Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/1/2008 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.A.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS BY GRANT HOVAKIMYAN REQUESTING THE COUNCIL OVERTURN THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CASE 3.3010 MAJ, TTM 35601 AMM 7,1296 A SEVEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 517 EAST VISTA CHINO 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 October 1, 2008. 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 Grant Hovakimyan requesting that the City Council overturn the action of the Planning Commission to deny Case 3.3010 MAJ, TTM 35601, AMM 7.1296; a seven unit condominium development located 517 East Vista Chino Road, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this project are also available for public review at the City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. t COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made yoalEatthe Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be maw t6yth69,'Planning Commission by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to: t �� r� James Thompson, City Clerky = '' 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 w c> Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Ken Lyon, Associate Planner, Planning Services Department at(760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carte, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245, 2mes Thompson, City Clerk ao (M L:d fEw l«t� Ou�i')'w. ��'`-` ' i1,(��u1 im c�A Tlm�. I�a�le-� �I/ t�/e>� Ff.Z?Jstp� da C!•ti ®-� NMI (A/P�Me55��1 G.' ��7 �C�• {lr}�w L:YlGr�+ ICE+'. 'CiSn�rG vL/mil ' ,.T t'f� r o.+ , iLl Ai7rc Department of Planning Services w N E Vicinity Map FF mmY[OR herw cnixo xo .�--- � r COTTONWOOD kIf J Legend W Project Site � i � �-""• 400 Foot Radius �.J Surrounding Parcels CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 3.3010 MAJ & DESCRIPTION: To consider an appeal by Grant TTM 35601 Hovakimyan requesting that the City Council overturn the action of the Planning Commission to deny Case APPLICANT: Grant Hovakimyan 3.3010 MAJ, TTM 35601, AMM 7.1296; a seven unit condominium development located 517 East Vista Chino Road. Dear Palm Springs City Council, i would respectfully request an opportunity to return to the Planning Commission with a revised project design that more closely reflects the City's concerns about the design features of my 7-unit condominium project on Vista Chino. 1 have very recently taken action to begin working with a different design team to revise the project in response to the Planning Commissions concerns. I have a substantial investment in the project thus far, and would rather work to incorporate as many as possible of the 15 design concerns expressed by the Planning Commission at its earlier hearings than to abandon or lose the project entirely. 1 believe we can bring a good product to market in Palm Springs and would like another opportunity to work with the City to re-design the project to better reflect the Commissions' concerns, the local environment and the unique conditions in which it is located. Thank you for considering my request. Sincerely, OCT 21�8i Grant Hovakimyan, Owner/devcloper -w�S•':�j6yrV�N7 N Ym m onl�L- �7'E�-4 4 pAILM Sp4 c o W C '1•eeaeo`"y9P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 1, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: AN APPEAL BY GRANT HOVAKIMYAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION OF AUGUST 27, 2008, DENYING CASE 3.3010 MAJ, TTM 35601, AND RELATED CASE 7.1296 AMM, AN APPLICATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 7-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR MODIFICATION SEEKING RELIEF FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A PARCEL LOCATED AT 517 EAST VISTA CHINO ROAD. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: The Planning Department SUMMARY The City Council will consider an appeal by Grant Hovakimyan ("appellant") requesting that the Council reverse the Planning Commission's action to deny Case 3.3010 MAJ to construct a new 7-unit condominium complex at 517 East Vista Chino Road. A public hearing has been noticed on this item. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt RESOLUTION NO. ,"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL BY GRANT HOVAKIMYAN AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CASE 3.3010 -- MAJ, TTM 35601, and 7.1296 AMM." L� Item No. � • � • City Council Staff Report October 1, 2008 -- Page 2 3.3010 MAJ TTM 35601 AMM 7.1296 Appeal PRIOR ACTIONS: On August 9, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Case 3,2829, an application to construct a two-story, three unit condominium building on lot 15 (551 East Vista Chino Road). This 3 unit condo project was never constructed. The owner subsequently purchased the vacant lot adjacent to this parcel (lot 14). On December 11, 2006, the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed Case 3.3010, a 7-unit condominium project and moved to restudy the project requesting the applicant address privacy issues between the units and adjoining neighbors and solar control on the glazing. On February 13, 2007, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) reviewed the proposed project again and recommended approval by a vote of 6-1-0 (Jurasky opposed); with a condition of approval that the applicant install mature palm trees (a minimum of 20 feet tall). The AAC's recommendations noted the following: • the pop-out windows create less livability in the bedrooms, • the roof decks may cause privacy issues with the adjoining single story neighbors, and • one AAC member felt the building type was inappropriate for the site. On May 28, 2008 the Planning Commission reviewed the case and voted 7-0-0 to direct the applicant to restudy the project design, specifically taking into account a list of 15 concerns that the Planning Commission had regarding the project (these 15 concerns are noted in the May 28h, 2008 staff report; attached). On August 27, 2008 the Planning Commission again reviewed the case and voted 6-0-1 (Scott absent) to deny the application because the project remained substantially unchanged from the previously submitted design. On September 5, 2008, an appeal was received by the City Clerks office, appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the subject case. This appeal is the subject of this hearing. BACKGROUND: The proposed project is located on two interior lots on the south side of East Vista Chino, which is also designated State Highway 111. They are both relatively flat, with a slight downward slope in grade from west to east. There are a few Washingtonia Palm trees on the site, but otherwise it is void of any landscape. The lots are situated just east of North Via Miraleste. After the applicant received entitlement on August 9, 2006 for a three-unit condominium project with underground parking on lot 15 (557 East Vista Chino Road; Case 3.2829), he then purchased the adjacent lot 14 with the intent to merge them and create the presently proposed 7-unit condominium project. 62 City Council Staff Report October 1, 2008 -- Page 3 3.3010 MAJ TTM 35601 AMM 7.1296 Appeal The subject project is comprised of a Major Architectural Application submitted on November 13, 2006. It proposes a development of a 7-unit condominium complex with underground parking and two buildings: one comprised of three, two story plus basement condominium units and a second comprised of four, two story plus basement condominium units, with associated landscaping, pools, roof decks and terraces on the merged lots. The front yards of the units are proposed to be one full story below street level, and are essentially comprised of very large reflecting pools with "planting islands", each one containing a palm tree. The front door of each unit is accessed from the street by means of 4 foot wide "bridges" that span the basement level front yards. The architecture is contemporary with large expanses of glass. All seven units repeat the same front and rear fagade. The applicant anticipates marketing the units in the mid $900,000 price range. The application also includes a required Tentative Tract Map submitted on July 2, 2007, to combine lots 14 and 15 located at 517 and 551 East Vista Chino into one lot for condominium purposes. An application for Administrative Minor Modification was submitted on April 29, 2008 to seek relief from development standards for setbacks, lot coverage, and distance between buildings. The Planning Commission reviewed the application at their May 28, 2008 hearing and identified fifteen (15) design issues and concerns that it felt were problematic (see list below). The Commission unanimously voted to continue the item to an undetermined date to allow the applicant to redesign the project taking the 15 design concerns into account. Following the May 28th public hearing, Staff discussed by phone options for re-considering the density of the project via an additional Administrative Minor Modification and met in person with the applicant to assist them and clarify the other recommended changes requested by the Planning Commission. On July 22, 2008 the applicant submitted to the City, a revised set of drawings dated July 15, 2008 and noted only two of the fifteen Planning Commission concerns had been revised. At that time, Staff advised the applicant that it could not recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission because most of the Planning Commissions' design concerns had not been addressed. The applicant submitted yet another set of drawings dated 7-29-08. Staff reviewed those drawings and noted that despite further changes on ramps and the accessible unit in the 7-29-08 set, the project remained essentially unchanged from the drawing set analyzed and dated 7-15-08. At the August 27th, 2008 Planning Commission hearing, Staff presented the analysis below restating the Planning Commissions' fifteen design concerns and noting where revisions had (or had not) been made: 1. Reduce the density and/ar bulk of the project. (possibly reducing the number and/or size of the units). The applicant elected to retain the same density of the project for economic reasons. 2. Elimination of the roof decks and stairs to the roof. City Council Staff Report October 1, 2008-- Page 4 3,3010 MAJ TTM 35601 AMM 7.1296 Appeal The applicant preferred to retain the roof decks. The excess building height of the stair towers also remains. 3. Consider alternative landscape material at the rear pool decks to minimize maintenance problems. The applicant preferred to retain the landscape material as previously shown. 4. Consider the maintenance issues created with the subterranean front yard water features and confirm the placement of the mechanical equipment for these pools. The applicant has considered the potential maintenance issues and preferred to retain the subterranean water features. Placement of the mechanical equipment for the front pools has not been shown but Staff noted it could be added as a Condition of Approval should be project be approved. 5_ Restudy the pedestrian walkway at the subterranean garage to confirm adequate vertical clearance at the seven individual stairs to the first floor. The applicant changed the stair from the basement to the first floor of each unit to a circular stair eliminating the head height problem. 6. Restudy the ramps to the subterranean garage to conform to the slope requirements of the CBC. The applicant restudied and revised the ramps. 7. Restudy the accessibility issues related with the interior level changes at the primary entry level in Unit 1 and the size and location of the elevator. The applicant elected to keep the elevator size and placement as previously shown and has not created a compliant first floor in the accessible unit. 8. Restudy the location of the front garden wall, possibly locating it slightly back from the front property line to allow space between the wall and the future public sidewalk for landscaping. The applicant preferred to not relocate the front garden wall. 9. Consider more variety in the fagade treatment of each unit. The applicant preferred to keep the fagade treatment as previously shown. 10. Consider elimination of the twelve foot wide space between the buildings and/or rearrangement of the face-to face windows in that area. City Council Staff Report October 1, 2008--Page 5 3.3010 MAJ TTM 35601 AMM 7.1296 Appeal The applicant preferred to keep the twelve foot wide space between the buildings and has not elected to rearrange the face-to-face windows in that area. 11.Eliminate the balconies on the east and west elevations. The applicant preferred not to eliminate the balconies on the east and west elevations. 12_Consider some sort of exterior shading device at the large expanse of windows to control the intensity of the sun into these units. The applicant preferred not to add any sort of exterior shading device. 13.Reevaluate the problem of guest vehicles having to back out onto Vista Chino Road in the event that they buzz the entry system and no one answers. The applicant has located the entry buzzer at the top of the in-bound ramp to the underground parking. The condition of guest vehicles having to back onto Vista Chino Road remains unresolved and in violation of PSZO Section 93.06.00(C)(8). 14.Limit the building heights to 24 feet as allowed by the zone. The applicant preferred to retain the rooftop decks and enclosed stairs to the roofs, thus the excess height remains. 