition)) rlees are n ed
Chair Fredricks g1'ie� ed w (there is no 'l�pting behind t stepping stones. He
thinks the size and co . io I
I'II�I1I e�I{,, ��IIIIIIje
Members Cti -�tl� IIlIagree�llt�Iat the protect is moving in the right di lion.
Merpol ong is conceHi that 4111wound looks out of place; and expre d concern
about tei 11h s of steppin tonesL
MIS/C (Fre''dllllrllit'��k assadff' -1 absent Purnel)Approve with condition:
• More plantin Iflthe form of groundcover at back of mound (in front of steppi
stone
3. DENLAR, LLC FOR A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION PROPOSING
A 2,772-SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON A HILLSIDE LOT
LOCATED AT 2110 NORTH LEONARD ROAD, ZONE R-1-B (CASE 3.3817
MAJ). (KL)
2 57
Architectural Advisory Committee Minutes
November 23,2015
Associate Planner Lyon presented the proposed construction of a single-family home
on a hillside lot.
Member Fauber asked about the location of the pool equipment,
Member Hirschbein verified the pad and building height.
Member Song verified the details of the hammerhead street. Illllllllllt,
BRIAN DIEBOLT, project designer, provided clarifl�(I#�{I in reference to the
hammerhead street. 1gll ����
Member Song verified the height of the window ,, alholst�and c'11ri���{ tion details; and
verified the recess pattern of garage doors. She pressed concern ulil ���#he expanse of
concrete at the driveway. ll IIIIII 't 11111111,,Chair Fredricks questioned if there is adeqult 1 h'I ( Illh'bth sides of driveway for
additional plantings. He asked if canopy trees oau I used in place of palm trees at
the front of the house and suggestedlp ore drought-t t species.
III) IIIIIIIIIII �� I,,.
Member Hirschbein said the drivew3 is 8� wen a I1I8ould use inert material
between the panels of concrete; and mo natlIPl in�f nt of the house.
I III' pn
Member Secoy-Jensepla { l led that dr l,,�way nee to be softened.
Member Fauber ,�15 with I e driveway1ll • ments and suggested removing the
brace element from S i I
Illlllllllgll tl'"
Chair Frel}� Iq a �I g comllml�hlts:
W I INcern with 31 1 I off 1Iki ttrees; and suggested replacing with Palo Verde
0quite trees; ,i�r
• Inc r size of pla materials;
More s in aro •d the driveway;
• Revise la II I . an;
Member Fauber ver' ed the location of the pool equipment.
Member Song expressed concern with the roof overhangs relative to the awnings and
windows; placement of windows relative to fagade width (centered vs. asymmetrical).
M/S/C (Fredricks/Fauber, 6-1 absent/Purnel)Approve with conditions:
1. Landscape plan including driveway design to return for review by the AAC.
3 se
Archileclural Advisory Committee Minutes
November 23,2015
The AAC also suggested that the applicant consider removing the angle brace and drop
height of the awnings (not to align with roof).
RENVEM SHEY, FOR A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL
APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,867-SQUARE FOOT
HOUSE ON A HILLSIDE LOT AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR
ODIFICATION REQUESTING AN INCREASE I (IIUILDING HEIGHT
L ATED AT 141 RIDGE MOUNTAIN DRIVE, ZO -1'A-'A (CASE 3.3921
MA GM) (IIIIII'IIII
Associate Plann taker presented the project. IIIII II�IIII
1111111111
JAY REYNOLDS, arc ct, verified the buildin Oad constraints. (I
e
. [!II'
Chair Fredricks verified the rf area and dribevJ��I •etail�Ih� expressed'.
� Rlcern about
the sparseness of landscape terials. �III'I II
Member Song questioned if one t ould be rem o_� from each level to reduce
overall height; she also asked a ICI aterial of �lf�l, sand if any parapet is
necessary. IIIIIIIIIIIII tl: Illlll
Member Secoy-Jensen gd about t Impact 8 11�eight on the area and the
relationship of the h It1I l context a neigh orhood. She suggested story
poles would be hel land n concern e height of the garage door.
