Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7/7/2010 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.A.
Dear Mayor and Council men and women of Palm Springs: Introduction I'm Stephen Schultz, Trustee, for the Schultz Family Trust. My wife, Eileen, and I as well as our associate architect, Philip Rubin, are among the founders of Deaf Seniors Foundation of Palm Springs (www.dsf= ps.org). We look forward to a collaborative effort with the City of Palm Springs to help over come many barriers that we face within this city daily. A Barrier Free Opportunity When we acquired 587 Camino Calidad, Lot #3 as is with an almost over- the-rooftop views looking towards north, east and south as well as of the Mount Jacinto to the west. We knew that it was the lot to build our dream home with least restrictive views, or so we believed. Barrier free views are especially important to us as deaf people facing daily communication and language barriers. Such unobstructed views enable us releases from daily frustrations and senses of rejuvenation. Harmonious Design Considerations Great pains were taken to make this proposed feature as harmonious as possible with use of mostly clear glass partitions as set back behind the south garage. Our proposed design is within the definition of harmonious ,guidelines as set forth by the Palm Springs Planning Department or the City Council. Rooftop view decks along No. Janis Drive in North Palm Springs is in total contrast to those definitions. Ironic Barriers We paid a $547.00 appeal fee to only be denied the opportunity to visually present our defense due to "budget constraints." Planning and building a structure requires various visual languages and means including construction documents or slide presentations. Mutual uses of sign language interpreters do not guarantee true conveyance of communications. You and I could get the messages accurately or otherwise not. Two Camino Calidad residents' objections to our view deck represent for us another barrier. As for 590 Camino Calidad residents, various window coverings or plantings are simple solutions to their privacy concerns. Last, but not least, why is Frances Chung of 588 Camino Calidad objecting to our proposed view deck while her residence is up `For Sale' also listed by her? Attached are printed photographs related to our defense. Thank you for the opportunity to defend our proposed view deck design. gAwl, 02 i I x i fi^ k: 3 fi� 2y UiT Y dd f 1k�M kI � a This page purposely left blank. PzWenflai AV r v^. 2446 N Janis Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262-2717 $668,800 Custom built in 2004 is this hillside contemporary residence with amazing mountain&city light views. Professionally decorated with furnishings available under separate contract.Gourmet kitchen with Viking appliances opens to family room with fireplace.Singel level home offers three bedrooms including sumptuous master with fireplace.Salt-water pool&waterfall spa,fire pit&roof view deck,Originally on market at$1.595M.Offered as a short sale subject to lender approval.Call for details. Directions: North on Palm Canyon.Left on Racquet Club towards mountain.Left on Janis.Second home on right.Supra lockbox on gas meter inside gate to the left of garage.Be certain to lock up upon leaving.Thank you. ML#:41400785 Year Built:2004 Pool Yes Property Type Residential Pool Type In Ground Property SubType Single Fam Res Detch Spa Yes APN 504162019 Spa Description In Ground Beds:3 Baths:2.50 Residence Descrip. One Level Approx SgFt 2540 Assessor School District Other Lot Sq Ft(approx) 12632 Patio Yes Lot Acres(approx) 0.290 Family Room Yes Price/SgFt $263.31 Floors Other-See Remarks Cross Street Racquet Club Roof Concrete Tile,Other Map Coordinates 756,C5 Den/Office Yes County Riverside Great Room Yes Subdivision Chino Canyon Formal Dining Room No Garage Double Terms Cash,Cash to New Loan Fireplace Yes Land Fee LALConditioning Yes Presented By: Gil Rose Lc:01027089 Prudential CA Realty Primary:760-318-9191 2905 Tahquitz Canyon Way Secondary: Palm Springs,CA 92262 Other: 760-699-6100 Fax:760-406-6062 See our listings online: E-mail: homes@gilrose.com http:/hvww.prudentialcal.com June 2010 The above featured property may not be listed by the office/agent presenting this brochure. All information herein has not been verified and is not guaranteed. ""' Copyright 02010 Rapattoni Corporation.All rights reserved. � R a TOY INAN 4 ell ar C VUVI I t ,°jr y� i,,,IV�7VII � �•-� �: j '• d� r6 id 1 �. FIB+I sow,, adi t ryg ��� � E � 0 ' e PAW Wv �. a, ago- 'in s y eM •L rVZ ' 9 loop i' p&,�46 ''� � �°' �q� � � �� y, ,:� yp�p' y,� �f°k ryta ¢��gqy�6 •i�rc�� . sk INN f $ a \ � W y p w�• � Y R r a TRLI;7 R, STER /10 71K; '4,3 AOTIUN7 S*T E 00,N,S E REQUEST FOR TREASURER'S RECEIPT TO FINANCE DEPARTMENT, CAST41ER DATE: 6-32A0 FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PLEASE ACCEPT$ LI _+TAX FROM: _k2�_-_ � -7 FOR: '* 2C Cry W Lade MAPS & PUBLICATIONS - 001-34106 OTHER CHARGES-CURRENT SERVI'-001-34110 CREDIT ACCOUNT NO. -CIRCLED ABOVE BY ORDER OF ..................,.......... ........ M u _. x -:_ - 46 AV St < - � < g y��.+ -�•ax ,,may 'S`s� ;k i � �"?�- � 3� § g g �c�s�-. � s i P < � c. ._ c 'Fw:✓' s _• - � - �-� - f &�= Ste_ " F 3 ` 44, _ y ow u P' _ K _ • q 4 \ram f $- ` 'Iffy _ stj 5 I � wwas, '.-;�'-.az v •' § �,. � is -�.m+ _ Liz z .. - e ,,eOF VIM 0 ,;.,.< , >: sMY <i e _ z t a .. N a --was 'hxa Y �A d r,Y 1 I 1 ri ! dj � J r i+ i t 3 S' IwKgpq RD DESIGNSTUDIO Philip C.Rubin,Assoc.A IA. I I �ramem �sas�maj�u re+a w RIMS VJTU IRS"y■� 412TI1,1L Lj dD L. / O PROJECT NA6E `--------------------- -------------------------------- ._ :. --_-____--___--__----------_-------------- ----- K --1 ZO PRIVATE SCHULTZ RESIDENCE P.W15Pmwo CA 9 D I F6J s�I I _ - I` CONSULTANTS © y `: \ �� /� ! r��•\\ %%�// REVISIONS ® T �C / No. Ise:c tab �C Phase I Issue 04.211D3 Phase I!hew 0&2M .-sue.- •4� - ---1 - 1 - Phase II Ray. 07116" •p _ - `\� Phase III Prelim.0&r19109 CAMINO CALEOAD -------_-- - Consuk Comd. 09fIM MEP Courd- 0929109 Co—K Coord. 10,12OW �$°` -_ [ i� i• ?j �- \ ReNslan 10F27NO 1 _ _ Phase IV Issue 12715N9 ©C) Issue fur ORB W18109 ----- - -- I ;• ti.-1 - {�—� ORB Up�late 12121W ORB f.PemN P-n Of12&1f0 ssue for-:k I OS'191t0 Q) SHEET INFORMATION Q Job No.: I >�r Q Revlewai By: p Sg� FIIe Name' ® — { C Dace: SHEET TITLE tf w. ----- - --_-- an ----_--- -_-- 0_--_- _---_ ---__-- --_-_- ___---` --_--- ------- ---_- -__ rty SIf9ETN UMBER Pe \ V "s ��� ADJACENT PROPERTY SITE PLAN �`J n_ 0 5rALE:NTS / n n.G i�J. �•, 4 S �� i Aw Tv } ��. .- . . I _ r l�iljl••�R+Y�.S � s At — y LL AN I a ,t {g, -;.. •F - sVl�t€4 ''+ �, „ t1 ' r a r't. ?s s i 3 Vy _ § Am `' - Ne �- Qz ,.�.E.� '� .�l 'vY effF- 3� ' -` f•� �YE � �S L - ..i�rie�T+a... r�. �r COREY DESIGN STUDIO --------------------- - Philip C.Rubin,Ass A.I.R. AEI ut�Sma csemaM�Yd com A]'VIS yms DP901i Plf. - _ LOCATION OF VIEW DECK REFERENCE(FRONT) PROJECT NAME PRIVATE SCHULTZ RESIDENCE aru OCAL D PALM SPRIT.CA 92264 LOCATION OF VIEW DECK REFERENCE[REAR1_ CONSULTANTS LOCATION AND HEIGHT OF VIEW DECK(STREET PAN ORANW REVISIONS . li W. h..- ue 21fU Phase I I. 06121N4 Phase II Issue 06127U9 - -- Phase II Rcw. 07115109 Phase Ill Prelim 0811mg Con &Coord. D9118r09 - MEP Caord. 09129.'09 Consult Coord. 10W09 0.— 11R27109 i:: O Ph�e N 6aue 1NI&09 Issue for DRIB 1211&W PROPOSED RESIDENCE PAD HEIGHT DRB Upd to 1212$M9 �''^ TO TOP OF CURB REFERENCE DRB Reds— 91.2A'10 :Issue tr Permit OW19110 SHEET INFORMATION 1 Job No.: § i Drawn By: Reviewed By, Scale' Ella Name: Date: SHEET TITLE VIEW DECK HEIGHT LADDER HEIGHT View Deck Photo REFERENCE VERIFICATION Reference Plan& Method SHEET NUMBER CA111N0 CALIDAD _ _ __ _ _ VIEW DECK PHOTO REFERENCE PLAN AO.8 COREY DESIGN STUDIO I DECK - _ Philip C.Aub,n,A—A.I.A. E - u vlen j f D: eo ink way, „ PHOTO REFERENCE PLAN SCFL6:a+a'=r-0- ;q; LOCATION OF PROPOSED VISTA 595 CAM CALIDAD ;B? LOCATION OF PROPOSED VISTA 568 LA MIRADA PROJECT NAME PRIVATE SCHULTZ E# RESIDENCE 5aI LAHINO CALIl1A0 PALli S9RINGS.C4 9I1G1 CONSULTANTS :.Ci LOCATION OF PROPOSED VISTA 588 CAM CALIDAD !Di LOCATION OF PROPOSED VISTA 5081590 CAM CALIDAD :.Ei LOCATION OF PROPOSED VISTA 590 CAM CALIDAD REVISIONS No. Issue Da% _ Phase4t— OV21AS9 Phase It 1— 0623/09 Phase€1 Rev. 0711609 Phase Elk Prelim.0611 am C—ut Coord. OW18M ,, _- MEP CowiJ 09RaN8 - Co-11,Caard. 1 W20N9 _ Ownar ReAsbn VY27N9 Phm N see 72115N9 587 EXISTING SOUTH VISTA FROM STREET Issuefor DRB MR09 BRB update l2f21.— DRB ReNs6n 01l2ar10 I.