15.Redesign the project to provide the full 25 foot wide side and rear yard setbacks. The applicant preferred not to redesign the project at this time, therefore rear and side yard setbacks and distance between buildings will still require approval of an AMM to conform. The Planning Commission evaluated the project at its hearing of August 27, 2008, including all staff reports, written information and oral testimony from the applicant and voted 6-0-1 (Scott absent) to deny the project. STAFF ANALYSIS: Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.05.030, persons aggrieved by an action of a city administrative agency may file an appeal of the action to the City Council stating the grounds for the appeal and the specific relief sought. Following the Planning Commission's denial of the project on May 28, 2008, the owner filed an appeal letter on September 5, 2008 (letter attached). Staff has reviewed the appellant's letter and the grounds stated therein as the basis for the appeal and provided an analysis of each item below. 1. "The project was reviewed by three different planners during almost 2 year �i City Council Staff Report October 1, 2008--Page 6 3.3010 MAJ TTM 35601 AMM 7.1296 Appeal period being in Planning Dept" The subject major architectural application was submitted to the City on November 13, 2006. The related tentative tract map (TTM 35601) application was submitted on July 2, 2007, and the Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) was submitted on April 29, 2008. Two planners have worked on this case_ The project was initially assigned to Fred Lowndes, Associate Planner who retired in December 2007. On December 12, 2007, the project was assigned to Ken Lyon, Associate Planner. On November 28, 2006 the applicant was sent the first of several notices that his file was incomplete. Despite numerous communications from staff, the applicant did not provide a complete application until April 29, 2008 at which time staff noted that there were still numerous unresolved, incorrect or unclear aspects to the submittal_ The length of staff processing time from the date the application was deemed complete until the first hearing of the Planning Commission on May 28, 2008 was approximately one month. Thus the appellants' assertion that there were three planners and the project took almost two years to process is incorrect. 2. "Each Planner was requesting different modification." As staff received various parts of the application, the materials were evaluated and the applicant was notified where additional information was needed or where previous requests remained unfulfilled_ Staff was only able to respond to information that was presented, thus as the application materials came in over time, staff responded and identified any new issues arose that required modification or correction as a result of the additional submittals. Staff is not aware of inconsistencies or differences in analysis that occurred with the two planners assigned. 3. "Last planner wanted to change number of units from 7 to 6." Density in the Zoning Ordinance is based on net lot area. The required twenty foot roadway right-of-way dedication across the front of the lots reduced the lot area to 17,000 net square feet. The R-2 zone allows a maximum 3,000 square foot of lot area per dwelling unit. One additional unit is permitted for any footage over 3,000 square feet (for a total of 6 units) as noted below (excerpt from PSZO Section 92.03.03(c): C. Density. There shall be a minimum of three thousand (2,000) square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit. In determining the number of units allowed, any footage over three thousand (3,000) square feet shall qualify the property for an additional unit. (Maximum allowable; provided all other ordinance requirements relating to such standards as parking, open space, setbacks, etc., are met.) In this case all other requirements related to open space and setbacks were not met without requiring an Administrative Minor Modification to conform. Staff further attempted to work with the applicant after the May 28, 2008 hearing by applying PSZO 94.06.01(A)(3) (below) to arrive at a recommendation of seven units on the site. f�F City Council Staff Report October 1, 2008-- Page 7 3.3010 MAJ TTM 36601 AMM 7.1296 Appeal 3. Number of Units. When additional dedication for street widening is required by this Zoning Code for lots of recorded subdivisions, the number of units allowed shall be calculated on the basis of the net area of the site before street dedication; The net area of the site (i.e. gross area) before street dedication is 21,000 square feet. Seven units are therefore permitted if AMM Condition #3 above is applied to this site area. 4. "Originally 3 units were approved (Case 3.2829 MAJ) by Planning Commission one year ago." Case 3.2829, for three units on one lot was approved by the Planning Commission two years ago, on August 9, 2006. A condition of approval on that project included the submittal of Administrative Minor Modifications seeking relief from development standards. That condition has not been met. The entitlement for that project expired on August 9, 2008 and the applicant/appellant has submitted a time extension request which is not a part of this hearing. 5. "My client bought additional lot allowing him to build 7 units." The purchase of the second lot does not infer any automatic entitlements or development approvals by the City for additional units. The application for Case 3.3010 proposed seven units on two lots, including one unit that straddled the common side property line. Because structures may not be built over a property line and due to the total number of units, a Tentative Tract Map application, merging of the lots, and full re- analysis as a new design and new project was required. The applicant was apprised of this in writing by staff on December 6, 2006. 6. `Presentation to Planning Commission by Planning Department was confusing for Planning Commission to follow up." The Planning Commissioners did not express confusion or lack of understanding of the scope of the project at either of the hearings. Staff believes the Planning Commission fully understood the application and the concerns noted by Staff. 7. 'Project was two times reviewed by Architectural Commission Recommending Approval." The project was reviewed twice by the AAC on December 11, 2006, and February 13, 2007, The first review resulted in a rejection of the project and a request to restudy several aspects. The second AAC review resulted in a recommendation for approval (Juraski opposing) with comments noted above. 8. "We are requesting to review our additional 4 units project as a extension to our 3 units already approved by the Planning Commission _ .. 07 City Council Staff Report October 1, 2008--Page 8 3.3010 MAJ TTM 35601 AMM 7.1296 Appeal The current application was not submitted as an amendment to the previous case. Furthermore, it cannot be reviewed as an addition or amendment to the previously submitted project because the project now encompasses seven units. State Subdivision Map Law requires a Tentative Tract Map for subdivisions of five (5) units or more. In addition, the scope is substantially different once the additional lot is included, the additional four units are added, and the underground parking has been substantially reconfigured to accommodate the additional off-street parking required. For these reasons staff has concluded that the project was appropriately reviewed as a new application of seven units and not an addition of four units to the previous 3-unit project- CONCLUSION: Staff has evaluated the grounds for the appeal filed by the project applicant (the appellant) and has concluded that the appellant has not directly addressed the several design issued raised by the Planning Commission- Staff believes that the Planning Commission acted reasonably and carefully and considered all information present at the time of the public hearing including the staff report, and all written and oral presentations. Therefore staff recommends the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the application. I r. ing, AI Thomas J. ilkn Dir f Plan g Services Assistant City Manager, Dev't Svcs David H. Ready, City er Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution 3- Appeal letter received September 5, 2008 4. Planning Commission Resolution 7160 5. Planning Commission meeting minutes dated August 27, 2008 (excerpt) 6. Planning Commission staff memo dated August 27, 2008 7. Planning Commission meeting minutes dated May 28, 2008 (excerpt) 8. Planning Commission staff report dated May 28, 2008, with exhibits �8 Department of Planning Services u,+ V2 Vicinity Map 5 LOUISSE mx VISTA CHINO Ao lip l _ g I � carroxwoon ao � I I � d I x i CWIDKWALAK Legend project site 400 Foot Radius Surrounding Parcels CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 3.3010 MAJ & DESCRIPTION: To consider an application by Grant TTM 35601 Hovakimyan to allow construction of a seven unit, two- story plus basement condominium building, APPLICANT: Grant Hovakimyan subterranean parking, terraces and landscaping, and a tentative tract map to merge two lots to create one lot for condominium purposes located at 551 East Vista Chino Road, zoned R-2. 0� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL BY GRANT HOVAKIMYAN AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CASE 3,3010 MAJ, TTM 35601, AND AAM 7.1296 FOR A 7-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 551 EAST VISTA CHINO ROAD. . WHEREAS, Grant Hovakimyan ("Appellant") has filed an appeal, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the Municipal Code, of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Case 3.3010 MAJ, TTM 35601, AMM 7,1296 for a 7-unit condominium at 551 East Vista Chino Road; and WHEREAS, On August 9, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Case 3.2829, an application to construct a two-story, three unit condominium building on lot 15. This project was never constructed, and WHEREAS, On December 11, 2006, the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the subject 7-unit condominium project and moved to restudy the project requesting the applicant address privacy issues between the units and adjoining neighbors and solar control on the glazing, and WHEREAS, On February 13, 2007, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) reviewed the proposed project and recommended approval by a vote of 6-1-0 (Jurasky opposed); and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2008, a public hearing on the application for architectural approval was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject case and voted that the applicant restudy the case based on a list of 15 items of concern, and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2008, a public hearing on the application for architectural approval was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised submittal from the applicant and denied the proposed 7-unit condominium; and WHEREAS, on September 5, 2008, the appellant filed a request with the City Clerk to appeal the Planning Commission's action; and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2008, a public meeting on the appeal was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and u � City Council Resolution Page 2 WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines, and the proposed project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects; 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, and the proposed project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.05.030, and the appellant's stated grounds for the appeal, the City Council finds the following: 1. "The project was reviewed by three different planners during almost 2 year period being in Planning Dept." The subject major architectural application was submitted to the City on November 13, 2006. The related tentative tract map (TTM 35601) application was submitted on July 2, 2007, and the Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) was submitted on April 29, 2008. Two planners have worked on this case. The project was initially assigned to Fred Lowndes, Associate Planner who retired in December 2007. On December 12, 2007, the project was assigned to Ken Lyon, Associate Planner. On November 28, 2006 the applicant was sent the first of several notices that his file was incomplete. Despite numerous communications from staff, the applicant did not provide a complete application until April 29, 2008 at which time staff noted that there were still numerous unresolved, incorrect or unclear aspects to the submittal. The length of staff processing time from the date the application was deemed complete until the first hearing of the Planning Commission on May 28, 2008 was approximately one month_ Thus the appellants' assertion that there were three planners and the project took almost two years to process is incorrect. 