11 II IIIIII t
Member Song said sh�t� p fi� aable��e11 t height without a model and noted
that land'llcded � Ie le
Me m �Hirschbein iti � ted t > �,s not concerned w the height as it steps up the
hi]l. 1 14 sign is eleg nd re�well to the topograp
Member FbIl1�yr, said it's beautiful design; however, expr ad concern with the
height. ''IIII
Vice-Chair Cassat � ented that most of the height will not een due to the
design setbacks ancJlYopography.
Chair Fredricks would like to see more context to judge if the height will hav n impact;
additional trees are not necessary but more plant materials would help int ate the
house with the surroundings.
Member Song questioned if the applicant could provide a model.
MIS/C (Fredricks/Fauber, 6-1 absent Pumel) Resu m a w
4 59
®` EAb111°NOUSf
I F'W611 ^•••
n7'ay:.:� '" sren INDPJt
'��..r..."�_ ......
------------
RECEIVED Lihill
OC7 19 2015PLANNING SERVICES M
,per DEPARTMENT M
RIAL MAP v 5
VICINITY MAP
za
-----------------------------
rn
0
W 11.W�QiYtvnin:
RECEIVED
DEC o 1 2oI5
PLANNING SERVICES
-- DEPART67ENT
1-0
29
Lp
N o
N R
K'99
� O
3 4
w
CDi
2 DESIGN CONCEPTS
W
9 .�,...,.3 742
rxgxs<r.n �
� r z.e w4.mot
'fin NV1N30 .,gym N0'J N1530 OIG;10 p
S1d3�
i
y /
i
a
8
n
g
e
n
63
JIM
WgM Elevation �..�,..
I' M Ad
mm. � L11111
Rear Elevation
® y
■ oo � �
0
o0
Left Elevation
V �
I mll
L�=7
zra9
��
iTUT,
Front Elevation �m-W: 5
E:'c,tc rie
A
S
t\
J _
mar
;r 4a
G
is s
p' ;r J° �uF�:aVS
h
Ip
I
I !
tv
t .
w`
it ,', ', � il►/ �=�j ��;�� �:.
Off
t Ar
y,
��
� . G-
� � ���
�\
� � .
� > «»:
\ , � � , � � � ��: « .
� � ^ ` '�
..�.
, | ---�� ,
. �� �
y . \ \��\� <
z : . . � .
\ � �� r
. - � �\
� ( � ) .�<
§ i ) y
? �y, � £ °
� ■ � ° -
/� ��
• � < � .
\ \^ �� » � y «
. # .
/ -
_ + : , � � 2 . �
� � � . ` � � � `
\ � � ¥ \
� \ \ • \ . \�\
z .\ � � � . �}
. . } � ��
- ,y6
:\ . ^ /\
���/
z » 6
. :���§
� �.
��\± \ :/�
| . . . � .
ATTACHMENT # 8
6a
EXCERPT OF MINUTES
At the Planning Commission meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held April 8th, 2015,
the Planning Commission took the following action:
2A. CONT'D - A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION BY DENLAR LLC FOR
A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A HILLSIDE LOT LOCATED AT 2110 NORTH
LEONARD, ZONE R-1-B (CASE 3.3817 MAJ). (KL)
Associate Planner Lyon provided an update on the continued project as outlined in the
staff report. Mr. Lyon reported that staff has concluded from the studies that the
proposed home will not impact the adjacent neighbor's solar panels.
Technical Questions:
• Engineering Dept. recommending street improvements - installation of curbs,
gutters and sidewalks;
• Drainage issues;
• Solar agreement between the two parties;
Gaps in the sidewalks creating safety hazards;
• Deferment of street improvements.
DENNIS FREEMAN, developer, appreciates the Commission's support on the curb and
gutters. He requested a deferral of the Via Escuela street improvements until the
Boulders project goes in by covenant or assessment district; explaining that this is a
huge financial burden.
The Commission commented and/or questioned the following:
Costs of street improvement on Leonard Road;
• Connecting street and/or hammerhead - the Fire Department's condition (FID #6
condition);
Process to create an assessment district or covenant.