-fur PermB 011a110 I PROPOSED LOCATION OF VIEW DECK PANORAMIC(EAST VISTA)I S HEET INFORMATION .lob No, Drawn By: Reviewed By: some: F%W— Date: $H EET TITLE Roof Deck - Simulation 1 Photo References HEETNUMBER 587 PROPOSED SOUTH VISTA FROM STREET SA 587 SOUTH VISTAS 568 LA MIRADA PANORAMIC VISTA H0.9 .9 C 0 R E Y DESIO'J STUDIO fir. a c` Philip C Ru6in,Assoc.A.A.A. ref-tomy.urnu :aE4 ui-zas ran F. - - D3lGN.LVC. 520 CAM CALIDAD SITE PHOTO:4 Ber2 BTH-4 33B SQ.FS. aU%T IN:2me 588 CAM CALIDAD SITE PHOTO:4 BD 2 BTH.3 1375Q.F.. BUILTIN:1998 590 CAM CALIDAD SITE PHOTO:4 91312 BTH.31Ba So.Fr. BMT IN:20M PR03ECT NAME PRIVATE SCHULTZ RESIDENCE se,G4MIND c uloAn PALM SPRNGS.CA Y234 3 ' CONSULTANTS 594 CAM CALIDAD SITE PHOTO.4BID 5BTH.5.774 SO.FT.BUILT N.MI 599 CAM MIDAD SITE PHOTO:4 SO 15 BTH-5,7745Q.Fr. BUILT IN,2u 595 CAM CALIDAD:a BDf 4 BTH.3.BB5 SQ.FT. BUILT 1N:2362 587 CAM CALI DAD PROPOSED RESIDENCE REVISIONS W. Issue Dale Phase 4Issue 04aVO9 - Phase ll Issue D6+Z M9 Phase II R- 07116.109 Phase III PreHnr.06AW6 C-41L Goad. D9tt8109 _ - MEP C-Z. O Q9009 0.—Re*Ion 10727109 _Phase IV Issue 12115109 Issue for DIRE 12f18M -DRB Update 12f21l09 DRB R-kbn 01.129110 Issue for PermH 03/19110 554 S.LA MIRADA SITE PHOTO:3 6DJ1-BBTH.3,699SO.Fr. SULTIH:ISn 568 S.LA MIRADA SITE PHOTO:4 BD:4BTn.2965ao.Fr. BUILT IN.M 588 S.LA MIRADA SITE PHOTO:4 Barge BTH.s.%sQ.Fr. BUILT IN:1966 SHEET INFORMATION Jab No.: Drawn By: Reviewed By: Date: SHEET TITLE Existing Residential Neighbofiood Photo Reference SHAEET�NUMBER 592 S.LA MIRADA SITE PHOTO:3 BID 34 BTH-3 M SQFr. BUILT IN:2w2 SS6 S.LA MIRADA SITE PHOTO;3 BD 12.76 BTH.3XSSQ.Fr. BUILTIN:1974 600 S.LA MIRADA SITE PHOTO:4 BOI3.75 BTH.Z72s So.F. BIACT IN:19M HU.10 C 0 R E Y DESIGN STUDIO mow->�•-e.?� - _ yM -- - Ph+ip C-Rubin,A—A.I A. - _ tb5l+it-vrSCeme.w.S�dw- vlaTuu nay mc. 656 S.LA MIRADA SITE PHOTO:CONSTRUCTION N PRDDR=55 656 S.LA MIRADA SETE PHOTO:CONSTRUCTION IN PROGREss 565 S.LA MIRADA SITE PHOTO:s Boras 8n.4.939 So-FT. BUILT Br 197& PROJECT NAME PRIVATE SCHULTZ RESIDENCE —Ow.No—]— PALM BR3I .CA 83269 - CONSULTANTS 603 S.LA MIRADA SITE PHOTO:a BD!26 BTR.3 B76 SO.FT. SLgLT IN:1968 589 S.LA MIRADA SITE PHOTO:3 BD:ass BTN.as S .FT. BUILT IN:197S 565 S.LA MIRADA SITE PHOTO:40U13.5 BTH.<M SO.FT. BUILT IN.19)5 ' •.::�':. - — - REVISIONS _ No. Issue Date Phase I Issue 0al21M9 Phase II Issue 0B7.Y09 Phase II Rer. 07fWO9 Phase III Preen.0611&09 C-4L Cord. 09A W9 -MEP Cord. If9729+09 C—uit Cord- 10Q0+09 Owner RsAM n 10.127M - I Ph—IV Issue 12115Po9 I - _ I..fur ORB 12718+09 ❑RB Update f2f21+09 ORB FN,S In ot12B+10 - Issue for Pena 03119+10 549 S.FERN CANYON RD.SITE PHOTO:a BOr3 BTH.3,7t3 So.FT. SWT IN:a 655 S.LA MIRADA SITE PHOTO:aBD+3s5 BTH.6,483 So.FT. BUILT IN:1M 633 S.LA MIRADA SITE PHOTO:s Bo:ass BTN.a,s9B sa Fr. BUILT I.IM SHEET INFORMATION -.- - - Joh No.: - Dr—By: Renewed Br. S-W: FIIB Name: SHEET TITLE Existing Residential Neighborhood Photo Reference NUMBER NUMBE 587 S.FERN CANYON RD.SITE PHOTO:3 BD r3 BTN.3.6gz sD.Fr. BwLT rr:t9Te 570 S.FERN CANYON RD.SITE PHOTO:3 BB+3 BTH.3sra SQ.Fr. Bw1T IK:1gr1 563 S.FERN CANYON RD.SITE PHOTO:3 SW 4 BTH.3.748 So,FT. BUILTrr IW4 HO.11 A I COREY D E S I G N S T U D I O I P11il!p C.R�b'n,Assac.A IA ISSN ui-�.�cugx�+v+ oRwK �.wc SIMULATED VIDEO REFERENCE FROM VIEW DECK LOCATION AND HEIGHT - P ROJ ECT NAME a.s- PRIVATE SC}iULTZ RESIDENCE ssr G�AAeIO CPiIDefl YAW SPfdXGS,fA 92266 CONSULTANTS SIMULATED VIDEO REFERENCE FROM VIEW DECK LOCATION AND HEIGHT(CONTD.) 4 REVISIONS N.. Issue Date Phasellssue 04R 7l09 ,� _ - e Illssue M23ffi9 Rhase II Rev. 07I1&0: Phase III Prelim 0&1 No - - _ Cansuk.Coord. 097181D9 .q MEP Coord 09l . 291L9 C....R Coord. lanoros owe<erR�— lOr27M Phase IV Issue 12JISI09 - DRB Update 122lM9 Df B Revision i)129710 Issue Ftt Permit 08l191,0 SIMULATED VIDEO REFERENCE FROM NEW DECK LOCATION AND HEIGHT(CONTD.) SWEET INFORMATION Job Na.: Drees By --- - Renewed By: Scale: He N— aa Dem: SWEET TITLE PANORAMIC SIMULATED ROOF DECK PHOTO REFERENCE SHEET NIAIEER^ SIMULATED VIDEO REFERENCE FROM VIEW DECK LOCATION AND HEJGH T(CONTD.) AO. "ER I L COREY DESIGN STUDIO Philip C R-in,A—A I A. ieW ct'-]m[aeFiu�omi i1A1E .�nFu ne>acat¢rc VIDEO REFERENCE FROM VIEW DECK LOCATION AND HEIGHT PROJECT NAME PRIVATE SCHULTZ RESIDENCE saa cwnaro carmen PN-K SPPoN3a.G 92281 CONSULTANTS }c VIDEO REFERENCE FROM VIEW DECK LOCATION AND HEIGHT(CONT'D-) REVISIONS No.:Phase I�mue Dak _ I�u oa 21N9 Phase Phase III I Res. 07AM Phan II P e - I relim.08H&W ��IIII I I -_ - ConsuL Coo*tl K 0 7 IY 9!&09 4 09R9109 MEP Caard. i - Conwle. Coord. 10R0" Omer Reveion 7A27 .i IRl - Phase iVl- ssue 12115tti9 i FT z"��."' •.: - Iasue for DRB }271BMi@ .ORB IAdale 1221N9 -DIRE R-W.n 0129r10 Issuefor Pe 0301E 0 VIDEO REFERENCE FROM NEW DECK LOCATION AND HEIGHT(CONTD.) SHEET INFORMATION Job No.: C, By: _ Reviewed By Scale: - - File Name: Dale: 3'. SHEET TITLE PANORAMIC ROOF DECK PHOTO REFERENCE SH/E�ET NUMBER AVIDEO REFERENCE FROM VIEW DECK LOCATION AND HEIG [CONTD.) O '�HT Good evening, Mayor and Council members I'm Philip Rubin who was hired to design Stephen and Eileen Schultz's new home to be built on an empty Camino Calidad lot which was purchased for four reasons — 1) location close to Palm Springs downtown, 2) beautiful neighborhood, 3) views of mountain and valley, and 4) a customized house to meet their specific needs especially because Stephen and Eileen are profoundly deaf. So am I. My clients gave me three overall design parameters: 1) use latest green technologies (which not mentioned in my presentation due to time constraint), 2) create a deaf friendly/accessible house, and 3) maximize outdoor living spaces with the home. Deaf Friendly/Accessible House Views - Good natural LED lighting technology to maximize clients' visual comfort. - Tinted clearstory (sic) (clerestory) skylight brings in natural lighting to give optimal visual comfort. - There is a videophone station located in the kitchen so that the husband or wife does not have to run to their office to answer the phone calls. - There is a hard wired fire alarm, phone alert, doorbell, and other noise alert system throughout the house.. - Video Technology to meet clients' communication and security needs (when you drive up the driveway, they'll be able to see who it is when you press the doorbell from the car or sidewalk at the driveway entrance). Outdoor Living/Views Mountain views are enjoyed from almost all of the rooms which also have floor to ceiling glass door sliders (seamless relationship w/outdoors). Since the valley view is partially blocked by two attached garages out (in the) front, I created a rooftop view deck for my clients to enjoy the valley barrier free views. That's the main reason why Indians and so many people moved to Palm Springs over the years ... to enjoy the views which renew their spirit and rejuvenate them from their daily challenges in life. To make the view deck harmonious, I used transparent glass railing and located it far back beyond the south garage as well as to obstruct any view of rooftop solar panels from the east side of Camino Calidad. Thank you for the opportunity to present and I'm turning the floor over to Ray Ryans who will explain the relationship between the house and the surrounding neighborhood. ��} ► L I '�' � . ��8l� A�SSoC. cow{ Pe!;)co(� 9 7"L) p A L M SpP v u+ A A * ^ryC�RPORAi ED 5�A A`'F°9,a' CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 7, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: AN APPEAL BY THE SCHULTZ FAMILY TRUST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION OF MAY 26, 2010, DENYING CASE NO. 3.2795-SFR; A REQUEST FOR AN ADDITION OF A ROOFTOP DECK FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HILLSIDE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 587 CAMINO CALIDAD. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: The Planning Department SUMMARY The City Council will consider an appeal by the Schultz Family Trust ("appellants") requesting that the Council reverse the Planning Commission's action to deny Case No. 3.3243-SFR to construct a rooftop deck on a previously approved single-family residence located at 587 Camino Calidad. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt RESOLUTION NO. ,"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL BY THE SCHULTZ FAMILY TRUST AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A ROOFTOP DECK FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HILLSIDE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE LOCATED AT 587 CAMINO CALIDAD, CASE NO. 3.2795-SFR." PRIOR ACTIONS: On September 26, 2005, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) reviewed the project and voted 7-0 to recommend approval to the Planning Commission. On October 26, 2005, the Planning Commission approved the proposed single family residence; however, the entitlement expired. A new applicant proposed the same IT'EN4 NO. City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 -- Page 2 3.2795 SFR Revision Appeal residence with some minor changes. One of these modifications included a rooftop deck. On February 24, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the new single-family residence at 587 Camino Calidad. However, the Commission eliminated the rooftop deck as part of its approval of the project. The Commission gave the applicant the option to submit further details of the rooftop deck for review by the AAC and final approval by the Commission. On April 12, 2010, the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed additional materials submitted by the applicant for inclusion of the rooftop deck and voted 5-2 (O'Donnell and Parker opposed) to recommend approval as submitted to the Planning Commission. On April 28, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the additional materials and voted 5-0 (2 absent, Bill Scott and Vice Chair Jon Caffery) to deny the approval of the rooftop deck. BACKGROUND: The Schultz Family Trust submitted a request for Architectural Approval of a 5,618 square foot hillside residence.to be located at 587 Camino Calidad (APN: 513-260-029). The parcel is approximately 133.5 feet wide, 150 feet deep and approximately 20,025 square feet in size. The topography of the area slopes from southwest to northeast. The vacant site contains a scattering of vegetation and boulders. The subject site is surrounded by single-family residences to the west, east and south. Site �n City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 -- Page 3 3.2795 SFR Revision Appeal The previously approved 5,618 square-foot residence has been determined to be consistent with the General Plan designation of Estate Residential and Zone of R-1-A. Additional information regarding the residence is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report. STAFF ANALYSIS: On February 24, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the single- family residence on a hillside lot to be located at 587 Camino Calidad. During that meeting the Commission expressed concerns with the proposed rooftop deck and whether it had a harmonious relationship with the surrounding properties. The Commission eliminated the rooftop deck as part of its approval of the project, and gave the applicant the option to submit further details of the deck for review by the AAC and final approval by the Commission. The applicant submitted further details for the AAC and Planning Commission's consideration. These items included a site plan and photographs depicting the views from the proposed roof deck. These materials were reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee on April 12, 2010, and the Committee voted 5-2 to recommend approval as submitted to the Planning Commission. The Commission reviewed the materials and evaluated the rooftop deck under the guidelines outlined in Section 94.04.00(D), Planning Commission Architectural Advisory Committee Review Guidelines: 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; 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; 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, 4. Building design, materials and colors to be 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, 6. Consistency of composition and treatment, 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; City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 -- Page 4 3.2795 SFR Revision Appeal 8. Signs and graphics, as understood in architectural design including materials and colors, 9. The planning architectural advisory committee may develop specific written guidelines to supplement the design criteria and carry out the purposes of this chapter. Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission made the following determination: The topography of the area slopes from southwest to northeast, the proposed rooftop deck, which is approximately 250 square feet in area, will be located at the southeast corner of the proposed residence and about ten feet above the residence's finished floor. Based on the photo- simulations submitted by the applicant, it does appear that views from the proposed rooftop deck will infringe on the privacy of surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposed rooftop deck will not have a harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments. Following the Planning Commission's denial of the rooftop deck, the applicant filed an appeal letter on May 18, 2010 (letter attached). Staff has identified the following reasons by which the appellant seeks to overturn the Planning Commission's denial. Staff's response is provided immediately following. "Our appeal is based on the project's 200 square foot view deck does not invade adjacent neighbors privacy..." The proposed rooftop deck is approximately 250 square feet in size; elevated approximately ten feet above the residence's finished floor; and located at the southeast corner of the proposed residence (adjacent to the side and front yard setbacks). Based on the materials submitted by the applicant, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed rooftop deck would infringe on the privacy of neighboring properties. "[the view deck] has a continuous design palette consistent with custom homes developed in Palm Springs community, much like the roof deck design approved June 25, 2008 on the parallel street at 656 La Mirada property uphill west of Camino Calidad. The Planning Commission denied the addition of the view deck on the subject property on the basis that the design / location did not have harmonious relationship with neighboring properties. The rooftop deck at 656 La Mirada was located at the center of the residence and the Commission determined that the deck would not infringe on neighboring properties and therefore was harmonious with neighboring properties. The opposing neighbors at 588 and 592 Camino Calidad have enjoyed undeveloped property and undisturbed view of three lots totaling an acre 4 City Council Staff Report July 7, 2010 -- Page 5 3.2795 SFR Revision Appeal and a half for many years and apparently are opposed to any perceived changes to their privacy and unobstructed views from alongside the west of Camino Calidad. The two neighbors that submitted comment letters were concerned about the loss of privacy due to the addition of the rooftop deck. The neighbors did not register objection to development of the site and, in fact, stated that a new residence would be a positive addition. We have provided additional information not available to the Commission that will support the proposed design is harmonious with the adjacent neighborhood." Beyond the appeal letter, no additional information has been submitted to staff. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the rooftop deck on the proposed single-family residence to be located at 587 Camino Calidad. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. A in Alp P Thomas J. Wilson Dire or of P nni g Services Assistant City Manager, Dev't Svcs 4 David H. Ready City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Appeal letter received May 18, 2010 3. Letters received from neighbors 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6136 5. Planning Commission meeting minutes dated April 28, 2010 (excerpt) 6. Planning Commission memorandum dated April 28, 2010, with exhibits RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL BY THE SCHULTZ FAMILY TRUST AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A ROOFTOP DECK FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HILLSIDE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE LOCATED AT 587 CAMINO CALIDAD, CASE NO. 3.2795-SFR. WHEREAS, the Schultz Family Trust filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94.04.00 and 94,06.01 of the Zoning Code for a 5,618-square foot single-family residence, including an attached 644 square foot second unit, with a reduced front yard setback to 23.5 feet on a vacant lot located at 587 Camino Calidad (APN: 513-260- 029), Zone R-1-A, Section 22; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2010, the Planning Commission approved Case 3.2795 SFR, an application to construct a hillside single-family residence, subject to conditions, including PLN 10: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the rooftop deck and exterior stairway shall be removed from the final design. The location where the roof deck was proposed shall match the adjacent roof design, material and color. b. Should the applicant wish to retain the proposed exterior stairway and / or rooftop deck, detailed plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review by the Architectural Advisory Committee and final approval by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2010, the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed additional materials submitted by the applicant for inclusion of the rooftop deck and voted 5-2 (O'Donnell and Parker opposed) to recommend approval as submitted to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the additional materials and voted 5-0 (2 absent, Bill Scott and Vice Chair Jon Caffery) to deny the approval of the rooftop deck; and WHEREAS, the Schultz Family Trust ("Appellant") has filed an appeal with the City Clerk, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the Municipal Code, of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a rooftop deck at the southeast corner of the proposed residence to be located at 587 Camino Calidad, Case 3.2795 SFR Revision; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2010, a public meeting on the appeal was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and 6 City Council Resolution Page 2 WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and has been determined to be Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (single-family residence) pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the appeal hearing on the project, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303(a), Single-Family Residence. SECTION 2. The following guidelines for architectural review (Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.04.00(D)(2)) cannot be met by the project, as follows: 2. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and in the context of the immediate neighborhood / community, avoiding both excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted The proposed rooftop deck is approximately 250 square feet in size; elevated approximately ten feet above the residence's finished floor; and located at the southeast corner of the proposed residence (adjacent to the side and front yard setbacks). Based on the materials submitted by the applicant, the proposed rooftop deck would infringe on the privacy of neighboring properties. Therefore, the proposed rooftop deck will not have a harmonious relationship with adjoining developments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's decision to deny a rooftop deck at the southeast corner of the proposed residence located at 587 Camino Calidad. ADOPTED this 7th day of July, 2010. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk City Council Resolution Page 3 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 A L M Sp'A A. City of Palm springs * Department of Planning Services * �C�RPOAwYE�1Opt � 3200 E.Tahquicz Canyon Way Palm Springs,California 92262 Tel:(760)323-8245 • Fax:(760) 322-8360 • Web: www.palinsprings-Ca.gov ��IFOR� June 14, 2010 Schultz Family Trust 12808 Sarah Street Studio City, California 91604 Re: Cases 3.2795 SFR & 7.1335 AMM Schultz Residence 587 Camino Calidad Dear Mr. Schultz, Attached is the Planning Commission's Resolution of denial for the proposed rooftop deck located on the previously approved residence at the above-mentioned address. The resolution was adapted by the Commission at its public hearing meeting on May 26, 2010. On May 18, 2010, staff received your request to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. The request has been tentatively scheduled for City Council review on July 7, 2010. Thank you for working with staff during this application process.. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (760) 323-8245. Sincerely, David A. Newell Associate Planner Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution dated May 26, 2010 cc: Mr. Ray Ryans, Ryans Virtual Design, Inc. 9 Post Office Box 2743 • Palm SorinRs, California 92263-2743 ,-Ealm Springs City Council (J P.O. Box 2743 3200 E. Taquitz Canyon Way 5 f Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 May 17, 2010 Dear City Clerk, The Schultz Family Trust, owners of property located at 587 Camino Calidad Palm Springs CA 92264, hereby appeal the City Planners Commission case 3.2795 SFR Revision, that the proposed residence view deck is not harmonious with the adjacent neighborhood. The proposed. residence is approximately 5,600 square feet located on a half acre hillside lot with a 200 square foot view deck positioned on the south front end of the property approximately 56'-0" from the front property line and approx. 17'-0" feet from the south property line with access stair. Our appeal is based on the project's 200 square foot view deck does not invade adjacent neighbors privacy and has a continuous design palette consistent with custom homes developed in Palm Springs community, much like the roof deck design approved June 25, 2008 on the parallel street at 656 La Mirada property uphill west of Camino Calidad. The opposing neighbors at 588 and 592 Camino Calidad have enjoyed undeveloped property and undisturbed views of three lots totaling an acre and half for many years and apparently are opposed to any perceived changes to their privacy or unobstructed views from alongside the west of Camino Calidad. We have provided additional information not available to the Commission that will support the proposed design is harmonious with the adjacent neighborhood. A photographic view from the rear yard of 568 S. La Mirada Road as publicly obtained from Zillow.com demonstrates lack privacy intrusions or harmonious issues as with the approved view deck at 656 La Mirada property. A check of$547.00 for the appeal fee is enclosed. Sincerely, C. r < Stephen and Eileen Schultz, Trustees 360 West Baristo Road Q Palm Springs, CA 92262 10 OF , =�t POOR. 5''s;af..",'. . Am; TRUST TD11A7'S 10E'— 06/U3/10 t GIB'^ : TIM.rr'9 44;34 BEwCI-KIPT1 AMOUNT 01HE CUT II', APPEAL F'C DRISION TOTAL DUE, t547? 01 "rEECr; FAIR: S5547,00 CHECK NO: 107F TENDERED: $54 r.00 CHANGE: $.00 REQUEST FOR TREASURER'S RECEIPT TO: FINANCE. DEPARTMENT, CASHIER DATE: FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PLEASE ACCEPT$ _�2LI +TAX FROM: L'bQAZ FOR: , 1 pLCa t�V1 MAPS & PUBLICATIONS - 001-34106 OTHER CHARGES - CURRENT SERVIq - 001-34110_ ... CREDIT ACCOUNT NO. - CIRCLED ABOVE BY ORDER OF � David Newell From: FPChung4@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 12:43 PM To: David Newell Subject: Case Number 3.2795 SFR David, I've included in this email the content of a letter emailed to you today but was returned as undelivered. This letter is in regards to referenced Case Number going before the Planning Commission this Wednesday. Thank you. Frances Chung Department of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 ATTN: David Newell, Associate Planner Re: Case No. 3.2795/SFR Revision —587 Camino Calidad Mr. Newell: Thank you for allowing me to review the plans submitted for referenced Case Number. This letter is submitted stating OPPOSITION to approval of said plans delineating the proposed 250 square foot rooftop deck. Although staff comments stipulate there is no code prohibition for rooftop decks and that the request may be approved based upon conformance with guidelines in Section 94.04.00(D), Planning Commission Architectural Advisory Committee Review Guidelines, this proposed rooftop deck, IS NOT, in my humble opinion, "a harminous relationship with the existing and proposed adjoining developments." This rooftop poses a definite infringement on the privacy of surrounding properties, contrary to what the photos illustrate. Placing this rooftop deck towards the front of the building is not conducive to providing a harmonious,relationship to the neighborhood. A rooftop deck of this size is better suited as part of a structure on an acre lot. While the addition of a single family residence to the area is a positive aspect, the rooftop deck should be eliminated from the plans. Sincerely, APR 2 7 2010 12 PLANNING SERVICES Frances Chung 588 Camino Calidad Palm Springs, CA 92264 13 HAND DELIVERED 590 Camino Calidad Palm Springs, CA 92264 April 20, 2010 Department of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Attention: David A Newell,Associate Planner Reference: Assessor"s Parcel Number 51-260-029 587 Camino Calidad Dear Mr.Newell: Thank you for showing us the recent pictures submitted by the owners of the proposed home at 587 Camino Calidad. The pictures show various views from the proposed rooftop patio.. Lots and homes in this area are considered hillside properties There are no rooftop patios on any of the homes in this three street complex—Fern, Calidad, and La Mirada. We appeared at the previous Planning Commission meeting when the owners were requested to eliminate the rooftop patio or resubmit new evidence that our privacy was not invaded.. They have now submitted a number of pictures from the proposed patio. Only one of these pictures is representative of our home directly across the street and it DOES NOT in any way prove their case that they will not impinge on our privacy. We are pleased there will be another home on our street, BUT STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE ROOFTOP PATIO and the elimination of our pivacy.. 