2. "Each Planner was requesting different modification." As staff received various parts of the application, the materials were evaluated and the applicant was notified where additional information was needed or where previous requests remained unfulfilled. Staff was only able to respond to information that was presented, thus as the application materials came in over time, staff responded and identified any new issues arose that required modification or correction as a result of the additional submittals. There were no inconsistencies or differences in analysis that occurred with the two planners assigned. kh City Council Resolution Page 3 3. "Last planner wanted to change number of units from 7 to 6." Density in the Zoning Ordinance is based on net lot area. The required twenty foot roadway right-of-way dedication across the front of the lots reduced the lot area to 17,000 net square feet. The R-2 zone allows a maximum 3,000 square foot of lot area per dwelling unit. One additional unit is permitted for any footage over 3,000 square feet (for a total of 6 units) as noted below (excerpt from PSZO Section 92.03.03(c): C. Density. There shall be a minimum of three thousand (3,000) square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit. In determining the number of units allowed, any footage over three thousand (3,000) square feet shall qualify the property for an additional unit. (Maximum allowable; provided all other ordinance requirements relating to such standards as parking, open space, setbacks, etc., are met.) In this case all other requirements related to open space and setbacks were not met without requiring an Administrative Minor Modification to conform. Staff further attempted to work with the applicant after the May 28, 2008 hearing by applying PSZO 94.06.01(A)(3) (below) to arrive at a recommendation of seven units on the site. 3. Number of Units. When additional dedication for street widening is required by this Zoning Code for lots of recorded subdivisions, the number of units allowed shall be calculated on the basis of the net area of the site before street dedication; The net area of the site (Le. gross area) before street dedication is 21,000 square feet. Seven units are therefore permitted if AMM Condition #3 above is applied to this site area. 4. "Originally 3 units were approved (Case 3.2829 MAJ) by Planning Commission one year ago_" Case 3.2829, for three units on one lot was approved by the Planning Commission two years ago, on August 9, 2006. A condition of approval on that project included the submittal of Administrative Minor Modifications seeking relief from development standards. That condition has not been met. The entitlement for that project expired on August 9, 2008 and the applicant/appellant has submitted a time extension request which is not a part of this hearing. 5. "My client bought additional lot allowing him to build 7 units." The purchase of the second lot does not infer any automatic entitlements or development approvals by the City for additional units. The application for Case 3.3010 proposed seven units on two lots, including one unit that straddled the common side ?2 City Council Resolution Page 4 property line. Because structures may not be built over a property line and due to the total number of units, a Tentative Tract Map application, merging of the lots, and full re- analysis as a new design and new project was required. The applicant was apprised of this in writing by staff on December 6, 2006. 6. "Presentation to Planning Commission by Planning Department was confusing for Planning Commission to follow up." The Planning Commissioners did not express confusion or lack of understanding of the scope of the project at either of the hearings. The Planning Commission fully understood the application and the concerns noted by Staff. 7. "Project was two times reviewed by Architectural Commission Recommending Approval." The project was reviewed twice by the AAC on December 11, 2006, and February 13, 2007. The first review resulted in a rejection of the project and a request to restudy several aspects. The second AAC review resulted in a recommendation for approval (Juraski opposing). 8. "We are requesting to review our additional 4 units project as a extension to our 3 units already approved by the Planning Commission". The current application was not submitted as an amendment to the previous case. Furthermore, it cannot be reviewed as an addition or amendment to the previously submitted project because the project now encompasses seven units. State Subdivision Map Law requires a Tentative Tract Map for subdivisions of five (5) units or more. In addition, the scope is substantially different once the additional lot is included, the additional four units are added, and the underground parking has been substantially reconfigured to accommodate the additional off-street parking required. For these reasons, the project was appropriately reviewed as a new application of seven units and not an addition of four units to the previous 3-unit project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's decision to deny Case 3.3010 MAJ, TTM 35601, 7.1296 AMM. ADOPTED this first day of October, 2008. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST,- James Thompson, City Clerk City Council Resolution Page 5 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 1- Jay Thompson `titr OF a From: Milan Architect[milan@sbcglabal.net] Z66s SEA' _5 F 9 56 sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 3:48 PM To: Jay Thompson u'''CITYf CLEiM is J Cc: Grant Hovakimyan Subject: Case 3,3010 Aqua Villas- 7 Units aplication appreal to city council on planning commission decission Dear Mr. Thompson - City Clerk Palm Springs, On behalf of my client Mr. Grant Howakimyan regarding case 3.3010 Aqua Villas 7 units condo application we are hereby in writing a request to appeal to Planning Commission decision of Aug.27, 2008 denying our application on our project. We are appealing to this decision on following reasons: 1. Project was reviewed by three different planes during almost 2 year period being in Planning Dept, 2. Each planner was requesting different modification. 3. Last planner wanted to change number of units from 7 to 6. 4. Originally 3 units were approved (Case 3.2829 MAJ) by Planning Commission one year ago. 5. My client bought additional lot allowing him to built 7 units- 6- Presentation to Planning Commission by Planning Department was confusing for Planning Commission to follow up. 7. Project was two times reviewed by Architectural Commission Recommending Approval. 8. We are requesting to review our additional 4 units project as a extension to our 3 units already approved by Planning Commission. Fees for this appeal to be charged on my client credit card 4010000011§MValid through , name Grant Hovakimyan not to exceed $ 700. Thank you, Milan Lojdl MILAN L O J D L ARCHITECT A. I. A. Office: (310) 285 - 9701 Cell: (310) 285 - 9701 9538 Brighton Way, S#.326 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 E-mail:milan.@sbcgtabal.net. www. milanarchitects. com 9/5/2008 "_ Page 1 of 2 Kathie Hart From: Kathie Hart Sent: September 05, 2008 4:33 PM To: Ken Lyon, Craig Ewing Cc: Jay Thompson Subject: Appeal -Case 3.3010 Aqua Villas (7-unit condo application) Tracking: Recipient Delivery Ken Lyon Delivered: 09/05/08 4!33 PM Craig Ewing Delivered! 09/05/08 4!33 PM Jay Thompson Delivered: 09/05/08 4:33 PM Ken and Craig: The appeal has been deemed received and T have notified the amount that will be charged to his credit card. Pursuant to the P5MC 5ec. 2.05.050(a) the appeal shall be heard by the City Council within 45-days; therefore, this appeal must be presented to Council on or before Monday, October 20, 2008. 2.05.050 Time of hearing—Notice- (a) The city clerk, upon receipt of the notice of appeal, shall set a time and place for the hearing of such appeal by the council. The appeal shall be heard no nxore than forty-five days following the filing of the notice of appeal unless the parties waive such time limits. (b) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be mailed or otherwise delivered by the city clerk to the appellant, respondent and all other persons, if any, to whom notice of the initial application or action was required, not less than ten days prior to hearing. If publication of the initial application or action being appealed was required, the notice of appeal shall be published in like manner. (Ord. 1233 § 1, 1985: Ord. 1226 § 1 (part), 1984) Please feel free to contact our office if there are questions. V-Z4� Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 (760) 323-8206 1 u (760) 322-8332 Kathie Hort@Palm5prmgs-CA.gov From: ]ay Thompson Sent: September 05, 2008 4:00 PM To: Kathie Hart; Craig Ewing Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission to City Council Attached appeal of the Planning Commission to the City Council received today. Kathie, could you please working with Planning on the fees and charge the credit card as indicated. THANKS, Jay. James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California 09/05/08 YF��—=Yiali3�nay{y:�iaf[�id 2iier^.�b.'.M1•...:.1�=u'NY� SALES D R R F T PALM SPRINGS CITY CASHIER 3200 TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS, CR 92242 (760) 323-8223 4301322133525341 TID : 32213352534143010001 DATE : 09/18/08 04:25:58 PM THU RCCT : 0001$0006079Y MC BATCH t 13 TRAN H + 0126 AMOUNT : $546. 00 THANK YOU. PLEASE COME AGAIN. APPROVAL: 405055 AVS CODE: X (ZIP CODE MATCH) 9 RESOLUTION NO. 7160 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONSTRUCTION OF SEVEN CONDOMINIUM UNITS, LOCATED AT 517 EAST VISTA CHINO ROAD, ZONED R-2, SECTION 11, APN 507-022-004 and 006 WHEREAS, Grant Hovakimyan, owner, has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 9.62 of the Municipal Code (Maps), Sections 94.04.00 (Architectural Review), 92.03.00 (R-2 Zone) and 94.06.01 (Administrative Minor Modification) of the Zoning Ordinance, for a Major Architectural Application, Case 3.3010, Tentative Tract Map 35601 and Administrative Minor Modification 7.1296, to allow construction of a seven unit condominium building, subterranean parking, and landscaping; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332, In-fill development projects. WHEREAS, on May 28, 2008 a meeting was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, at said meeting, the Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to recommend the project be redesigned and return for a public hearing at a date to be determined, and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2008, a meeting was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; 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, 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 15332 In-Fill development projects_ Section 2: Pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission made the following findings; regarding the Architectural 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, ii � Planning Commission Resolution August 27, 2008 Case 3.3010 MAJ, TTM 35601. 7,1296 AM Page 3 of 7 4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings, The building design, materials and colors are earth tones, stucco and glass in a contemporary style_ The contemporary architecture of the proposed buildings is consistent with the existing mid-century style of the adjacent existing buildings. The large panels of glass, while thermally insulated and intended to have internal motorized blinds, may pose unwanted glare and heat gain in the units. 5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously; The buildings are harmonious with one another in terms of color, material and composition because they are all proposed to be of the same color palette, however the Planning Commission believes there is a certain monotony in the facades because each unit is essentially the same and has therefore concluded that the project, while not ideal, is consistent with this finding. 6. Consistency of composition and treatment; The buildings are provided windows and openings on all four sides that are consistent within the overall composition of the development, the window, door, wall, balcony placement on each unit is essentially the same. Thus, while somewhat repetitive, the Planning Commission has concluded that the application conforms to this finding. 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 landscaping plan proposes a variety of plant species for texture and color and includes an irrigation system for all planting beds. Most of the species are drought- tolerant and appropriate for the local environment. The palm tree islands in the below- grade water features are unusual. The Planning Commission has concluded that with proper irrigation, the location and type of plant material proposed conforms with this finding, however the project will likely have higher than normal maintenance needs because of the subterranean gardens and plant materials adjacent to the spa/pools. 8. Signs and graphics, as understood in architectural design including materials and colors; The building proposes minimal address signage and lighting on entry gates and walls that is architecturally complementary to the building itself. 06 Planning Commission Resolution August 27, 2008 Case 3.3010 MAJ, TTM 35601, 7.1296 AMM Page 5 of 7 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, and The AMM to increase lot coverage, reduce distance between buildings, reduce setbacks and increase dwelling units will not be detrimental to health safety or general welfare because the project is consistent with the type of development permissible in the zone and uses that are consistent with the rest of the neighborhood in this area. 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 AMM to increase the percentage of lot coverage, distance between buildings, reduced setbacks and increase in dwelling units are justified because of the unique dimensional characteristics of the lots, especially that the depths of the lots are shallower than typical for this zone, resulting in an existing site condition that makes development of the site more difficult. This is further exacerbated by the twenty foot roadway easement at the front of the lot, thereby making its developable depth dimension even smaller. Section 4: The following findings are required pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act: a. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential, which provides a density threshold of 6.1 to a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre. The proposal is to create one parcel, roughly '/z acre in size, for the purpose of a condominium development for seven units. The project proposes a density of 14 du/acre which is consistent with the General Plan. b. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the zone in which the property is located. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the zone in which the property is located except that the lot is non-conforming in its size and dimension, Through the AMM mechanism, many of the physical improvements proposed can be deemed in conformance with the development standards for the zone. The density and bulk of the proposed development is tight. Backing of vehicles onto State Highway 111 (Vista Chino) is not permitted in any zone; however the condition occurs on this project with guests or visitors who cannot gain access to the gated underground parking. City of Palm springs Planning Commission Minutes of August 27, 2008 �)by Meredith, business owner and president of Main Street Association, stated that Main,.Street Board supports the time extension for Item 1 B with a provision added to require th.e applicant to maintain the existing buildings in good condition. -Brian Linnl�ans, applicant for Item 1 B, (addressed public testimony) stated that it is his intent is to build the project. Mr. Linnekans explained the challenge to maintain the spaces leased and provided details on the on-going vandalism problems such as graffiti and broken ,indows to the vacant tenant spaces. There being no further a pearances, Public Comments w "v]d ed. Commissioner Conrad stated that she is in supp of,: he tim' "" ension, however, expressed concern with "rubbeh`�tamping' time erfsions and re t ted the need to take a closer look at the project entitlements. .r,"row?. . 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: M/S/C (Ringlein/Caffery, 6-0, 1 abs(� tt/Scott) TO applfe, as part of the Consent Calendar. (Noting Commissioner Cola[ abs ention (3K*es�'minutes of August 6, 2008.) 1A. Minutes of Augus�` Approved, as p the .&sent Cal dar. (Noting G mmissioner Conrad's abstention.) 1 B. Case . . D 3 A r '44�6�('��or a one (1) year time xtension for a pr "� usly a ed mi use project consisting of residential, c mercial and eational face Iota t�450 - 490 South Palm Canyon Drive, one CBD, 1, n 15, APN's: . ,13-214�fJi5 005, 010 and 011. (Project Planner: ward 0. Ro on) 'I w � Approved, as " 4pf the C nsent Calendar. F2A PUBLIC HEAINGS: . Case 3.3010 MAJ / TTM 35601 / 7.1296 AMM - An application by Grant Hovakimyan to allow construction of a seven unit, two-story plus basement condominium building, including subterranean parking, and a condominium map located at 551 East Vista Chino Road, Zone R-2, Section 11, APN: 507 022-004 and 006_ (Project Planner: Ken Lyon, Associate Planner) 2 2 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of August 27,2008 Ken Lyon, Associate Planner, provided background information as outlined in the staff memorandum dated August 27, 2008, including the applicant's response to the Commission's prior comments. Chair Hochanadel opened the Public Hearing: -Milan Lojdl, project architect, provided details on the original (3sunits on a single lot) and revised plans (4 more units) on the adjacent lot. Mr. Lo WO'xplained the difficulty they've had with 3 different planners over the past year and? 'half and the unfeasibility of continuously changing their plans. -Grant Hovakimyan, applicant, stated their intention is o bring-.0omething beautiful to this area and expressed concern with the numeeo Ia'' nets ar1'd ha impracticality of continually changing their plans. Mr. Hovakirr�ri esponding to3 e Commission) stated that the price range for each unit would Win the mid $900,000' �x.,�;. !nn� -Milan Lojdl, project architect, (responding to t tdestions om the Comri°Ifsi3 stated that throughout the planning process the land Jibe [owed for seen units until most recently planning staff allowed only six unit` •'d they could not make such a drastic change to the project. Mr- jdl stated that t nderground parking had been decided upon because of the shad' latai cooler envir ant. Mr- Lojdl commented that the Commission's 15 recommendAtio.k"We relate t h parking, reduction of one unit and setbacks. „ u yP" n There being no further app-Opnces, the F+Iplic WearingrVas closed. Commissioner Do Id not that he Is not familiar with the history of this project, however, express e`d� ern w - the safety is4s relating to the ingress and egress. •: t"' �a�' .-, Director of - wing: ressTYit applicant's comments) stated that Mr- Lyon has lar fy been I '✓ed wi ja`• seven unit project, and that Mr. Ewing has reviewed almo I the staff re Mr. -larified that a number of concerns raised by staff and h mmission arr lia issues pertaining to the building codes which the previous ers did not` k up.` Mr. Ewing pointed out to the Commission that this is a seven u oject req sting an administrative minor modification for separation between build) site se. ;ticks and open-space, all of which could be eliminated with the reduction of o Marcus Fuller, Assis `ant Director of Public Work, responding to the parking concerns, stated that the problem with this project has been vehicles backing-out on Vista Chino and recommended that the underground parking structure is not gated thereby eliminating all safety traffic concerns. Vice Chair Cohen recalled two areas of concern, from the beginning, have been shading/solar control and privacy between the buildings. 3 22 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of August 27, 2008 Further discussion occurred on the ramp slope requirements, plan check process and street widening, 4++' Commissioner Ringlein requested further clarification on the ramp slopes. Commissioner Conrad stated that this is not acceptable to Staff and felt that the applicant has made no compromise particularly in the reductior1: i-pne unit to allow for the required setbacks. LA C (Conrad/Caffery, 6-0, 1 absent/Scott) To den Director .}, .�`• . tor of Planning stated that the applicant <hl r*aricd of ten days to file an al of the Planning Commission's decision to City Council. ess was taken at 232 p.m.eeting reconvened at 2:38 p.r%1 2B_ Case 5,1156 PD 339 AMND (Hari Rock ) - An Ipplication by 0 & M Indian Canyon, LLC, to amend previouslygppa„ e'd. `a .l?danned Development District 339 for the co n of a Odom hound associated facilities on a roximately 9a, ac sated at tlRe northeast corner of Calle El Segundo and Tahq Ca, Way, e RA, Secran 14 (IL). (Project Planner: Edward 0, • Robertson ti x • - NAM Chair Hoc o roperf ) td conflict of interest and would not be particip g in the` si vote. He left the Council Chamber at 2:39 p.m. Nic a e, Contract ner, p ed background information as outlined in the staff report da ugust 27, 2 Discussion oc d on a screening forth orth and east sides of the parking structure as rec d&d by the AAC. Ms. Cn a stated that the west side of the parking structure is �osed with small perfortions, h ever it may be conditioned for full screening on the, est side to prevent light glare. Vice Chair Cohen opened the Public Hearing.- -Corey Alder, president of Nexus Company, representing 0 & M Ndian Canyon, stated that they are in agreement with the AAC recommendations. Mr. AldNtated that the west side elevation is a much smaller area and fronts the interior c and lobby, thereby requiring the screening to be commensurate with the materir 4 28 Staff Report August 27,2008 3.3010-MAJ, TTM 35601 and 7.1296 AMM: 7 condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 2 of 4 3. Consider alternative landscape material at the rear pool decks to minimize maintenance problems. The applicant prefers to retain the landscape material as previously shown. 4. Consider the maintenance issues created with the subterranean front yard water features and confirm the placement of the mechanical equipment for these pools. The applicant has considered the potential maintenance issues and prefers to retain the subterranean water features. Placement of the mechanical equipment for the front pools has not been shown but Staff will note it as a Condition of Approval should be project be approved. 5. Restudy the pedestrian walkway at the subterranean garage to confirm adequate vertical clearance at the seven individual stairs to the first floor. The applicant has changed the stair from the basement to the first floor of each unit to a circular stair eliminating the head height problem. 6. Restudy the ramps to the subterranean garage to conform to the slope requirements of the CBC. The applicant has restudied and revised the ramps. 7. Restudy the accessibility issues related with the interior level changes at the primary entry level in Unit 1 and the size and location of the elevator. The applicant has elected to keep the elevator size and placement as previously shown and has not created a compliant first floor in the accessible unit- 8- Restudy the location of the front garden wall, possibly locating it slightly back from the front property line to allow space between the wall and the future public sidewalk for landscaping. The applicant prefers to not relocate the front garden wall. 9. Consider more variety in the fagade treatment of each unit. The applicant prefers to keep the fagade treatment as previously shown. 10.Consider elimination of the twelve foot wide space between the buildings and/or rearrangement of the face-to face windows in that area. 24 Staff Report August 27 2008 3.3010-MAJ, TTM 35601 and 7.1296 AMM' 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 3 of 4 The applicant prefers to keep the twelve foot wide space between the buildings and has not elected to rearrange the face-to-face windows in that area. 11.Eliminate the balconies on the east and west elevations. The applicant prefers not to eliminate the balconies on the east and west elevations. 12.Consider some sort of exterior shading device at the large expanse of windows to control the intensity of the sun into these units. The applicant prefers not to add any sort of exterior shading device. 13.Reevaluate the problem of guest vehicles having to back out onto Vista Chino Road in the event that they buzz the entry system and no one answers. The applicant has located the entry buzzer at the top of the in-bound ramp to the underground parking. The condition of guest vehicles having to back onto Vista Chino Road remains unresolved and in violation of PSZO Section 93.06.00(C)(8). 14.Limit the building heights to 24 feet as allowed by the zone. The applicant prefers to retain the rooftop decks and enclosed stairs to the roofs, thus the excess height remains. 15.Redesign the project to provide the full 25 foot wide side and rear yard setbacks. The applicant prefers not to redesign the project at this time, therefore rear and side yard setbacks will still require approval of an AMM to conform. Following the May 28th public hearing, Staff discussed by phone options for re- considering the density of the project via an additional Administrative Minor Modification and met in person with the applicant and reviewed the other recommended changes requested by the Planning Commission. The applicant submitted another set of drawings dated 7-29-08. Staff advised the applicant that further review of yet another set of plans would delay this hearing date and therefore the applicant directed staff to not further analyze the 7-29-08 drawings. Staff did make a cursory review of those drawings and notes that despite further changes on ramps and the accessible unit in the 7-29-08 set, the project remains essentially unchanged from the drawing set analyzed and dated 7-15-08. 25 Staff Report August 27,2006 3.3010-MAJ, TTM 35601 and 7.1296 AMM 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 4 of 4 As noted above, substantial design issues remain on this project and for that reason, Staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the subject application. A draft resolution is attached for consideration. Attachment: Vicinity Map and Draft Resolution May 28, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report and meeting minutes Revised plans dated July 15, 2008 Lyon to Hovakimyan e mail dated July 23, 2008 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 28,2008 Chair Marantz n the Public Hearing; there being no appearances the Public Hearing was closed. MIS/C (Vice Chair Hochanadel/Caffen , 7-0) To con I Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 2008, S. Case 3.3010 MAJ / TTM 35601 / 7.1296 AMM - An application by Grant Hovakimyan to allow construction of a seven unit, two-story plus basement condominium building, subterranean parking, terraces and landscaping, and a condominium map located at 551 East Vista Chino Road, Zone R2, Section 11, APN: 507-022-044. (project Planner: Ken Lyon, Associate Planner) Ken Lyon provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated May 28, 2008. Mr. Lyon noted a correction in the staff report which should be west of Miraleste. Mr. Lyon reported that there are several issues, as noted in the staff report, that the Planning Commission may wish to consider further restudy by the applicant. The Commission discussed public parking, prior approvals, setback requirements, garage entries and restrictive driveways. Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing; there being no appearances the Public Hearing was continued. M/S/C (Ringlein/Cohen, 7-0) To continue to an undetermined date, to allow a redesign of the project. Case 5,1202 ZTA - An application by the City of Palm Springs to amend the P Springs ,Zoning Code to establish regulations for portable "open" signs in tt of commercial businesses. (Project Planner: Craig A. Ewing, Director of Pla g Services)Craig A. Ewing provided back g emend information as outlined in the staff report dated May 28, 2008. Mr_ Ewing encouraged a Planning Commission to consider options for portable "open" signs and make a rec0m dation to the City Council. The Commission discussed signage at the old p storefronts on the right-of-way, and frontage on Palm Canyon. Further discussion occurred on a shorter "sunset" term, signs wktsp�laying more product information, the effectiveness of"open" signs and consistence with hours of operation, Commissioner Ringlein noted herpreference for a onee(I�year sunset clause. 