ACTION: Approve, subject to Conditions, as amended:
• The applicant shall not be required at this time to add curb and gutter
improvements.
• The City would create the covenant necessary to create curb and gutters in the
future.
• The hammerhead and street extension of Leonard Road to match the existing
road (no curbs and gutters) to satisfy the Fire requirements.
Motion: Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Calerdine and
unanimously carried on a roll call vote.
69
Planning Commission Minutes-Excerpt
City of Palm Springs
April 8,2015
I, TERRI HINTZ, Planning Administrative Coordinator for the City of Palm Springs,
hereby certify that the above action was taken by Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Springs on the 8th day of April, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Calerdine, Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner
Middleton, Commissioner Roberts, Commissioner Weremiuk, Vice-
Chair Klatchko, Chair Hudson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Terri Hintz
Planning Administrative Coordinator
2 70
EXCERPT OF MINUTES
At the Planning Commission meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held December 9tn
2015, the Planning Commission took the following action:
1C. DENLAR, LLC FOR A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION FOR A
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A HILLSIDE LOT LOCATED AT 2110 LEONARD
ROAD, ZONE R-1-B (CASE 3.3817 MAJ). (KL)
Commissioner Weremiuk requested clarification on the AAC's recommendations.
ACTION: Approve subject to conditions.
Motion: Commissioner Donenfeld, seconded by Commissioner Calerdine and
unanimously carried on a roll call vote.
I, TERRI HINTZ, Planning Administrative Coordinator for the City of Palm Springs,
hereby certify that the above action was taken by Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Springs on the gth day of December, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Calerdine, Commissioner Donenfeld, Commissioner
Lowe, Commissioner Middleton, Commissioner Weremiuk, Chair
Klatchko
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Terri Hintz
Planning Administrative Coordinator
71
EXCERPT OF MINUTES
At the Planning Commission meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held July 27, 2016,
the Planning Commission took the following action:
2A. DENLAR, LLC, FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED MAJOR
ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM
16'-9" TO 10'-0" FOR A NEW HILLSIDE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED
AT 2110 LEONARD ROAD, ZONE R-1-B (CASE 3.3817 MAJ). (FF)
Planning Director Fagg provided background information on the sequence of approvals
and the proposed amendment as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Fagg indicated that the
house as sits on the lot it does conform to setback requirements; however, there is a
section of the house that exceeds past the 12' height limit.
Commissioner Middleton disclosed that she received ex-parte communication from the
neighbor (including Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization). Once she confirmed
this project would be reviewed by the Commission she informed the neighbor that she
could not engage in conversation on this matter.
The Commission had the following technical questions:
Commissioner Middleton:
How did the rotation error occur?
• Has the rotation been approved?
• Are you aware if the developer reached out to the neighbors?
• How would the developer meet the height restriction?
• Does the city have the ability to impose a penalty to the developer for violating
the zoning code?
Do the neighbors have a civil action against the neighbor?
Commissioner Hudson:
If a fee/penalty is imposed who determines the amount?
• Location of the mechanical equipment that is not shielded.
Commissioner Lowe:
• Did the developer contact the City about changing the plan?
• When the city became aware of the problem.
Details about the "Stop Order".
Commissioner Weremiuk:
• How did this occur without the building inspector noticing it?
• Verified that a signed certification was completed for the grading plan.
• Verified the options available for the Commission.
72
Planning Commission Minutes-Excerpt
City of Palm Springs
July 27,2016
• Verified that penalties could be imposed if amendment is not granted.
Commissioner Donenfeld:
• How would penalties be initiated?
Commissioner Hirschbein:
• The hillside approval process.
• Clarification on the sequence of events.
DENNIS FREEMAN, Denlar LLC, developer, clarified that the certification is for pad
elevations and not the location. He said the house has not changed height and it will be
very difficult to cut a 7" section and seal the roof properly. He said shifting the house
improves the backyard and would allow for a guest house. He requested leniency for
rotation of the house did not think rotating the hose affected hillside development.
ROBERT DORAN, property owner to the north, questioned how the development team
misread the plans and requested the building codes be enforced with the original
approval.