9Very truly yours, (0) CE G. EINER CAROL E. HENNEMAN CC: Craig Ewing, Director Planning Edward O. Robertson, Principal Planner RECEIVED APR 2 0 2010 14 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT . 'F`_Mal: E REC City of Palm Springs Planning Department ,J U N 0 8 2M Attn: Edward Robertson 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way PLANNING SnRVICE S Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 DEPAP-M,ITNT To whom it may concern, The Schultz Family Trust is planning to develop the lot located at 587 Camino Calidad, Palm Springs CA 92264. The proposed development will consist of a single family residence approximately 5,600 square foot located on a half acre hillside lot with a 200 square foot view deck positioned on the south front end of the property behind the two car garage approximately 56'-0" from the front property line and approx. 17'-0" feet from the south property line above the lower roof line 10'-0"high with exterior access stair. We--support-tom proposed-development-and agree ial design-has-a harmonious design palette consistent with custom homes developed in Palm. Springs community. Sincerely, C Owner Name Property Address Palm Springs, CA 92264 a �Y 200 S.F. View Deck rX. 15 City of Palm Springs Planning Department Attn: Edward Robertson 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 To whom it may concern, The Schultz Family Trust is planning to develop the lot located at 587 Camino Calidad, Palm Springs CA 92264. The proposed development will consist of a single family residence approximately 5,600 square foot located on a half acre hillside lot with a 200 square foot view deck positioned on the south front end of the property behind the two car garage approximately 56'-0" from the front property line and approx. 17'-0" feet from the south property line above the lower roof line 10'-0"high with exterior access stair. We support the proposed development and agree the custom esiden� de i n has harmonious design palette consistent with custom homes developed in Palm Springs community. Sincerely, er Name VLI V,uv . Property Address a- Palm Springs, CA 92264 s, R 200S. View, as anon' RESOLUTION NO. 6136 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REVISION TO CASE NO. 3.2795 SFR, FOR A ROOFTOP DECK ON A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE LOCATED AT 587 CAMINO CALIDAD, ZONE R-1-A, SECTION 22. WHEREAS, Schultz Family Trust ("Applicant') filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94.04,00 and 94,06.01 of the Zoning Code for a rooftop deck for a previously approved 5,618-square foot single-family residence, including an attached 644 square foot second unit on a vacant lot located at 587 Camino Calidad, Zone R-1-A, Section 22; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2010, the Architectural Advisory Committee recommended approval of the exterior stairway and rooftop deck; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2010, a public hearing meeting on the application for a revision to allow a rooftop deck was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and has been determined to be Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (single-family residence) pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303(a) (New Single- family residence). Section 2: Pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, minor architectural changes, including rooftop decks, may be approved based on the following guidelines: 1. Site layout, orientation, location of structures and relationship to one another and to open spaces and topography. Definition of pedestrian and vehicular areas; i.e., sidewalks as distinct from parking areas, 2. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and in the context of the immediate neighborhood 17 Planning Commission Resolution of Denial May 26,2010 Case 3.2795 SFR Revision—Rooftop Deck Page 2 of 2 community, avoiding both excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted, 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, 4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings, AND 5. Hannony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously, AND 6. Consistency of composition and treatment, 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 topography of the area slopes from southwest to northeast; the proposed rooftop deck, which is approximately 250 square feet in area, will be located at the southeast corner of the proposed residence and about ten feet above the residence's finished floor. Based on the photo-simulations submitted by the applicant, it does appear that views from the proposed rooftop deck will infringe on the privacy of surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposed rooftop deck will not have a harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies a rooftop deck for the proposed residence to be located at 587 Camino Calidad. ADOPTED this 261" day of May, 2010. AYES: 5, Vice Chair Caffery, Hudson, Munger, Donenfeld and Chair Cohen NOES: None ABSENT: 1, Conrad, ABSTAIN: 1, Scott ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA win941CP Director of Ploffiing Services 1�i Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2016 -Alex Meyerhoff, Escalante Architects, stated that the AAC and HSPB recommendations were taken seriously; and was available for questions from the Commission. M/S/C (Tracy Conrad/Doug Donenfeld, 5-0, 2 absent/Bill Scott/ Vice Chair Caffery) To approve the Sign Program dated April 27, 2010, subject to Conditions of Approval. 213. Y A request by Schultz Family Trust to incorporate a rooftop view pa io into a previously approved single-family residence .located at 587 Camino Calidad, Zone R-1-A, Section 22. (Project Planner: David A. Newell, Associate Planner) David A. Newell, Associate Planner, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated April 28, 2010. -Ray Ryans, representing the applicant, provided details pertaining to the height of the rooftop patio and the simulated views to the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Ryans was available for questions from the Commission. -Frances Chung, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the rooftop patio; she expressed concern with the loss of privacy to the adjacent properties. Commissioner Donenfeld concluded that the rooftop patio is disruptive to the adjacent properties and is not harmonious to the existing homes. M/S/C (Doug Donenfeld/Leslie Munger, 5-0, 2 absent/Bill Scott/ Vice Chair Caffery) To deny Case 3.2795 SFR Revision. Mr. Robertson noted that a resolution of denial would be coming forward to the Commission. He reported that this action may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioners Hudson and Munger noted their absence for the meeting of May 12th. The Commission and staff discussed several ways of expediting the meeting. Chair Cohen concurred to direct the public, at the beginning of the meeting, to sign in if they will be providing public comment. 19 3 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES MEMORANDUM Date: April 28, 2010 To: Planning Commission From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Servic Project Planner: David A. Newell, Associate Planner-.C1t4 Subject: Case No. 3.2795 — SFR Revision; 587 Camino Calidad On February 24, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a new single- family residence on a hillside lot to be located at 587 Camino Calidad. During that meeting the Commission expressed concerns with the proposed rooftop deck and whether it had a harmonious relationship with the surrounding properties. The Commission eliminated the rooftop deck as part its approval of the project, and gave the applicant the option to submit further details of the deck for review by the AAC and final approval by the Commission. Since that time, the applicant has submitted further details for the Planning Commission's consideration. These items include a site plan and photographs depicting the views from the proposed roof deck. These materials were reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee on April 12, 2010, and the Committee voted 5-2 to recommend approval as submitted to the Planning Commission. Staff notes that there is no Code prohibition on rooftop decks and the subject request may be approved under conformance with the guidelines outlined in Section 94.04.00(D), Planning Commission Architectural Advisory Committee Review Guidelines: I. 