4 27 �F P�ZM S A� x ti V N k C, Or-0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Date: May 28, 2008 Case No.: 3.3010 -- MAJ, TTM 35601, and 7.1296 AMM Type: Major Architectural Application, Administrative Minor Modification and Tentative Tract Map Location: 517 East Vista Chino Road APN: APN 507-022-004 and 006 Applicant: Grant Hovakimyan General Plan: Medium Density Residential (6.1 — 15 du/acre) Zone: R-2 (Limited Multiple-Family Residential) From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services Project Planner: Ken Lyon, Associate Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is a request for a Tentative Tract Map to combine lots 14 and 15 located at 517 East Vista Chino into one lot for condominium purposes. The Major Architectural Application is to develop a 7-unit condominium complex including underground parking and two buildings: one comprised of three, two story plus basement condominium units and a second comprised of four, two story plus basement condominium units, with associated landscaping, pools and terraces on the merged lots. The Administrative Minor Modification is to seek relief from development standards for setbacks, lot coverage, and distance between buildings. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continues the subject application to allow the applicant to redesign those aspects of the project identified at the end of this staff report. Staff Report May 28,2008 3.3010-MAJ, TTM 35601 and 7.1296 AMM: 7 Condommiurns at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 2 of 16 BACKGROUND: The proposed project is located on two interior lots on the south side of East Vista Chino, which is also designated State Highway 111. They are both relatively flat, with a slight downward slope in grade from west to east. There are a few Washingtonia Palm trees on the site, but otherwise it is void of any landscape. The lots are situated just east of North Via Miraleste. The Tentative Tract Map request is to combine lots 14 and 15 into one lot measuring approximately two hundred feet (200') wide and eighty-five feet (85') deep with a total area of 17,000 square feet (after roadway dedication). This combined lot will be subdivided with seven (7) condominium units. The applicant received entitlement on August 9, 2006 for a three-unit condominium project with underground parking on lot 15 (567 East Vista Chino Road; Case 3.2829). The applicant then purchased the adjacent lot 14 with the intent to merge them and create the presently proposed 7-unit condominium project. The subject major architectural application was submitted on November 13, 2006, the related tentative tract map application on July 2, 2007, and the AMM on April 29, 2008. The lots are located in a developed area of the City, with existing single-story multi- family residential buildings located around them. Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses are described in Table 1 below: Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning: General Plan I Zone Existing Land Use North M15 R-3 Single Story Multiple-Family Residential South M15 R-2 Single Story Multiple-Family Residential East M15 R-2 Single St )!)( Multiple-Family Residential West M15 R-2 Single Sto Multi le-Famil Residential The following aerial photo shows the existing conditions at the site and surrounding conditions: 29 Staff Report May 28,2008 3.3010-MAJ, TTM 35001 and 7.1296 AMM: 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 3 of 16 10 x.�*'i�Cr'�"�IM,�%,",Y /v!'i,'"�.,�."p "av^�,};II�" nl,'7'. .+ ,a ,.n,,:,' � �{' � •. �r �,` w �"�+�� �,,�r' � 'f "el S.n', .� .d`ArVihy�;F ,i-y„,ni•4" �.41•r. a„.�!w4grM,��b{�re�M'.q�p" ,e�"� "u,. ,, , aF.l.� Photo looking south at the subject project site. Vista Chino Road is at the bottom of this photo. Note the adjacent existing multi-family development is constructed within 5 to 10 feet of the property lines of the subject project. PRIOR ACTIONS: On August 9, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Case 3.2829, an application to construct a two-story, three unit condominium building on lot 15. This project was never constructed. On December 11, 2006, the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the subject 7- unit condominium project and moved to restudy the project requesting the applicant address privacy issues between the units and adjoining neighbors and solar control on the glazing. On February 13, 2007, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) reviewed the proposed project and recommended approval by a vote of 6-1-0 (Jurasky opposed); 85 Staff Report May 28,2008 3 3010-MAJ, TTM 35601 and 7.1296 AMM 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 4 of 16 with a condition of approval that the applicant install mature palm trees (a minimum of 20 feet tall). The AAC's recommendations,noted the following: • the pop-out windows create less livability in the bedrooms, • the roof decks may cause privacy issues with the adjoining single story neighbors, and • one AAC member felt the building type was inappropriate for the site. ANALYSIS: General Plan. The General Plan designation of the property is Medium Density Residential. This designation allows between 6.1 and 15 dwelling units per acre. The gross lot area of the proposed project is 21,000 square feet, (roughly a half acre). Therefore, the proposed development of seven dwelling units is consistent with the General Plan densities allowed for this land use designation. Zoning. The zoning designation of the merged parcel is R-2, which allows limited multiple-family residential development. Pursuant to Section 92,03.01(A) (2), multiple-family residential uses are permitted by-right-of-zone within the R-2 zone. The development standards of the R-2 zone are listed in the Table below. The figures for the proposed project include the area of both lots 14 and 15 as a merged lot. Table 2: PropertyDevelo ment Standards of the R-2 zone R-2 Proposed Project Lot Area Min 20,000 square Net Area: 17,000 square feet — non- feet conforming Lot Width 130 feet 200 feet— conforms Lot Depth 175 feet 85 feet— non-conforming Front Yard 15 feet see below 15 feet— conforms Side Yard 25 feet abuts 1 story) 20 feet— requires AMM to comply Rear Yard 25 feet abuts 1 story) 20 feet— requires AMM to comply Front Wall 3' — 6" 3' — 6" conforms Building Height 24 feet 24 feet — complies; 30 feet at stairway roofs requires approval by PC Building Coverage 30 percent (6,300 sf) (7,250 sf)= 42% of 17,000 (35% of 21,000) Distance between 15 feet 12 feet, requires AMM to comply buildings Parking 18 required 19 provided - conforms Open space for 50% of site (8,500 sf) 8,900 sf conforms landscape & rec. PSZO 92.03.04 o'�- Staff Report May 28,2008 3.3010-MAJ, TTM 35601 and 7,1296 AMM: 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 5 of 16 Chapter 92.03.03 of the PSZO provides development standards for the R-2 zone as follows: Lot area and dimensions. Minimum lot area for this zone is 20,000 square feet. The proposed merger of lots 14 and 15 would create a lot of 21,000 square feet. A twenty (20) foot street right of way dedication reduces the net lot area to 17,000 square feet, thus rendering the resultant lot non-conforming. The lot created by the merger is also non-conforming however because its depth is 85 feet (after roadway dedication) and the depth required for lots in this zone fronting a major thoroughfare (Vista Chino) is 175 feet. Minimum width for lots in the R-2 zone is 130 feet; the merged lot conforms in its width, having a total width of 200 feet. Section 94.05.02 (A) "non-conforming lots" of the PSZO notes- All uses permitted in the land use district (zone) shall be permitted on nonconforming lots in the district, subject to all other provisions of the zone district. So although the lot depth does not conform, this project conforms to this finding because the use as multi-family is permitted in this zone. Also 94.05.02(C) states, "When two (2) or more contiguous nonconforming parcels or units of land which have been created prior to the adoption of the ordinance which makes them nonconforming are held by the same owner, and at least one (1) of such contiguous parcels is not developed with a structure for which a permit has been issued by the city, then such parcels shall be merged pursuant to provisions of the subdivision ordinance. With the proposed combining of the two lots, the project will conform to this requirement. Lot Coverage. Development standards for the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance are evaluated against the net lot area'. However, Section 92.03.03(L) of the PSZO notes that in the R-2 zone, for lots with structures that exceed eighteen (18) feet in height and one (1) story, the maximum lot area coverage for buildings or structures is thirty (30) percent of the total lot area. The total lot area combining Lots 14 and 15 is 21,000 square feet. The net area of lots 14 and 15 minus the twenty foot roadway dedication is 17,000 square feet. The 7-unit condominium building proposed in this application has a building footprint of f "Net area" means the total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot or within the property lines of a lot or parcel, and after all streets and other dedications have been complied with and to which development standards of this Zoning Code shall apply. n � Staff Report May 28.2008 3.3010-MAJ. TTM 35601 and 7.1296 AMM: 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road P290 6 of 16 approximately 7,250 square feet. This represents a lot coverage of 35% of total lot area. The applicant has requested an Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) seeking 20% relief from the lot coverage which would grant 36% lot coverage, rendering the lot coverage in conformance. Building Height. The proposed building height will be approximately twenty-four feet from finished grade to the top of the parapet with an addition of roughly six feet (30 feet total) to the top of the seven (7) stairway enclosures to the roof-decks. Under the provisions of section 93.03.00A.1.of the Zoning Code, buildings shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet- It is further noted that roof structures for the housing of required stairways, elevators, etc may be erected above the height limits only as approved by the Director of Planning or the Planning Commission. In this case, the Planning Commission is being requested to approve the seven stair towers at a height of approximately thirty (30) feet; or six feet above the maximum height permitted for the zone. Yards. The PSZO notes that all buildings that exceed fifteen (15) feet in height shall be required to have a twenty-five (25) foot setback from the property line of any existing adjacent single story development. The proposed project abuts single story development on its east, west and south sides. Thus the minimum required side and rear yard setbacks are twenty-five feet. The applicant is requesting an Administrative Minor Modification to reduce the side and rear yard setbacks by 20%; to twenty (20) feet- Distance between buildings. The distance between two buildings on one lot shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet (PSZO 92.04.03(f)(1). The applicant is requesting an Administrative Minor Modification to reduce the distance between buildings by 20%; to 12 feet. Street Dedication. Pursuant to PSZO 94.06.01 (AMM), when additional dedication for street widening is required by this Zoning Code for lots of record subdivisions, the front or side-front setback requirement shall be reduced the same distance as that required for street dedication; provided however, in no case shall the allowed setback be less than fifteen (15) feet. Cal Trans is requiring a twenty (20) foot dedication at the front of the lots for future roadway widening of Highway 111 (Vista Chino). As noted in 94.06.01(A)(2), an automatic administrative minor modification is granted under this circumstance provided the adjusted setback is not less than fifteen (15) feet. The proposed project conforms in that it proposes a fifteen (15) foot front yard setback from new Vista Chino front property line. n� Staff Report May 28.2008 3.3010-MAJ, 7TM 35601 and 7 1296 AMM: 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 7 of 10 Off-street Parking. Parking spaces for the condominium units, including guest and accessible parking are located underground. PSZO Section 93.06 requires 1.5 parking spaces for two bedroom residences and 2,25 spaces for 3 bedroom units. The project has four, three- bedroom units and three, two-bedroom units. Thus 4 x 2.25 + 3 x 1.5 = 14 primary spaces for residents. Guest parking is required at 1 space for every 4 primary spaces, or 4 guest spaces. Handicap accessible parking is required at 1 accessible space for every 25 spaces and is inclusive of the above-noted required spaces. Thus total off- street parking required is 18 spaces. The project proposes 19 spaces which includes 2 accessible spaces and thus conforms to the PSZO. Access to the underground parking is provided by two, one-way drive ramps. Two curb cuts onto Vista Chino are required to access these drive ramps. The underground parking will be gated with access provided via an electronic coded entry system The California Building Code Section 406.2.5 requires such ramps to be not greater than 1:15 in slope (7%). The proposed egress (exit) ramp at the west side of the project is approximately 12 in slope, or 50%. Staff is not certain that this ramp slope can be redesigned to conform to the CBC without substantial redesign of the project. Trash Enclosure, Section 93.07.02 of the PSZO requires trash enclosures be provided for multi-family residential units. Such enclosures shall be six feet in height for bin-type trash cans and for developments of five units or more, enclosures for at least 3 cubic yard recycling bins shall be provided in addition to (can be integrated within) the primary trash enclosure. Trash enclosures shall be provided with latching gates and a sloped concrete floor to facilitate washing down the enclosure. The project proposes a code- compliant enclosure at the east side of the buildings, along the side property line. Cal Trans Review and Encroachment License Required. Because this section of Vista Chino is also Highway 111, Cal Trans review is required. Cal Trans required a traffic study and hydrology study as park of their review. Cal Trans permitted two, one-way drive ramps into the underground parking and required special storm water diversion structures to prevent excess storm water from the project running onto the state highway right of way as a condition of approval. The front 20 feet of the lot was also required to be dedicated to a future roadway widening right of way. Until such time that the roadway is actually widened, the project proposes garden walls, walkways, and landscaping in this right of way. Such structures and improvements require Cal Trans to grant an encroachment license which the applicant will be required to submit as part of the project's Conditions of Approval. Staff has a concern that should Cal Trans proceed with the widening of this portion of Vista Chino, the proposed masonry wall at the front property line will be immediately adjacent to the edge of the public sidewalk. This would not allow for any landscaping between the public sidewalk and the wall at the edge of the subterranean garden/pool area. This condition may warrant further consideration by the Planning Commission for possible redesign. ni Staff Report May 23,2003 3,3010-MAJ TTM 35601 and 7.1296 AMM. 