Commissioner Middleton said after visiting the site it was pretty obvious to her that by
rotating the house additional space was gained and asked the applicant if this was a
deliberate decision. Mr. Freeman responded yes it was. She asked if he reached out to
the city and the neighbors. He responded no.
Commissioner Weremiuk made a motion to deny the application stating that it was an
intentional disregard of the approvals and thinks it is not appropriate to modify the
approval. She's glad in the future that building inspectors will be staking and measuring
so that this does not happen again.
Commissioner Lowe concurred and thinks they rotated the house to add the casita and
is concerned that this was done without any consultation to the City or Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Hirschbein agrees with the motion and does not know where this leaves
the applicant. He said without any modification to the building he is not comfortable
moving forward.
Commissioner Middleton spoke in support of the motion and said that there was a
mistake and consequences for that mistake and should be proportional.
Commissioner Hudson concurred with the motion and said that a clear example needs
to be set with this project for the additional staff time spent and expenses involved with
a fee or penalty. He commented that by looking at the photographs and walking the site
he thinks with minor modifications this would fit into the zoning & building requirements.
2 73
Planning Commission Minutes-Excerpt
City of Palm Springs
July 27,2016
He said part of the Commission's job is and try to come up with solutions and send a
strong message about future projects.
ACTION: Deny.
Motion: Commissioner Weremiuk, seconded by Commissioner Lowe and unanimously
carried on a roll call vote.
I, TERRI HINTZ, Planning Administrative Coordinator for the City of Palm Springs,
hereby certify that the above action was taken by Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Springs on the 27th day of July, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Donenfeld, Commissioner Hirschbein,
Commissioner Hudson, Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner
Middleton, Commissioner Weremiuk, Vice-Chair Calerdine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Terri Hintz
Planning Administrative Coordinator
3 74
ATTACHMENT # 9
GREEN REQUIREMENT5: w
mwrmwxvMrze _ ,,,e bNr
..ww
mxlKmvmrsc a,oe�) � � � gra.n9 m
-mua NmnaN«M mKwrox NNAn � ___-_ �---�--_—
lox.WswW Waerve wxrxwr 7
MnVNa[rc.lwrl[ewalrrrcmle / �_.-_._� -� I
« axnuerW ewa wn eroxxu �4__
MrorYm�M4MFNYfN WINPI / J
uw u
NO4O,deMC! ,..M..I.nf«L
.N
^a rNNaMa � EXISTING HOUSE
War:.� ,NII.N«.I�«r.,..
FF-67824
N�NNNNgN>mN��°N,°"r�Nr
,'a ' mwuw«r° `mwmwmm`wH:ve • _r n
._._.. ._ ._ _._._ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ __._- _ P°
-rNNzm,.n,.mr..INI«NKwwe,rnumeev �/ J mrzrw veNaMArervanlr b - \�" SHEETINDEX
M'IrMK NCalllb«TWNlRN 4NOYfM! '
aNMr«,Kv,NNI.�Rm «N„rmNN.N Me
edu�veoalCmrxrMaNcmarNKnrow� Q r� .\ --T sRE RAN
�w xnnw,rrloar«N. _ E.rr. _ - - U
1 / 1 2 NDBLAP[PUN
OD
O 3 od' 1 3 RRPIAN
w
D.n O _ 1 4 MNDATDN%AN
RCOrumNAMrINN
IEv. .. 'I B i9eL IDNCAL PUN
I 9 SrL ms AND WAILS
I / 10 RPIILRU L[IIING IIGIS.