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; 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; 3. Maximum height, area, setbacks and overall mass, as well as parts of 20 Planning Commission Staff Report April 28, 2010 Case 3.2795 SFR Revision—Schultz Residence Page 2 of 2 any structure (buildings, walls, screens, towers or signs) and effective concealment of all mechanical equipment; 4. Building design, materials and colors to be 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; 6. Consistency of composition and treatment; 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; 8. Signs and graphics, as understood in architectural design including materials and colors; 9. The planning architectural advisory committee may develop specific written guidelines to supplement the design criteria and carry out the purposes of this chapter. The topography of the area slopes from southwest to northeast. The rooftop deck,which is approximately 250 square feet in area, will be located at the southeast corner of the proposed residence and about ten feet above the residence's finished floor. Based on the photo-simulations submitted by the applicant, it doesn't appear that views from the proposed rooftop deck will infringe on the backyard privacy of surrounding properties, including the future backyard area of the vacant lot to the north. In conjunction with the AAC's recommendation, staff believes that the proposed roof deck will have a harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments, and recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request to allow the rooftop deck on the proposed residence at 587 Camino Calidad. Staff notes that there was a letter of opposition received from the property owner across the street to the east at 590 Camino Calidad. Attachments: 1) 400' Radius Map 2) 3) Site Plan 4) Photograph Simulations 5) Planning Commission Minutes of February 24, 2010 (excerpt) 6) Planning Commission Staff Report, Case 3.2795 SFR, of February 24, 2010 7) Letter from adjacent property owner 21 Q4 VALM SpA N Department of Planning Services w E Vicinity Map S E RAMON RD -._...__----------__...........s � i � U I U L._. U 2 LL . .. ' .......... I � { ........ CAMIN AROCELA ....j € Legend 400'Buffer Site Surrounding Parcels .................................. .....! CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 3.2795 SFR Revision DESCRIPTION: To consider a request by Schultz Family Trust for an architectural APPLICANT: Schultz Family Trust approval of a rooftop deck for a proposed single-family residence on a vacant lot located at 587 Camino Calidad, Zone R-1-A, Section 22. ' r______________________-_________ ___________ __ I SIGN 5 T U ,. I --------------- F C.RuCin. 4ssac. A 1 d +113.30 +103.00 R1AN3 ,[E � ofsivunc Fj/ ' +103.00 t't PROJECT NAME p PRIVATE SCHULTZ ' RESIDENCE +10150 O ' Post SPRING&--------------------------------------- u sau r PHOTO REFERENCE PLAN[Refer to Sht.AO.7] scuf'1.4.-1'a• L ------ ----------- --- --- --- s consuLinNTs �' II °I -. REVISIONS _ No.Phase Issue I Issue D4l2D1Xt9 . I r Phase II Iseus OSr21N3 O IPhase II R re 0777W➢9 _ {Phase III t�R 78�Og6! 9 -C—IL C—d. O9lt8a19 MEP Caved. f1WM9 0-111.Caard- 'IOf2ma d� Rewbn tOr27l'79 •..../ - Phew Iv I... 12`1 v v O O ' Neue for ORB 121sr ORB update ffi DRBReWaWI atr Ilesue for P.-It 09H9f1U SHEET INFORMATION a Job Nw sa err x g� _ - - ___ ______ _ _ 'Ida - - 9celx Br. ss�mm — — - File Name: k Data: urw � _ SHEET TnLE �a _ Vicinity Site Plan ROPERT ADJACENT P Y SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBER �` SITE PLAN REFERENCE PHOTO AO e COREY DESIGN STUDIO Fhlip C.R,fim,Aswr.A.1.A -port PHOTO REFERENCE(SOUTH VISTA) (B PHOTO REFERENCE(SOUTH WEST VISTA; C:PHOTO REFERENCE-WES'VISTA) - - - - - - - - — PROJECT NAME I _ • a PRIVATE SCHULI- ` RESIDENCE - sar crwHG cxipan aellA SaRHG3.CA 9t[U CONSU{TANTS MBMCo. Igo r D•PHOTO REFERENCE(NORTH EAST VISTA) Et PHOTO REFERENCE (EAST VISTA) F:.PHOTO REFERENCE(EAST VISTA) REVISIONS I No. Iss•:e Dale - Pfase I issue 0912V09 Phaw it lssoe 06,.23.109 P!a II Re+ 07.!1E,109 Phase NI Pre m.a&,7a m + - - Consul).C—d M1E109 " - AI EP Cocrd. a9124f09 Consul)C—d. 1012a109 _ er Rers n 1aZ7L^ - Phase IV 3S 12l1',CC -_ Issue fc DRB -12P - ❑RB Update 1 Y EXISTING SITE PHOTO(SOUTH VISTA) EXISTING HOUSE(SOUTH VISTA) Issue W Pernik 011-M SHEET INFORMATION JGb W. _ Drawn 6y ReA-w 8. SCa k' _ File Name: Dane: Roof Deck + Rendering/Photo t-7, ` .. - References SHEET NUMBER 4. EXISTING SITE PHOTO(WEST VISTA) ROOF DECK DESIRED PANORAMA(EAST VISTA) AID. Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2010 f . 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: IA. Minutes of January 27, 2010. M/S/C (Bill Scoft/Doug Donenfeld, 7-0) To approve, minut January 27, 2010. 2. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 2A. Case 3.3395 SFR - A reque y Suzanne Zahr Fleming for architectural approval of a now singl amity residence and a detached accessory dwelling on a vacant located at 3075 Goldenrod Lane, Zone R-1-13, Section 35. (Project nner: David A. Newell, Associate Manner) David A. Newell, Ass to Planner, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated F uary 24, 2010. M/S/C (Tracy nrad/Doug Hudson, 7-0) To approve, subject to Conditions of Approval, �- as amend The . plicant shall submit a color and material sample of the roofing material and shall be viewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee and approved by staff. The r Ping material shall not be glossy or bright white in color. 2B. Case 3.2795 SFR & 7.1335 AMM - A request by Schultz Family Trust for architectural approval of a new single family residence and an attached accessory dwelling on a vacant lot located at 587 Camino Calidad, Zone R-1- A, Section 22. (Project Planner: David A. Newell, Associate Planner) ' David A. Newell, Associate Planner, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated February 24, 2010. Ray Ryans, representing the applicant,.provided details pertaining to the modifications made to the project and addressed the privacy issues of the neighbor to the west. M/S/C (Vice Chair Caffery/Leslie Munger, 7-0) To approve, subject to Conditions of Approval, as amended: -The rooftop deck and exterior stairway shall be removed from the final design. 2 . 25 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2010 -Should the applicant wish to retain the proposed exterior stairway and/or rooftop deck, detailed plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review by the Architectural Advisory Committee and final approval by the Planning Commission. -Consider an alternate to urethane foam roofing material. Director Ewing reported that this item is subject to appeal to the City Council. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: 3A. Case 5.0789 CUP PDD 311 AMND - A request by Carlos P aza for an amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Per to add check- cashing uses to an existing mini-marUautomobile servic Cation located at 3600 East Ramon Road, Section 18. (Project Planner: en Lyon, Associate Planner) Ken Lyon, Associate Planner, provided background inf ation as outlined in the staff report dated February 24, 2010. Chair Cohen opened the public hearing: _..� -Ernesto Frias, applicant, responded to q tions from the Commission, addressed the type of services to be offered and the h s of operation. No.further appearances coming fo rd the public hearing was closed. M/SIC (Vice Chair Caffery/D g Donenfeld, 7-0) To approve, the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, su ' ct to Conditions of Approval, as amended: -Prohibition of"Pay-D ' oans". -The hours of opera ' n shall be from 8.00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily. -The project sha11 reviewed by the Planning Commission should the applicant wish to modify the ho of operation. PLANN COMMISSION COMMENTS: Co issioner Conrad questioned the regulations of air flight tours and requested a list o e current businesses permitted at the airport. Commissioner Donenfeld concurred nd noted a dramatic increase in helicopter flights in the city. 26 3 p A C Nkp V in - * N Fianning Commission Staff Re ort Date: February 24, 2010 Case No_: 3.2795-SFR & 7.1335-AMM Type: Single Family Residence and Administrative Minor Modification Location: 587 Camino Calidad APN: 513-260-029 Applicant: Schultz Family Trust General Plan: ER (Estate Residential) Zone: R-1-A (Single-family Residential) From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services Project Planner: David A. Newell, Associate Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is a request by Schultz Family Trust for architectural approval to construct a 5,618 square foot hillside single-family residence, including an attached 644 square foot second unit, on a vacant lot located at 587 Camino Calidad. The request also includes an Administrative Minor Modification to reduce the front yard setback from twenty-five feet to 23.5 feet. A single family residence very similar to this proposed project was approved by the Planning Commission for this site in August of 2005. The entitlement expired and the applicant is requesting approval again with some minor changes to the project. 