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 8 of 16 Development Standards. Architecture. The buildings are designed in a contemporary architectural style with large areas of glazing facing both north and south. The front and rear facades are repeated on all seven units. The sizes of the units will range from roughly 2,600 to 2,700 square feet. The exterior stucco walls will be painted earth tone colors. The structures are two stories in height with roof decks on the front half of the roofs which are accessed by individual enclosed stairs from each unit. At the basement level, each unit contains an entertainment room with direct access to the underground parking. Individual interior stairs connect this basement level to the primary living level in each unit. The basement level living spaces face outdoor, below-grade gardens comprised of large water features with palm trees on planting 'islands'. The total height from street grade to the top of the seven enclosed sets of stairs to the roof decks is thirty (30) feet. The Planning Commission must approve building heights that exceed 24 feet for the R-2 zone. The building incorporates unusual water features at the basement level along the Vista Chino frontage. Staff believes these water features, located approximately ten feet below grade may become serious maintenance problems due to windblown sand, leaves, and debris being deposited in them, especially during the windy season. The front door of each unit is accessed by means of individual concrete bridges that span the subterranean water feature. A masonry perimeter wall surrounds the development, six feet in height on the back and sides and 3.5 feet along the front yard at the property line. A T- 6" steel picket fence, landscaping, and individual sidewalks are proposed in front of the front property line, within the right of way easement of Vista Chino Road. Staff recommends the six foot perimeter walls at the side property lines be reduced to 3.5 feet in height at the side front yards to improve visibility between pedestrians and vehicles entering and exiting the underground garage. Along the south side of the building are small outdoor terraces with individual spa/pools ("spools") for each of the units located over the underground parking. Neighborhood Context. The existing development adjacent to the project site is comprised of older, single story multi-family residential structures. These older structures have insufficient front yard setbacks, which are defined as "existing non-conforming" with contemporary zoning regulations. The existing structures on either side of the proposed project are only five (5) feet from the side lot line shared with this project. Policies in the General Plan suggest that infill development should be complementary and harmonious with the existing development patterns of the neighborhood. Although the proposed development could set a new 'benchmark' for height and density of S� Staff Report May 28,2008 3,3010-MAJ, TTM 35601 and 7,1296 AMM 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 9 of 16 redevelopment opportunities in the future for this neighborhood, Staff believes the proposed development is not consistent with the existing development patterns on the adjacent parcels. Landscaping. As designed, a total of 8,820 square feet, of the sites 17,000 net square feet will be landscaped. The proposed landscaping will consist of a variety of plant materials, paved terrace areas, pools and walkways. The R-2 zone requires a minimum of 50% of the site be provided as landscaped or recreational area. Fifty percent of 17,000 is 8,500 square feet. Thus, the project would conform to this requirement. Accessibility. The project is required to conform to the California Building Code (CBC) in all respects, including Chapter 11a, Housing Accessibility. The project provides accessible parking spaces and proposes accessible path of travel from the parking spaces to the primary entry level of one living unit by means of an internal elevator. Chapter 11a, Section 1102A.3.1(3) states, "All rooms or spaces located on the primary entry level, shall be served by an accessible route..." "Rooms and spaces located on the primary entry level and subject to this chapter may include but are not limited to kitchens, powder rooms bathrooms, living rooms, bedrooms or hallways." Although the project provides an elevator from the basement accessible parking to the primary entry level and bedroom level, the kitchen, dining room, bathroom, and family room on the primary living level are not accessible because they are fifteen (15) inches (two steps) above the living room elevation_ Furthermore, the placement of the elevator in the middle of the living room and master bedroom seriously limits the usability of these rooms. Staff has also noted that the size of the elevator proposed may be too small to conform to interior cab maneuverability requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Staff has therefore concluded that the project does not comply with the CBC requirements for accessibility. Additional study to revise the placement of the elevator, eliminate the sunken living room in Unit 1, adjust the head height of the walkway in the garage, and to confirm the size of the elevator may be necessary. REQUIRED FINDINGS: As a major architectural application, the project is subject to review guidelines and findings of the Planning Commission's Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) as defined in the PSZO Section 94.04.00. The project was reviewed twice by the AAC as noted in this staff report and the AAC's comments and written recommendations are noted herein. Architectural Approval. Pursuant to PSZO Section 94.04.00 (D), the project "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 26 Staff Report May 28.2008 3,3010-MAJ, TrM 35601 and 7.1296 AMM: 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 10 of 16 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:" 9. Site layout, orientation, location of structures and relationship to one another and to open spaces and topography. Definition of pedestrian and vehicular areas, i.e., sidewalks as distinct from parking lot areas,- Due to the shallow depth of the lot, orientation and location of structures to one another and to open space is limited. The pedestrian and vehicular areas, where possible, are distinct and separate; however at the basement parking level, there is no separation of parking and drive aisles from the pedestrian access to the units. Although a striped walkway is shown, vertical clearance for this walkway may be compromised at each of the stairs from the basement entertainment rooms to the primary living levels where the vertical clear dimension appears to be approximately five (5) feet. Staff has concluded that the proposed project is based upon a tight site layout and that full conformance with this condition may require further clarification and study. Staff has identified concerns with the below grade water features, the narrowness of the distance between the two buildings (twelve feet) and roof decks. The AAC worked with the applicant to reduce privacy issues from upper floor windows looking onto adjacent parcels. Staff continues to have concerns with privacy issues caused by windows facing each other across the twelve foot wide open space between the two proposed buildings and those at the second floor level that overlook the adjacent one story residential development. 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 seven units are designed in a contemporary style. All seven units repeat the same front and rear fagade composition of window, solid surface, door placement and balconies. The adjoining development is comprised mostly of non-descript contemporary ranch style buildings from the fifties. The proposed project is similar to the existing development in that it uses contemporary architecture; however it is not necessarily harmonious because it is taller, is comprised of flat roofs versus low-slung gabled roofs of existing adjoining structures and uses significantly larger expanses of glass. The overall bulk, scale, means of accommodating off-street parking and circulation is different from surrounding existing development. Staff has concluded that the project does not present a harmonious relationship to the surrounding development, but rather represents a new form of aesthetic and development in the neighborhood that may, over time, spawn similar redevelopment of the adjacent residential structures- 2 Staff Report May 28 2008 3.3010-MAJ, TTM 35601 and 7.1296 AMM. 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 11 of 16 Staff has made the applicant aware that providing shoring and underpinning of the existing adjacent structures to enable construction at the lot line of the below grade wall structures for the basement parking structure and ramps may be difficult given the existing adjacent buildings are only five feet from the shared side lot lines. Construction of these below-grade walls may require encroachment agreements with the adjacent owners. The applicant states that he has not approached or discussed this or any other aspect of the project with the adjacent property owners. 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 site is constrained in that the depth at 105 feet is less than the 175 feet required for the zone. This is further exacerbated by the twenty foot roadway dedication taken at its frontage. The applicant has made an effort to set back the above-ground portion of the buildings from adjacent single story structures as much as possible given these constraints. The below grade parking and ramps are built up to the side lot lines, posing a possible challenge in supporting and underpinning these adjacent structures during construction. Staff has made coordination of this underpinning with the adjacent neighboring property owners a condition of approval. Staff believes the rooftop decks may pose a privacy issue with adjoining single story residential developments and recommends they be deleted as a condition of approval. If deleted, the issue of excessive height for the project would be eliminated and the project height would conform to the requirements for the zone. The applicant has not indicated the location of the pumps and filter equipment for the front yard subterranean water features. Staff has made identification of the location of this equipment a condition of approval for the project. The setbacks at the sides and rear of the property have been reduced from what is required by the development standards for this zone. Administrative Minor Modifications are incorporated with this major architectural application. Staff has concluded that with the incorporation of the conditions of approval and the approval of the AMM's, the project is substantially in conformance with this finding. 4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings; The building design, materials and colors are earth tones, stucco and glass in a contemporary style. The contemporary architecture of the proposed buildings is consistent with the existing mid-century style of the adjacent existing buildings. Staff Report May 28,2008 3 3010-MAJ, TTM 35601 and 7.1296 AMM: 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 12 of 16 5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously, The buildings are harmonious with one another in terms of color, material and composition because they are all proposed to be of the same color palette. Staff has therefore concluded that the project is consistent with this finding. 6. Consistency of composition and treatment; The buildings are provided windows and openings on all four sides that are consistent within the overall composition of the development, thus Staff has concluded that the application conforms to this finding- 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 landscaping plan proposes a variety of plant species for texture and color and includes an irrigation system for all planting beds. Most of the species are drought- tolerant and appropriate for the local environment. The palm tree islands in the below- grade water features are unusual. Staff has made the applicant aware that these below grade water features may pose maintenance problems with sand and debris settling in them during the windy season. Staff has also noted possible maintenance issues caused by shedding of leaves and flowers into the back yard spa/pools that is common with the bougainvilleas that are proposed for that area. The existing palm trees on the site must be removed to accommodate the proposed development and will not be reused on the site. Staff has concluded that with proper irrigation, the location and type of plant material proposed conforms with this finding, however the project will likely have higher than normal maintenance needs because of the subterranean gardens and plant materials adjacent to the spa/pools. S. Signs and graphics, as understood in architectural design including materials and colors; The building proposes minimal address signage and lighting on entry gates and walls that is architecturally complementary to the building itself. 