asar �- II I
INIL WACLAN3
4-I w u o-I uw, et wrart
I _ � � � "E LYN efilS ELMEfdL9
� 1
1
� I A
r�. I
_ p
1 y
/ L
I ddd
N
!) R
N
B
%1 I
AERIAL MAP Q
I j
i V
I zllD uaxnrvw
i PeLN BYn^9a.LA,92262 E
DrNARIIL. : o
_- WUCYOWIIBImwm FR MAN U
)zze]D Dz
" I FANCNO W MIRAfR CA 92270
MN. 504182-031
I IOT 912L .59 MRf5 ((�
`1 2]]2 al LMvJ Am a
` _ _ __ -� 199'l sl Lgvoi PaOo a9`rjm_ ` p 25d V �m
VICINITY MAP wlo5r 0tA.1"rFlmwca , C) rg�
ALL PLANS SRALI CDMrLr cairn: �_ / Vno O
LaNNeWWa yY Vb @ d
N - SIMnWM rM Z a V^I T
rriw�w.�MwW wmq wl.uMwu�u• •xN' Ott .y k3,U (_�'<N gp^
30 cr..Nrca �\ vmuwAu (n >CC
�roApzve rra.wuw roa.+e,.,...,.. '\ LweEfaMArz nsxr_ _____ _ _ _ _ ___. 11.1E g
,w u..+wrlc�r+vlr�w .—.—._._._._ 0a4 N..N.rw oro
e.,m a.rww.�.s.eaw wm,.Kn ma. 7M1N rml015:e ebll nw R a fAe ep Cn ayntem 2Kldn9 Me rI 5D. ellG .
mrwrmr+l+.,M M�,Mrn - dNe-1AIS OYbrnu RoNubY lode arcVvr 201.E NfPA LSD � J1
rrnq..A�.n N11N. • • �
rwp 30d��wwK l .re.� ru.,�elba s
MwWMAwnalm gldwMAM WY.rY PN1K1. � �N
M�a m.�zN-�I++r•ur...a«eu �� � o �c«nzr
Zvi.EE01f wm[gw K61.MT..rtr,by \ 6tl/N
a.•w�2Y1.N RYW,frtl.urem, -
rwvzv zrr...r..wKr4+a.ra.�r eolz � Z utxw D.
N.r.rrr.wlm wrwe rN.N.. . .w D.nunuw.Nn ___ ..
M I.A dr�l..w.Ylly fu66w1(V i. - �o
w.N.er.N.zvIrlN..rNNAwww«areW,
51te Plan
79
SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE: "
d µ®R¢YbJJ wmm�C6NR! W3NN
. z ..
1' ® ACGW RMM'Ji Mlflrm�V�aR!
j a.:' �r,. .410m�ISXm. ILCWIMN
r. '® ® -�� ® � isarmw nrr000 wm me!•mam
TT
- ay�a e?�m. clawxaw
6
I+srurz m.
4 0 0
m R
W I
e.
UPPER ROOF PLAN AT UPPER V1NDOW5 _ f
AND SNEAK AT UPPER WALL.5 .e 6
e s
9'plate
L. log
s,
9'plate r g Y Ij
17 -74
ik
H
. ffi
ow
e
A
eg z
9 W
I Nj �
9! _ pl to - 13 9 1 - -_.
r -
_- 10'pate Q
p ' tu
tuS�S�ypgi
9' a D i s i Og";$^n
V mQq
'.n a Z.z M
IA
j - e C9 �lgg
4+t o��
yh
.RGNM 4IX]/IC RNgCO CROSRWIY! `fit"
5 e«watarca.wmmwCmanuo lrrm. C- IlTW 6.
V.➢NC[1MIRMM gIXXL9IX[IW RI rt.
_ aAx•W monxc.eawcsa•xEq r
JLNRlM9Q I11 Pp.i nTA.iW.yr.i �V1
va'oo.wousrrxwnaw4xbw'ow'. Roof Plan �}
7 1 `
5�.
moo,
M1![in11n0.00M9 NIDdT 6f[Mn WN IO,Y fdtl[
anrfa auondinwM '. OIYGO•YMLIIMi1W91
yam„
---------------------
M I10yXR.�W.W
/N9.y[9N11C,IINpG
Right Elevation
--- -------------- - ®.a
wlx eurrm vrrmnumr meeeen � awa
44
- aWn wxreux mDl, anaa svl iM,fl"-. -
SIVCW°AMIIIMiMM ����
• o 0
rxoDDm xuuwu ruor.