207 Planning Commission Staff Report .February 24, 201CI Case 3.2795 SFR & 7.1335 AMM Page 2 of 8 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve Case No. 3.2795 SFR and 7.1335 AMM, for a single-family residence and attached second unit with a reduced front yard setback for the property located at 587 Camino Calidad, subject to conditions of approval. PRIOR ACTIONS: On September 26, 2005, the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the project and voted 7-0 to recommend approval to the Planning Commission with the following recommendations: 1. Decorative paving should be provided for the motor court area. 2. A final landscape plan shall be reviewed by the AAC. These comments have been included as Condition of Approval No. PLN 3 in the draft resolution. BACKGROUND AND SETTING: The proposed project is located on a Camino Calidad, which is a cul-de-sac local street near the west end of Ramon Road. The subject site is approximately 20,025 square feet in size. The vacant property contains a scattering of vegetation and large boulders. There are no specimen trees to preserve. The subject site is surrounded by single- family residences to the west, east and south. Site y IT �y". e t. � ��14• � r� iF.° pp a a . ° 28 Planning Commission Stai aport February 24, 2010 Case 3.2795 SFR& 7.1335 AMM Page 3 of 8 ANALYSIS: General Plan The General Plan Designation of the subject site is Estate Residential (0-2.0 dwelling units per acre). This designation allows for single family dwellings to a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre. The subject site is approximately 20,025 square feet (approximately 0.46 acres) in size, and therefore exceeds the density requirement. However, the lot is a legal lot of record and is zoned for single-family residential development. The proposal is consistent with all other aspects of this general plan land use designation. Table 1: General Plan, Zone and Surrounding Land Uses General Plan Zone Land Use North Estate Residential R-1-A Vacant South ER Estate Residential R-1-A Single-Family Singip-Pnmily Residence East ER Estate Residential R-1-A Sin le-Famil Residence West ER Estate Residential R-1-A Sin le-Famil V Residence Zoning Designation The project is a proposed single-family residence on a hillside lot within the R-1-A Zone. Pursuant to Section 92.01.01(A)(1) of the PSZC, permanent single-family dwellings are permitted within the R-1-A Zone. The applicant is also proposing an attached accessory living quarter / second unit with cooking facilities that is approximately 644 square feet in size. While the Zoning Code does not currently permit second units with cooking facilities without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), California Government Code, Section 65852, requires that local agencies permit second units with cooking facilities without requiring a CUP when it meets the State's criteria noted below: (A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented. (8) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use. (C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling. (D) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling. (E) The increased floor area of an attached second unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area. (F) The total area of floorspace for a detached second unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (G) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the property is located. 29 Planning Commission Staff Report February 24, 2010 Case 3.2795 SFR & 7.1335 AMM Page 4 of 8- The proposed attached second unit is approximately 16% of the single-family residence's living area and will be consistent with all other development standards of the Zone. Development Standards Details of the property development standards for the proposed project in relation to the requirements of the R-1-A Zone are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Development Standards R-1-A Zone _ Proposed Project (approx.) Lot Area 20,000 square feet 20,025 square feet Lot Width 130 feet 133.5 feet Lot Depth 120 feet 150 feet Front Yard 25 feet 23.5 feet Interior Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet both sides Rear Yard 15 feet 15 feet Building Height 18 feet maximum 16.5 feet Building Coverage 35% 28% Dwelling size 1,500 sq. ft minimum 4,650 square feet (excluding garage / carport) As indicated in the chart above, the proposed development is consistent with all the parameters set by the R-1-A development standards except for the front yard setback. The applicant is seeking relief from the front yard setback through an Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) application. Further information regarding this application is provided below. Architecture: The proposed structure incorporates a modern influence with simple lines, shapes and flat roofs. Clearstory windows are provided over the master suite and dining / living areas to allow natural light and mountain views. A rooftop view deck is proposed on the southeast corner of the proposed residence. The exterior materials consist of smooth and coarse textured stucco, stone veneer, anodized aluminum and various types of glass. The color palette consists of desert colors. The landscape plan proposes water- efficient trees and some shrubbery. Parking: According to 93.06.00(D)(29)(a) all single-family homes are required to provide two covered parking spaces per dwelling unit. This requirement is met by the two proposed two car garages. 30 Planning Commission Staff Report February 24, 2010 Case 3.2795 SFR & 7.1335 AMM Page 5 of 8 FINDINGS: Architectural Review There are no required. findings for architectural approval which do not require environmental assessments. Instead, the Zoning Code Section 94.04.00(D)(1-9) provides guidelines for the architectural review of development projects to determine that the proposal will provide a desirable environment for its occupants as well as being compatible with the character.of adjacent and surrounding developments, and whether aesthetically it is of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Conformance is evaluated, based on consideration of the following: 1. Site layout, orientation, location of structures and relationship to one another and to open spaces and topography. Definition of pedestrian and vehicular areas; i.e., sidewalks as distinct from parking areas; Access to the proposed project is designed according to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and within the development standards of the City -of Palm Springs Zoning Code. The single-family residence is located in a U-shaped design on the property. 2. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and in the context of the immediate neighborhood community, avoiding both excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted; The surrounding properties are all zoned for single-family hillside residences, with all but one of the adjacent properties having existing single-family residences. The project creates a visual harmony within the neighborhood through a consistency in land use. 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, All heights are lower than the maximum building height of eighteen feet. The proposed residence will be 16.5 feet in height to the top of the clearstory windows with the mass of the building at 11.5 feet in height; the garage heights will be lower at 9.5 feet above the existing grade. The proposed project meets all other Zoning Code requirements and an Administrative Minor Modification has been requested to allow a reduced front yard setback. The overall mass of the building is very minimal since the roofs are flat with minor clearstory pop-ups. All mechanical equipment will be located on the ground in yard areas behind block walls. 4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings; AND 31 Planning Commission Staff Report February 24, 2010 Case 3.2795 SFR & 7.1335 AMM Page 6 of 8 5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously, AND 6. Consistency of composition and treatment, The proposed structure incorporates a modern influence with simple lines, shapes and flat roofs. Clearstory windows are provided over the master suite and dining / living areas to allow natural light and mountain views. A rooftop view deck is proposed on the southeast corner of the proposed residence. The exterior materials consist of smooth and coarse textured stucco, stone veneer, anodized aluminum and various types of glass used in a simple and effective manner. 