9. The planning architectural advisory committee may develop specific written guidelines to supplement the design criteria and carry out the purposes of this chapter. If the Planning Commission deems the project approvable, Conditions of Approval will be developed and attached for consideration. Staff Report May 28.2008 3.3010-MAJ, TTM 35601 and 7.1296 AMM. 7 Condominiums at 517 East V;sta Chino Road Page 13 of 16 Administrative Minor Modification: Findings for evaluating Administrative Minor Modifications are found in the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance section 94.06.01. The conditions for which the applicant is seeking administrative minor modification relief are: 1. Increase in lot coverage from 30% to 36%. 2. Decrease in distance between buildings from 15 feet to 12 feet. 3. Decrease in side and rear yard setbacks from 25 feet to 20 feet. Noted below are the required findings for each requested item within the AMM filed by the applicant, followed by Staff's analysis of each. All four findings must be made in order to approve an AMM request. a. The requested minor modification is consistent with the general plan, applicable specific plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance; Staff believes this requested minor modification is consistent with the General Plan and overall objectives of the Zoning Ordinance because the land use proposed is consistent with the General Plan. The request is also consistent with the overall objectives of the Zoning Ordinance because the buildings are essentially consistent in lot coverage while creating generous sized residential units and a building volume consistent with the height limits of the zone. The requested reduction between buildings on the site is consistent because the area is still wide enough for (shaded) light and air to be available for both buildings. Since the lot is substandard in depth, the reduction in rear yard dimension is reasonable- b. The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification; The neighboring properties will be minimally affected as a result of the increase in lot coverage because the proposed development orients the majority of windows and glazing away from side lot lines and will not interfere with light and air for the existing adjacent developments. Furthermore the requested reduced open space is internal to the site, and is not affecting adjacent properties. Finally, the orientation of windows has been proposed in a way that minimizes privacy issues into adjoining 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,, and The AMM to increase lot coverage, reduce distance between buildings, and reduce setbacks will not be detrimental to health safety or general welfare because the project is consistent with the type of development permissible in the zone and uses that are consistent with the rest of the neighborhood in this area. Staff Report May 28,2008 3.3010-MAJ, TTM 35601 and 7.1296 AMM: 7 Condominiums at 517 East vista Chino Road Page 14 of 16 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 AMM to increase the percentage of lot coverage, distance between buildings, and reduced setbacks are justified because of the unique dimensional characteristics of the lots, especially that the depths of the lots are shallower than typical for this zone, resulting in an existing site condition that makes development of the site more difficult. This is further exacerbated by the twenty foot roadway easement at the front of the lot, thereby making its developable depth dimension even smaller, Tentative Tract Map: The following findings are required pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act: a. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential, which provides a density threshold of 6.1 to a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre. The proposal is to create one parcel, roughly ''/2 acre in size, for the purpose of a condominium development for seven units. The project proposes a density of 14 du/acre which is consistent with the General Plan. b. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the zone in which the property is located. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the zone in which the property is located except that the lot is non-conforming in its size and dimension. Through the AMM mechanism, many of the physical improvements proposed can be deemed in conformance with the development standards for the zone. The density and bulk of the proposed development is tight and the Planning Commission may choose to have the applicant restudy those aspects. C. The site is physically suited for this type of development. The site, while shorter in depth than is typical for this zone, is physically suitable for development. It is a flat, unimproved site in an existing developed medium density residential neighborhood. d. The site is physically suited for the proposed density of development. The project tract map would create a 17,000 square foot site by merging two existing lots (Lots 14 and 15) which then will be subdivided into seven condominium units. If it were not for the roadway dedication, the site would be physically suited for the �e Staff Report May 28,2008 3.3010-MAJ, 7rM 35601 and 7.1296 AMM. 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 15 of 16 proposed density of 15 dwelling units per acre, or seven units. At its net lot area however, the proposed density is slightly greater than allowed by the zone. e. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitats. The lot is an infill development in an existing fully developed neighborhood with no known environmental impacts of any kind to fish, wildlife or natural habitats. f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The existing subdivision in which this project is located has public water service and the existing street provides an orderly system of ordinary and emergency access to the project site. The project proposes to provide storm water detainage structures to assure no additional storm water run-off will enter Vista Chino Road. There are no serious health problems that would be created by this subdivision. g. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. There is no known public easement across the subject property; therefore, the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through or use of the property by the public. All utilities are located within and around the existing development. Roadway width right of way dedications are noted on the tract map and are consistent with the local and state requirements for this segment of roadway and any improvements proposed within the dedicated roadway right-of-way will be conditioned on an encroachment license granted by Cal Trans. CONCLUSION: Staff has concluded that the project is a tight fit for the site. Staff has attempted to provide guidance to the applicant for seeking relief of many development standards; however the dedication of the twenty foot roadway right of way results in a project that exceeds the development standards for the zone. The Planning Commission may wish to consider further restudy by the applicant of the following issues: 1. Reduce the density and/or bulk of the project. (possibly reducing the number and/or size of the units). 2. Elimination of the roof decks and stairs to the roof. 3. Consider alternative landscape material at the rear pool decks to minimize maintenance problems. 69 yti Staff Report May 28,2008 3.3010-MAJ, TTM 35601 and 7,1296 AMM: 7 Condominiums at 517 East Vista Chino Road Page 16 of 16 4. Consider the maintenance issues created with the subterranean front yard water features and confirm the placement of the mechanical equipment for these pools. 5. Restudy the pedestrian walkway at the subterranean garage to confirm adequate vertical clearance at the seven individual stairs to the first floor. 6. Restudy the ramps to the subterranean garage to conform to the slope requirements of the CBC. 7. Restudy the accessibility issues related with the interior level changes at the primary entry level in Unit 1 and the size and location of the elevator. B. Restudy the location of the front garden wall, possibly locating it slightly back from the front property line to allow space between the wall and the future public sidewalk for landscaping. 9. Consider more variety in the fagade treatment of each unit. 10.Consider elimination of the twelve foot wide space between the buildings and/or rearrangement of the face-to face windows in that area. Staffs finds that the project is not in harmony with the existing development and surrounding neighborhood. It may, however reflect a possible new direction for redevelopment of this aging neighborhood that the Planning Commission may choose to consider. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects. NOTIFICATION: A notice of the hearing for this application was mailed to all adjacent property owners in accordance with applicable law, As of the time of preparing this report, staff has rec�j it eid/a letter objecting to the proposed development (letter is attached). Keen Lyo , Associate Planner raI" A. ing, AI P, Director of Planning 9 Attachments: - 400' Radius Map - Site Plan and Elevations - Tentative Tract Map Larry Lorenz to Thompson letter dated May 18, 2008 Department of Planning Services W " E ` Vicinity Map s wugEOR merACHNOND ,� corrornroouim I I s CHUUICWALA R Legend Project Site 400 Foot Radius ' Surrounding Parcels CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 3.3010 MAJ & DESCRIPTION: To consider an application by Grant TTM 35601 Hovakimyan to allow construction of a seven unit, two- story plus basement condominium building, APPLICANT: Grant Hovakimyan subterranean parking, terraces and landscaping, and a tentative tract map to merge two lots to create one lot for condominium purposes located at 551 East Vista Chino Road, zoned R-2. Page 1 of 1 'I,�.*: " " ,:;I y�,".. :'�+ �.+��:„.1.: :=,,ti.�•. f.^,y+�';;w.-a�,r�;.?: , .;, .�'+ t 1. _ •wry - i, q.l n'4��"w�.... _ _ _ •IYx. rF J:•rl.�,r , T�. •rr� \.r,r�:'r ^� /'illy .91'.... Wi + '�I 'r i. f,. "Z.•�. _ 4 ,;.f, T�' W :1+.f. k_lµ 7-1 If ww Iq, Ir r/ki::+l•• - nF�i� '1_i.: "�,T. r ..N.,:"�L'.C�'B �:�..+ >! �.art.•. - - 4a j — A ilr.l qr - 1, 71. ".� r Ire L• -�:ri,_,u� " . �' .- I i ur. If ,fir �:�yry '•; - -f,p• 'mr," =`,` „, ..,y;'_. �- ,^r A• ` � . m .__ �•� ,mow .. .. r ' �L'Cii7iti:rzi�:i9 "•wy!�µ;T•rl,Ci 000rf i.••I Iw•Ycas.Oy:�'hlap�fn.ld:n'�- w p ALM S � °O 4 N CityGIS CgLlF09 Copyright 02006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. �t http://maps-digitaimapceniTal.com/productiOn/CitYG18/vO7 01 036/indexA.html 4/30/2008 SITE PLAN VICINITY MAP SHEET INDEX N131Dx5 x6 , NT.S cWT14&16TOBENOR=TOGETHER R2 i ry tlt;y Qi , r]irrurrr� AO COVER SHEET ,m 1 "„�, hi• r1m • •"+Ftjfi➢lll A.01 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP _.-0 a l nu- A.1 1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR`I N +•n -y ! ••• r•n', r uPrTF •may 1i A-2 PROPOSED IST FLOOR PI„4N ' 3 � .�s' T-j111 � .w.",� I ..,... n.o PRQPoseo RNOFL00RPLAN .."I ir' ,r1 ,+, "r ._'_ Ie1N•M' AJ PROPOSED ROOF FLOOR PV % 't[ 3 fj MI' 1h1� 1• � 1� /•�,,,' '1 _^'I. r PROPOSED Si�� j' IYM W`� � °�"n'• 1i- �6 I �'('•'t� ,. ". L,�I. A.6 ECTION Ii PROPOSED sgCTlon e•B .J I 1 M1'r t P Fri 1"u4on Y� 2,-__�^^`1 •�'��-,nr Ai PROPOSED UST ELEVATION PROP06C0 WEST ELEVATION z N CONSULTANTSA'T PROPOSED NORTH CLEVATON } VROPOSE➢EL VATION 01-SIGN E I PROPOSED$pUTH ELEVATION - - -- - -.- .� - _ r• �.1 ARCHITECT As PROPOSED SECTION M jq-�--•_-� _ _ - - P• /`fh Y - " _� S¢0 J6. ME ru ' � n0 PRIERERIORISTFLooRLGTnO PUN 0u 9m MD,SUIN 2B Hills CA 0021p L1 PPEUMINARY PhNTNG PUN id:310ROy0 71 Llc iFf3195 .1 VISTA[MINO ROAD N SITE LOCATION GENERAL NOTES PROJECT DATA -LEGAL DESCRIPTION= -TYPECONSFRUCTION- MCIHR LOT 15 TRACT PALM SPRINGS 5 AS RECORDED •PROP03[P z.79MES BUILDING IN MAP HOOK 018 PAG 091, •CONE- PC (APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) n•.w _ nm qpNpp 6 F R p TABULATION OF LAND AkEA. (-- S•�~ 1�e YPry 7 •LOTIJARU•t00�0 x1o5- w-SjL.r p 0"•10,3008F 111 L.y 1 E 1- F -LOT16AAEA•fo0'V.10C•0"+fO6G-4F w •�v5 Is OC bh 9A LV OR 99 TY F FF 'r Ir 1 2 .To A u• zl mums GSr y r A o 9 F I J y ell: r e - •ALLOWABLEWTUVERAGE•3,:4OFCAOSF+emmm5F 0UILDINCCOV5(wGE• N� Y}7vMH]RIIB 0-3� T �j03 1 a F Or �m 8 S,ae05F a95% y- �•� •'f - x{' .." w"• Ir( FI, 5 -REQUIRED OPEN^PACE(UNDSCAPEANO RECREATION`6m%OF LOTAAEA+5s%OF •W� 5 [ fcE ` >•C SF 9C RF pF 1 S aF T O 1`•p S p T L t 210GSF WSNSF - _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION= 0 ra -�+�• -- - ••T�•P.J -- -- R-m" • r_ - .:.5"r •xH'm� -PRVNOEDOPEN SPACE(NNDSCAPEANO pCCRGTION'Ri omo-T,90:e1909EEF- I BF"- IF oD „ DE '9 6t I BE 52 �Y W TMY F i 4OT 14 TRACT PALM SPRINGS 5 AS RECORDED 85%DPLWAREA. U T z p• a IN MAP BOOK 01L PAC 091. -AREAor PARWNG(SUSTERPAHEAN)•IOS378F sl sL'I -T'GWQb--=$i{—(IOpMNO11D]--:-: y ��Fwr`-'N,: pgPPOu'EO BPLEmLryT 15f FLOOR ING I'LOORROOF DEC TOTAL -PARKNOSPACEB+UNT1(3R5)rUNRR(150)"UNR9(2R6)-0NT4(3 R01•UNR6 P��_' "C 15o•UNRO(150)r UNITTAs� (a y3) +10 xI u- eh1e G F rJ' UNIiJ foA po VISITOR PARKNG•f FOR EACH 4 PARKING SPACES + a p CI 9 6 02 2 FE br I. FS y Flr I RO:BF a5f 0008E ou'F RT198F I y; �S •tm APR GE IF6 o iE 0 _ _ ••_1--'.- '..