M4n,IGD,n6i.W4D�. � �Y
�rwxenPnou qDw ;I 'pY w�
ICMIID W..4L1tAl• 5 C V��
Rear Elevation 2d
U m �
g
' o o e�ivw w.r rxDwm �mwwns iw•warnnwmP � U
J
!1£vI J
2E
I O D x W
u Q
MSXf AM..W.W� TTI
µW/fL GNAPM Nqp V J
leox.w a.-W AI•
Lek Elevation
w
U
z
��in�
- - _ R
z.1sU m
9 a,D D P G MOM N 0 P c9 aa+in lmeeeaars r/o enn s
n xw%ux mlac nu mw T. - (n
tu
.women Au x.M rucS ®®® �M.—
man
IUX ncLRXm..WW I!/MY➢6.
/.V9A•T6NAPd ypD '
Front Elevation WA 11
ElwaGons Plan
7R
S Yn N >
7 ; l t .
t� � _
w �5 J��
d � �� � ���i � �� � �,
/. I _ ii�; ��,... ��� ,
�r pr. Y,.�+'.'.
�y i. 7 ) i "�Y
���
k ��
}, i
i.M �� � ��
»t � - �
� qN� l� ��
�.
e
> 1
a, f'. ti �
i � ���
�„ � r,j
>i
v 1
._ _
r:.
�,
C
�.
___ i
r
x-
lIJ.
F(I;
.. �li..
� �
� .
r:
���
`� �: .� �,
\ � �r v'J
�'\ ' 1 �+
\ � " �� � �.
,t ,
}:�
'a,,'C�A. �''`.q
�� ,{f � �
� � >�I'jI� .� �,,,�1
1 �
i y .
nE
t i r ,
C+
�,
� . �� � � � 1��y.
t� �,. � I y r�t��y'�
r�
!•
i
i
1
h
� �� j + � t
^A }
� �i 1 � �.
+..;`,
� nl. a 1
�4
�1
.R� ' �'�
R �i
.���.,..
i
1
,? i
4,[.
ar' �
a 3
E:".�
� ��
�s
�.
: �.
t - � � �2 ��
1
j � 1 a
i �
'j
� � t ,r , r.
30
The Desert Sun
750 N Gene Autry Trail Certificate of Publication .+
Palm Springs, CA 92262 k. CAEI V ED
760-7784578/Fax 760-778-4731 CITY OF PALM.SPRINGS
State Of California ss: 1011 SEP -6 AM 7= 43
County of Riverside
JAMES THQMPSOtt
CITY •CL.ERK
Advertiser: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS/LEGALS
PO BOX 2743
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263
Order# 0001538554
1 am over the age of 18 years old, a citizen of
the United States and not a party to, or have
interest in this matter.I hereby certify that the
attached advertisement appeared in said
newspaper(set in type not smaller than non
pariel)in each and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates,to wit: "- - NOTICE oi PUBLIC l3eARwG- ' - -
No.1251; CI COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
Newspaper:The Desert Sun pppEAL OF CASE 3 31117 MAI AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED SITE
!. PLAN FDRAHILLSIDE ROL - b-Ch-c6unalof NARD ROo OPaIm Springs;
fiy27y2016 NOTICE ISHEIEBY_ GIVEN hat I,.i'y Coundl,pf fS.ptY H
California,will hold a publi5 he"anng at i1s°meetm9'n�ne�{Sundl Chamber m
:The OtY Council.-me€egd .begins at 600 sprin s ,
City Halll,3?OO Eart Tahgdi an on Pah,ppp. . y dd eel b Dania'LLCo1 the dad
-The purpose of this heanns s to tole, m 8 ntdo an,a proved major-
slbn ofpha Planmg9 Cgmmssron tq dairy a11p_@p.rPe n to allow a
°Arthltectural Appl¢ano ea�a^!,!alai endmgntto tWa�proved pfa nerd Road.,
The apPrl�^t had:Taqu rp
I acknowledge that am a principal clerk of the reduction of the's,de yard setba[k"from 16 9'SIng o and an increase m t of
°bpoest a9 he9hmeetm9l of Jul)''27Z o16 and R,he appi pnt has)4lled and aPPeald the rofi
printer of The Desert Sun, printed and 4hede6a,o
published weekly in the City of Palm Springs, . .... ra ti 1 a c rs
County of Riverside, State of California.The '+"*P
Desert Sun was adjudicated a Newspaper of
general circulation on March 24, 1988 by the t r 7 T r
Superior Court of the County of Riverside, '--
State of California Case No. 191236. -- '
I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on - 5}4, NJ1aWIP11f9 _
this 27th day AU ST, 2476 in Palm
Springs, Cal' rnia. PU xi
ENVIRONMENTAL DEIERMINA7the rolect s a Slass.l el4mptllon andr is categ0-
Qualky Att(CEQA)Guidelines, pp le;fa J ppesidence).