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 vacant site contains a scattering of indigenous insignificant shrubbery. There are no specimen trees to preserve. The landscape plan proposes water-efficient trees and some shrubbery. The proposal uses drip irrigation to supply water to the landscaping, and will be required to meet the new water efficient landscape ordinance. Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) The minimum front yard setback for the subject property is twenty-five feet. The applicant is requesting that the front yard setback requirement be reduced to 23.5 feet through the AMM process. Pursuant to Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the PSZC, hillside areas may modify a front yard to a minimum of ten feet, upon approval of a site plan, elevations and a grading map showing existing and finished contours. The findings in support of the AMM are provided below: Before the Planning Commission may approve a minor modification, the Commission shall make all of the following findings, based on evidence presented: a. The requested minor modification is consistent with the general plan, applicable specific plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance; There is no General Plan Policy that would be adversely affected by this modification, nor are there any specific plans associated with this property. The Palm Springs Zoning Code, Section 94.06.01(A)(8), specifically allows the reduction of front yards to no less than ten feet. b. The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification; 32 Planning Commission Staff Report February 24, 2010 Case 3.2795 SFR & 7.1335 AMM Page 7 of 8 The subject property is located on the west side of Camino Calidad — a cul-de-sac street. The reduction of a front yard setback from twenty-five feet to 23.5 feet to allow two corners that make up less than ten square feet of building area each is an insignificant impact to the site and adjacent areas. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no adverse affect to the surrounding properties. c. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be detrimental .to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity, The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site and vicinity since adequate provisions have been made through imposed conditions. These conditions include requirements that the building will be built to the standards of the Uniform Building Code and PSZC. d. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of the property or neighborhood. The property is a hillside lot that slopes downward from west to east with the lowest portion of the site at the northeast. The two side entry garages are slightly angled to the street to allow easier access from the single-driveway entry point. This minimizes the impact to the hillside areas of the site. Therefore, the approval of the minor modification is justified by existing environmental features. CONCLUSION: The project has received a recommendation of approval from the Architectural Advisory Committee. It is allowed by right-of-zone and consistent with the land use policies of the General Plan. Staff has provided findings in support of a reduced setback for the Administrative Minor Modification application. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of Case No. 3.2795 SFR and 7.1335 AMM. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303(a)(New Single-family residence). NOTIFICATION: Notification was sent to adjacent property owners on December 22, 2009, to inform the neighbors that there has been an application submitted for the subject property. An additional notice was sent to adjacent property owners on February 10, 2010, to inform the neighbors that the project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2010. As of the writing of this report, staff has received one letter of opposition to the proposed project (see attached). The letter is opposed to the rooftop view patio due 33 Planning Commission Staff Report February 24, 2010 Case 3.2795 SFR & 7.1335 AMM Page 8 of 8 to concerns of privacy. Staff notes that there are no codes that prohibit rooftop view• patios. Davi A. Newell i""'A. ing, Al P Associate Planner Dirkt�of Plaini Services achments: Vi map - Draft ion w/ Conditions of Approval - Reduced cope Ian and elevations - Letter from adjacent wner 34 HAND DELIVERED 590 Camino Calidad Palm Springs, CA 92264 April 20, 2010 Department of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Attention: David A Newell, Associate Planner Reference: Assessor"s Parcel Number 51-260-029 587 Camino Calidad Dear Mr. Newell: Thank you for showing us the recent pictures submitted by the owners of the proposed home at 587 Camino Calidad. The pictures show various views from the proposed rooftop patio.. Lots and homes in this area are considered hillside properties There are no rooftop patios on any of the homes in this three street complex—Fern, Calidad, and. La Mirada. We appeared at the previous Planning Commission meeting when the owners were requested to eliminate the rooftop patio or resubmit new evidence that our privacy was not invaded.. They have now submitted a number of pictures from the proposed patio. Only one of these pictures is representative of our home directly across the street and it DOES NOT in any way prove their case that they will not impinge on our privacy. We are pleased there will be another home on our street, BUT STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE ROOFTOP PATIO and the elimination of our pivacy.. V cry truly yours, J CE G. EINER CAROL E. H MAN CC: Craig Ewing, Director Planning Edward O. Robertson,Principal Planner Kathie Hart From: Jay Thompson Sent: June 24, 2010 4:32 PM To: Cc: David Newell; Kathie Hart Subject: FW: Sign Language Interpreter Request for July 7, 2010 Mr. Schultz: Your electronic correspondence has been forwarded to me for review and response. The City of Palm Springs also contracts with LifeSigns, and we have confirmed your request for a Sign Language Interpreter on July 7, 2010 at 6*00 pm for your appeal hearing before the Palm Springs City Council. If for some reason you will no longer need this accommodation, you are probably aware of the 26-business hour cancellation policy as set by LifeSigns, and could provide us timely notice if for some reason you need to cancel this request. Thank you, and I look forward to meeting you at the hearing. Jay James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California TEL (760) 323-8204 From: Stephen Schultz Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:08 PM To: David Newell Subject: Re: Sign Language Interpreter Request for July 7, 2010 David, Yes, you are correct! I sent you a correction a moment ago so our messages just crossed. The request is for July 7, thank you very much. Stephen Schultz Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphon.e with SprintSpeed From: "David Newell" <David.Newell c@.palmsprings-ca.gov> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:05:11 -0700 To: Subject: RE: Sign Language Interpreter Request for July 7, 2010 Mr. Schultz, Thank you for your request. Your request below states that the meeting is on July 2, 2010. The City Council will review your appeal on July 7, 2010 as stated in the subject line of your email. Please confirm that your request for the Sign Language Interpreter is for the Council's meeting on July 7, 2010. Thank you, 36 ncP'%A11 n David A. Newell Associate Planner City of Palm Springs 3200 E.7ahquitz Canyon Way P.Q. Box 2743 Palm Springs,California 92263-2743 www..pa I mspri..ngs.-ca.g ov. http://www..gcod_e_us/codes/palm rings/. Office: 760.323.8245 Fax: 760.322.8360 From: Stephen Schultz Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:21 PM To: David Newell Subject: Sign Language Interpreter Request for July 7, 2010 June 22, 2010 Dear David: Thank you for your email address as we were unable to fax our request to 1-760-322-8360 several times today. This email will take place of the facsimile instead. Our request as follows: Re: Cases 3.2795 SFR& 7.1335 AMM Schultz Residence, 587 Camino Calidad This is a request to provide a qualified (Level 5) sign language interpreter to the scheduled appeal before the City Council for review on July 2, 2010. Life5igns is the interpreter referral agency for Riverside County at 888-930-7776. A minimum of five working days advance notice is required. When requesting an interpreter, please have the following information available: Name, address, contact person, phone number, situation and billing information including authorizing person and phone number, please. Kindly acknowledge this message and to confirm that an interpreter has been assigned. We also need to know the time of our appeal review will take place in order for us to be present in a timely manner, please. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Stephen Schultz,Ttee Schultz Family Trust 37