rally exempt:pper SecE on 1530The) r reportand bthar supPOrt'^dzdotliments.
REVIEW OF INFORMA]'ION Ic
regardingg this'ma,d556:00 r9i^abl,onday through Thursday Please comact the
1hou0 ofB oo a m CI€rk at 60)92382D4 if you yrou)d like to-5ghetlule:an ap-
Of)lcg'af.the,City ((7�pp - '
poidtment tox v, theseddbe Maren s. m the
Response to-this notate can.be made verbally iai the'Publilfl'earing and/or in
wnunyy before the hearing' Written commence may bI road, *n City
,.. Council,py mail at fllYclerJcopain, rings-ca 90v 011etter(fot R1a �r�rarid� e-
Irvery)1^4 a 1 1 ae antes Ctty C`le& S
DEC Ip ,a '32oo.E Tahqu n Canyon Way f) y
1_ pp x Pat, SpAn 4AA2Z�I62 N
�.� `6 ,�Ar/Y Ilenge•'dFe pub!tpheatin9 desviben oath j ins,not ce 3�smn wNttefi csorre
sdes,r d at i ry rior 10 a ubhc hearir
s, spon@an a dell yvdA¢r moo^65b091b)i2))rkA � s5 e W
►' n p gdi{y Ygyill be 9iven 3t said he'pNn fqr I I tereste Pat(7 to b
/VI he;;tl Quest,orls;e�ardin9 this wse may 6? 'rett��to)hnn Fa99 at(76011)323 i
BZgS l{) ) n esta carte,porfiavor!lame a 1a CWdad deSpalm$pringsy
ylm i a a ude,Eo12.
,yyuehablar can Felipe Pnmera telefono p6D)323-625 pu61ished .
lehjesThompson,Clty Clerk
The Desert Sun
750 N Gene Autry Trail Certificate of Publication
Palm Springs, CA 92262 RECEIVED
760-778-45781 Fax 760-778-4731 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
State Of California ss: tits SEP —6 AM 7t 43
County of Riverside
JAMES THOMPSOtt
CITY CLERK
Advertiser: CITY OF PALM SPRINGSILEGALS
PO BOX 2743
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263
Order# 0001538552
I am over the age of 18 years old, a citizen of
the United States and not a party to, or have
interest in this matter. I hereby certify that the
attached advertisement appeared in said
newspaper(set in type not smaller than non
panel) in each and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to wit:
Newspaper: The Desert Sun - r r ; , 'F •T
,e ICE
OFP11eUC NEARING 1
W iNp 12�0✓�TY, OU BLf�S�METY^S ICES)ANNEXp.TION No 13�5 1 ,
8/27/2016 c �r s'^ 4 Rs"C;s `31095 p'SSp CRESCENDO TRACT 31266 ringgs,
at L e Cityy'z Our�511{of tot• AIL"nbeel 7, 2016.. .
ha'jty 1'yElNibll]ieaiing at its mee�n9in the al Chamher at
fpm Ptrp ¢"Ibi of a aCls j
? The ohilol a`C °nc'�Yla asPihe le§I labae bfpldyr'Aor�omniumtY Fa-.
I acknowledge that I am a principal clerk Of the °M1e 0335�! °20�°''1m�ddP d ring¢s�1[al farnl2trDeda n9 �11^tennoff-
9 P pT. xsTy°f Elm 4P br x!the Levy
printer of The Desert Sun, printed and % n we edeax�m a camfm,it mr i Intention").,
plat,? ln', he as
printer
=bf Spec al Taxes ounfe y¢"(ermmed hatkh@)Wblll fonv`n`I¢nc ap Resolution
Coupubntyed of Riverside,ly in State of California,he City of Palm ings of i q rt O rgb¢ a7nLertrtop as pore„particule Y aes hed')q
ry tlb Cantotnta
ty "tBnnlxed to`tn�, Z^g 'ons 53311TaandYo116Wtg9he
'Faolit es
t pa) Reference is thereby made to the Res°lutibn
RC. Lommu l efol
Desert Sun was adjudicated a Newspaper of 1 Goverllmen `1 ct�e '�
eneral circulation on March 24, 1988 b the nunhsf°" Irep�Wtgf �L.0.v o iof hea�wu diVten oa s 7
9 by
nong ss�utTorT teTstwn khe GTy Cobnclt declared i blc Saety ie{L(ces)
Superior Cou t of the County of Riverside, �d gg zoosthe o rla Isar fh°W i°A
terrtiory u r FaSwed Yo be an axed t
State of California Case No. 191236. �T ` )nP1`aa�f
e Dls n,{{
ro-
� pnneYabbntMan Nb 13 on-ite With the G- Llesk rib(d SntIf�41yF`ntended I
of t�e solidib re;+�12i Thd Ipife i f sha�rWlYipsed thg?xlfin'3
gL¢r}n}IduPP asdrtho�it prrer�ceP p
tertMl)r/'dn theD a" ,the tarns° Vc°posedRb be.arGiez Lo theause t
p r° used to be annexed
6 levied to the Oistricttshell he a ed ntthetertr P sP eretofore caused to
se Jellied
i puhhc hearing and owner consent Dr°c`�109s';aospnggdfd—c,,1,is
I declare under penalty of perjury that the REV tiwO IN'toi( IA1t IJ6 Thesjaff r5Ju6rtca Was ghepCrtiy Flail-,-4h
otter aeaVallahla ftor P, [hrou9h Thursday Ple'ate,wh?aR
foregoing IS t correct. Executed On raga{r�Ing;no rp d wbuld like Lo vcNeBule an
the h°ursgf BOOam and S'00 m Monday �
this 27t By of GUST, 2016 in Palm 't).Se Office=of SheClNs��p�m �t�s 9204tt�h r, testim4nY ihe.v�,,
r a�Pointm¢nf W reJl 1, eserrtaral.or rt o'the Proposed Assessz
Sprin , California, t+he ngann9 der el )ecnons or protests if i y „, t+r:.
Coundi�`{Y?II tons r
thetastlmanY of all interested Persopps for and againstS rin
Ofent OIs?nR ho0ndafth , dfs e'al taxes M?Y -
Ii
L`A1 the public hearing t°tha pinrl °r the levym9p.a P 7¢st
r -,,piannexat said e 3° annexed Wdl.he heard 'Nry P
Thet'er'grtbry ProPpS Sh!GTy Clerk by email L�crtyclerk®galms'�nngs- '
file a orMqt st {"
go,4r,letter#6f II;igot lamisihompsdn CITy Clerk i.
x ,� -3200 E.Tahquitz CA 2262' ''. .0
v L t a+'a P,alrri Wnngs,CA Bbe Iimrted"tc aisln ont tho3e
p-y ggallenga of tt a P�4V°Ted in court may
1 9 Y
b described In thu rwtice or In Itten
u ik hearing' or prior °,rye --lr hears gt
was raped at the P to-the•Gty Clerk at 'to be
spondence delivered'.,. lb ersprx
f(Gove{nmen Coife SecFlbn 63009 )(?I)hear'
Decla t An op-drwnify wdL�r, - saidbe cilmdedrto11MafNs L dFollerant
hear :puesnon' }e' rd n9 thu mays
Enlnair at(760)323$202, a"de Pain sPnVIi.V
City Ntanagatrc�' 9 carte Via me a la Cluda1 2 y { s, `.
si neiesrta Isyuda con esba P°(ono` 1 23'67s3}{E
s ppuede hiblar con Fellpe Pridsera tale 8 l L EF' I had 8`R7I?016 ,
JamesihomDson,Clty Clerk t .,,,,.