-,. a [ �T "'V I4 I UNITS '1YF$P 10349F m35F 9056F r BM95F 04SIMmn 1^IrtA^ '�� ',,,nP^.,ry,q_".,.y-F•- k�" s '�L AjerC r -- .BUILDING TOTµ AREA+TOTAL 7 UNITS(INCLUDING ROOF pCC1q`GAPADE+18Tu1 BG, �p'yA��f . .I? UxITo RTOBP 100A u'F 0953P p9S5F RWmBN H rP033T8F129,I m SF naiwl WN t}le z F�u"IC•HIr n'I Ar,n (•fk_pn�;,;G hF � � UN ITT LW 5F IIN,SP 0005F a^I' 3T135F I�♦ ^r } ' rM - SCOPE OF WORK: FRµ — —— tlnH -:.La ��] y r .s — — �a2 �s 2ooe f.0't""`n'... .0 J1003F IA T13'uF ..p yT., -PROPOSED NE✓2 STORIES RMIDCNTPI BUILDING WITH T TOWN yV•`/ VISTA CHINO RD -3 TOWNHQU^aC'a WERE APPROVED BY PUNNINO COMMISSION ON LOTfS � H SHEET CRcxm TOTAL TS0z5F " 19 Tn18P ^ A-Q t•1 G7 •u' 101�lk NO t . LECIE.. •WL NOTCume Ehdl br plecaEY lrvm AAAeem Walla er yrvinp spew aw �Not VAeel BloewlmTh�Ymnter T"e P�hln08pocvan• ml ^*A^.'II IiIMnp TT�e FmnIWAII ' � +M1'nler -- — r - ••- -I -- .-- -- _ __ r _ Pdm vee on lalpne w"" Y fG�r°Pli.,$Jw;F�'i1 ry"1,1i(,�.Y:"C$IMkk iTn,O 18`1':1 F01.:r-,"TT rc:-Rk}Vi•u-,1-E'T�`MEYr,N'�1TSI;b:V`P'NE1 l�J:1:7:iu�1lI;"I�r!rJ�✓'�p.��nS.���TrI`rl a''jI jl ._. PmF°aniOrrC Vmne dt::^',.^I L^^ �G(GmeeM Lc C �dE; ,z noeaeclpoe pm"I OP..Pg-. LEO ONG HzQ2• �y[J •C `T l.r��`�yp F3` ILIM A YhO OP HEIOHTOF OARnCCHey. Iri.d,+�W uv /.• IpICB A�G.Yq✓'d'.'�u Nqy x�r1�1 REGVIPCG IIIGHi 19 EA" r� . .(r�`'L ENCIIMEr I '� ww Y � �'I,a.>,� �tw,u„•.,_yYyC;`y�.``cJfl�d'r,.;¢+"I�.Ni lil .,` �II �i \ I - - � PA I o UNITR - UMI 1� YY VNITe =_ - UNITE UNIT PIIT] ' ^ h'i�i• � AI -- OU7 H IN b I a] I ICI I o — -R - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ —• 6 N VISTA CHINO ROAD CJ PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN VJ ^ C Ire Ia ly ALREADY PP V C CTIIRAL&PLANNING CGMMISSION PROPOSED =RIFS RIIILOINC WITH A UNITS Lc'SHOWN ^_A ` REVI6ILe6 Nc I ZT I c e -n I Roo `' Root �y g ooL TE E iER CE i 't CE W TER C TERRALC �~ MIN r T IINITf _ UNITS UN_ITo 'IINITA UNIT u a - YMITi - ry5 - „r Tl �.-J cs�ac r -vnmxwur�9 f I H wwr�.v i ryxrw+v Y I � I rv�r I ..x I I a4 -- _ 1IA V I� c� ..)•A..��` _ _ /A. rA Ind I rvreL vY `� YY �}E'�-$' � A• Ax _ i� _�i— �, +T ! In —�_ — �17 �" sjl1— a• �� � xs��I!`-- --- - — a `I.k j — a O o a I y I I our rI _ R { ' --------r 4 L .—. � .. L - ... .. 0 �,. VISTA CHINO ROAD vlsin CHINO rva RLno 0 OPOSED IST FLOOR PLAN a PR Al R RFAGY APPREG IRALAPI AN NI -_2R0PO4EO2RT(1RIEE 611ILGNG wIM,4y _ �MY.ehOEB AN-HONK oww FILE FOR LANDSCAPE PLAN_SEE L-1 xcA-2 o-� PEViOioxc ry[ I I � : 'e• I I RI _ _ - - m - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - I s I � I ,.. I a I I I u s uNIT1 un_rzIAA �x-ng N I'N1Te� un r'e ury o — - -. 21 I �o 7 - - I I a I I I I I a _.._.._.._.._. E i Pa Ri I o R- - - - -' —�"' — O z ( VIS7AOHINOg0A0 a PROPOSE❑2N0 FLOOR PLAN LIJL4 Al.RF.APY APFRDVFD f. gpRpS[ptSJg[�G$Gp LONG WITH 4lINIT9 anehoau AS SHnt FlW in any 7E rlerpir. SHEEP A-3 w� 1 C9 W. vrmelorve xc I I I _ • r�! • I a I � I z I I I } I I _ �� W �� �,,..•_ I I ya� 13 uxll, uxg. INIT3 urvgo uwn I .=mx �=w� nmrm« e. _ ,rc� .00ruc. I ❑ I I I 5 I I a I LL II I 4 R, _— _ _ _ _ _ — ._. 4 y � _ _ _VISTACryINO ROAD a PROPOSEPB-Q0F FLOOR PLAN Dolt p RFAGY PPR .fI FY R CA 51 PR P FIl ��'G WT• •bNITb 0<f3JF.aon e[Ue j 0�✓V O,tnvi wnc nm•Nwumnry A-4 P.?'1 O ' ���•�ONB ry I •� IF Z '' 96i I illli I b p fr' Z _ _ _._._ it IIIIIIII IIIII I��III Ibl� llll s�' n �i,,,,,, rM won Y� 92 1027 _�Si rvu iilunwn[an I rye` ❑� Gff � illlti r�.r.cnnn Lv1lzia+r I � a$ .a I PROPOSED SECTION A-A scA�Yte^-�w� IPA _ar IR I .H„i.ar..iwe� j I I I w m j it 'II' Ili III B 0 _ ? I I III I I,i t III IIIII III W ..oM� I w w ", I .^ � �l'�I��� ,li �° 1,1 I°YI it en'I l^ I• �......_ I r a o a I � r I II IIl llllI�III IFill Ir00 Izz o e7 Soewe� oyaoo GIEn rSM - 71' tf�n.w[ AS EHOIM1M PROPOSED SECTION B-B LEGEND: scn��^a•W+�& N.G L. Natural Ground LoJ6I A-5 G11 �Fun,n.H.mu.nlru~"�L �y II I Z --- --- --:___---- III _________ Irll I I'III'I'I _ II'IIIII III, IIIII IIIII I 'I , IIIrII�hI —~u� I FI f �w III I III IIIIII I _ ,- �__i_.t .._.. __�__F 'VI rn nrgn� r - - I I - ;nt. r i..rwon -z m n r � II _ l _ ' i — -=------ ----- +_7 PROPOSEII EAST ELEVATION r. scow:s'+e••,w^ a IR zz III .______.__ 90 ' l__ ___ ____ _ __ ____ � •• 1- F IIIII I I yl IIIIII IIIIIIIII I IIII dIIIIIIIIII� � ____ '�' � � „� SIN'IIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIII 4d61114Vll N � s � I ... IiIII.IiI IIII ILI II i _________ 'I�IIIII�III�'-- Ii�I�� il'.� IIIIIII -- IIII`'II,II� ,•a,« i w w _______'__i_a_- _ _I__I-4k ____s__ m m � _________Inl F o 0 w • 11 _____ �.__bnd__ -n minvn ltiStl - - - ,o u ar r .� o -- ,J -- � I _ee�sx=w - ouw LEGEND: fl+E PROPOSED WEU ELEVATION N.G.L Natu al Ground Leval HEI w srnw y,e••,�' exer* A-5 �j oo pp NC _ a i l a I,LI 'I I Y a. lil r y I I �I I IIII illll' ,I I I I J.; e _ aPl.d _oh � Y,i ,"f'____YII;,1'Ill �lrhl���tlll`dd 'oIIIbI11�yA' I .L.I---- IIII% ' � I IIIIi; I'I�Iyu1--- !Ir,I�'��Iu�lYell�.'�' I�I,I Fs1i '•" dI�I,I pL. I,I�NiI III Ii1�I .,,16,V _ I �. b ollp lI r q e Tia a III .1 NII p%Ililll.!,I 7 rl II" ril Iu F' i�ll''I�I!I V YrII �!iIIN,r, ICI!:1 li kh�l II'I�iI 11 ililllL 1���I��G IL+I L.I�o]�'.,I�II,� I�1 :h�1l a loh�l�Ia'u�hil ll:!a.l I6III�rL 11I IIII IIII � NCL • N:uwd Gr —1 d-. �L 1 1 vfn I— I — I 1 II mill, •1 ll � I I� ll Q`—u 1 ^• yY I Lam_ L_ }N g' ___N____ ! LL J `rT _n _ ..���� �_,�_- ___ r—�r MATERIAL CHARTf�... 9i 0 1 II _ ___ __ __________ _____________ ____ ___ _ _ _ Y cD PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION exocmuoone�excum��wwo�l 71�` A DY APPROI ARCHI (:TIIPALRI ANNINCC MMI N •_ PEPPOSISJO-2 j(IC,$}3}I{,DJNC.WITI{Al1NIT5 HLw[N•rm"o[vlry lurvnnLxwmlrvmim F� �� ©oNLca FInL'UnNO PINmnc Z5 �y nnlx onmmen m�>=e enm a'� jLj ®w �mrNPnr..nennocnlvcr. �g pr+LOAatiNltura4 u[��+inn p � 11 0 II '_ fZ-17� ��F_b ELEVAT!oN Gt-SIGN 2 z � I _ Iti OAF z W O W Y I��Il�l�pl NI ____ ____I �NI�4il II I� �11 i'I!u' - - V Icry ` Ii ____ II�IIII F� IIIIII ___ ,��I�I�iii °� � '� HIM IM �� N I;II �7 0 0 0 l� l;�i � uIIINi 'dI Yli il�•I I!hIII oIi3ry IVlt INIIIIiOI'4f ;lle o� 1IIpy , _ ��r1 „ 1ur , m`bl � iNlwl91r1 !C;!Illiii;J'"IVI:I;Iqu" � I,I!p„'I�I'I'lllI IISI 200 _y1y11 1 1 1 N t 1 In 1 1 •i li 1 1 1 Iln 1 1 1 __ _____ _________ 1 F____ ,i n - a a a L 1 1 1 1 _ 111_L_J_�L __J�.A..�l.. 'I _____ .L_1_� _L1J�J1_� u r d _I —i'd codhalSoou -------------- Onnw PR POSED SOUTH ELEVATIgij- bRI—LE S .....................4LIN5 AI RFAW APPROVEC 9V ARCH IT NNIN MMIFRION LGEMO' NGL Nmuml GRJnd Wwl _ BHEdLI A-7 Cr*1 ua i� ! F { E r 7 m r N ' _ y A �2 I _ p a I L ® I I Si I ' � I I I f I I ® F I I o { 0 f SY u F f� If I I I I I LL- PROPOSEI)FIOSiTH ELEVATION GRANT HOVAKIMYAN 1i1141'l� a PROPOSED ELEVATION D7-SIG# h1.hV.l1ASCGaoceell;luln5 e PROPOSED SOUTA ELEVATIM vrrno-.»avnaoru F ' '[�I I wevlalorve x o • -g Paw,ee..e..l "Y4' ` 14 a ` Rnsa QTONyl;I' oRAse GRASS cwna , ownas ahY we Pooh '7 PooLj',' eeL IIIr coot'1 IIMI`�s., I. PoaL IIII—III—c'o'oI�III III� Ip +Z POOL ON • eSRPACc Tfllluq 1'E IngW IC T Ll TERRACE w^ TERRACE p In -------- - unq, �nqa uNITa u — z,o T xl_n � unlit uH:u' p u r .w.•ir ..err r-�n� .�� r-uw.ay� ` 19j In� f. ` A A .w` �JI�.F-�w Vp ^� 4 .- --.Y-• = rv� VI L• �� 1 n � I i.L � IfEEI � 3 z I I illi � I I I - - ,. VISTA CHINO ROAD _ narecewc ROAD ,.. M POSEN 1ST FLOOR PLAN m In ROVE�PV AR HI � PR P 4F R UH�UNITS W LIGHTING LEGEND: o w O P. o g a { E..ni.Tl ¢( Flte RGCESSEC)LIGHT•PAAY LI6HTIN0 BHEET PATHWAY DHNNG-FINISHED IN NATJIA ALUMINUM SIGN LIGHNNG-FINISHED IN NATURAL ALUMINUM ® FINISHED IN NATWfLLALUMTHW NUM /. flnY(Jc rnllg IpAly tom z s` vnwr nIP11phIMP mm A-9 S,.�i pE�1810Ne x I Q s I �,�,� / \ \tee. onrwlLr�`�+ -p:.VoeswlLOn� ' .cR160V Pool "':. •: '� , rrta�y "�' PvoL Pooy Pool. vaau � PvoL _�.n� . riL •i wmnmwn.,�.,....-��.m .•TENudR.':"�".iTl'.PpRsee� � :.ti�p�joE ;fmaca: .Tn+niri . +ImiLICE-'-�• •�,'Iyy1R5CE: . - �.T��"�ud'wmw"m�uwliw°."�"'""'Dort y AC -.r.-- I T x r I,n;I;,,'p,' PN4lM�fliu>Iuw.u�w.�mA�o`n°""m�a""' c I � � v r wr ru nm,".'a�onnwaawn,�w..°n Z y VNITt YNITre VYR3 VNI}� UNITS VNRe Il VHI wT .�pLmM��r �r�meR��µirer¢w.� Y S v — u. _ _ w 6 VLL i.lK ,".mn.mine..nwmw an�x.sn4.e,r S � erom+.r..a �mrniri[wuon.v u 'pP+Wn+irini.mvla� K ~ I•-. r Y .-__ -� yu i )i.. rwNNRlmeMna:umwnvvm„wrAw til In'm°RO��wnn�e�mrtwreruy,yp411rme°n --Y• , -~ I�iFiuyi..NdTT pYMTu�.uu . ...t. Ty - - •Ij ^, vleTn eHlrvv nano VISTA AMINO ROAC Vim'.' CHINO ROAD PRELIMINA Y.PLANTING PLAN � eewa° avro..0 z c.ruuNAa+rAlvo 5 a ALRFADY APPA0vasoRJ AR(IHITECTUPALGPL4NNINP QQMIJ SIONEAOFOSEV^� � ;LROFOSEVr R.T(!T ST PIGS SISj [)Ul 1 NG WTH A VNR4 Of SHRUDS AND GROUND COVER LEGEND TREE LEGEND HARDSCAPE LEGEND � Ed ` a SYhi BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SYM. 60TANICg4 NAME —COMMON NAME SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME eeug.lmllloa'Rosenka' Bougalnvlllea Bullenpllate Plndo Penn-5 High �'�'. Gongola Paver "'I A1111111IT Dale ® Desrampah wapAoss TuIMd HolrGresa 0 Paddnconleacvleala Modon Palo Verde-1u Gal (WI Grass ".,.°.°...... scpLLr:oon Bisonk.'Meamolmll' Metlnn Dalai Pryeonlxdacbll Date Palm-2P High ® BrickWelkwey " As sHnmm -- PoolE ulrmentos °uw Hcsporeloe pervlAora Red Yuen �( 9 erro.o.ur°w.�.rnr. O Layondule Squall English lavender Pep PSZO930100 ® MlsgnNVa slnensle'Adglo' NOTES: 1 51ee or Plant Melegal 5GYllmna SuM,e'WMnhard Gilman' 2 IrtlQagon Syslam Will Bo Complolaly Automate° .,,..., reT MaW"w ® Swann mendrsllane 3 Sion Water ReFalning Will Bo Provided As Per exn Hydrology Study L-� LEGAL DESCRIPTION.- IN INN CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 514TC OF CALIFORNlA TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 35601 s� �. I' flWrir Ygn'a�,` FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES <:Nla rwr rc rin v�uuuawuwc .. „I,� nr(,� �,'L„__�b A Po WN W IHE NORJMYESI O�TER O IHr N ,X7 OWRTR CJ IHE A6PIH,u,F µr C y ur nJ w - "lCryON 11.JOwN"WIIP i 59NIH.WYLE r FASJ S6u p " d cart a:�ma 'AQUA VILLAS CONDOMINIUMS" JUNE 2007 V70INITYMAP u vwn:wri mmron�,rmr aver" h pyFy,.. TI Ounu GUIDE COCROINAM a'G.�Rw.wi xe onm mwuaww FACE EnIMOK)lnorv7 urv.rtr ww m w.0 a PAS=use,OunS Cs ary x(gk[e wr ra rw n ww' ru wrr°"a a�,rrm"w.r" nr EASEMENTNOTES. •niir:(ruylb stow w[mJ[rauw.wnlrwv.w o m wtw Arw ymr me rrw.e aev Nn mrw w.n ns.,ln - ♦ nr ••", r, ,'t,1 ••e IVY u vwrc�u u mam rw ` o�: _ xi •.m..w wirv` \ d a � 1� � VISTA CHINO ROAD ;.� SCALE I-- io (STALE HIGHWAY I It) w .�.�m l��m�. �"o'rv`'i, ----''— ;•w-----,':�': ,.��;rl,__:�L_4__ \,'„ .0-". •tom+l„ T�--;:�:m.-.._��rF.l'�-- �G',�;,;:,��y..._.-..11= • ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: OWNEWAPPLICANTYDEVELOPERS' ACREAGE; uw.,.m.�,.F.,� wvmw FY y, y,„• I' ", ." ,I ^ par°e,o,"mZz n 'wrmr.raa Hue ura :(- ,_. _ '�:' "„{'I",•,y t ei�.v — '�:n l^ l-jY„r�- ._— ,ii; =`l,fy�. _.F ..v „F.i�' GENERAL PLANANDZONING PATH: CXISpNC,PA OFFER FOR PE�II// 1 wn,mrmY arrr yRnnxnram ov me ar ~,I'•�-J �•< PROAOSEO P/L \ �O n' n 5,999R$`F (002 CJ IIBLIC '"'i '�,, ', f.• LANDUSE.- a uraave r,m.l... uvlrlwti~w wrar ''p'?i"r 4 •�I• �- _ STRCC/1 PFtlI.EMENI5 _= y".'' aaec won rwwro^'nV NOTE: G \ DA'I .7mm anwxw,unmv-rr,.m _— . 'A,� L �xciioarnr mwr m.mwxa..e,rr.,. n I� .:,� h.;' UTlL1TlES5CHOOL DISTRICT' ' II n<Iroc w'�n.m cmocr r+: r �.r. ��� anw�v� mrnn LOT 1;TA' 'NG 5 ma mmc: rvw m 5 IIIrvrm M•o S,RIN 009) i ,,I, / /� r� 55 ESfAiFs 5) L (*O�APN 507�92z' LQT 1' PALM (AINN5S p22-oo5) le 1 ��^ an sot- I G 1 -lw - '.ti:.Y.�ti(.i�....��n�Wa'(.'.avwn.��.• w.wa ww I i ..nmmgf j "M'.'• ns rary rtn / / / I o-a..TENTATIVE TRACTSUBMTTTAL . :r.R(,arrur l�p II ;;r� f'„ I ,i, II I •,•,,� mr of,ew"gx[.E�inw r✓.rmr•nnraRo I I H Iq�l ' !- I U , III I? LEGEND AN A88REV147I0N5' J it = 1= ------ - Warner . -------- engineering �m . 1 ' •fieU 1i`-iG, A.. �r�("aeii:5eu.�eun 7 rn City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 28,2008 Chair Ma tz ened the Public Hearing; there being no appearances the Public Wearing was closed. M/5/C (Vice Chair Hochanadel/Caffery, 7-0) To'conti e, to the Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 2008. 5, Case 3.3010 MAJ / TTM 35601 1 7.1296 AMM - An application by Grant Hovakimyan to allow construction of a seven unit, two-story plus basement condominium building, subterranean parking, terraces and landscaping, and a condominium map located at 551 East Vista Chino Road, Zone R2, Section 11, APN: 507-022-044. (Project Planner: Ken Lyon, Associate Planner) 11 Ken Lyon provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated May 28, 2008. Mr. Lyon noted a correction in the staff report which should be west of Miraleste. Mr. Lyon reported that there are several issues, as noted in the staff report, that the Planning Commission may wish to consider further restudy by the applicant. The Commission discussed public parking, prior approvals, setback requirements, garage entries and restrictive driveways, Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing; there being no appearances the Public Hearing was continued_ M/S/C (Ringlein/Cohen, 7-0) To continue to an undetermined date, to allow a redesign of the project. Case 5,1202 ZTA - An application by the City of Palm Springs to amend the aim Springs Zoning Code to establish regulations for portable 'open" sig n front of commercial businesses. (Project Planner: Craig A. Ewing, Director Planning Services) Craig A. Ewing provided-bclground information as outlined in the staff report dated May 28, 2008_ Mr. Ewing enc a aged the Planning Commission to consider options for portable"open" signs and make a rrbsommendation to the City Council. The Commission discussed signage at the laza, storefronts on the right-of-way, and frontage on Palm Canyon. Further discussion occurred on a shorter "sunset" term, sign isplaying more product information, the effectiveness of"open" signs and consist with hours of operation. Commissioner Ringlein noted her preference for a one a year sunset clause. \\\ A Ken Lyon From: Ken Lyon Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1.48 PM To: 'Milan'; 'Grant Hovakimyan' Cc: 'danielkimwork@gmail corn', Edward Robertson Subject: RE: 3.3010 Aqua Villas Condos Dear Grant and Milan, We are working to schedule your re-hearing with the Planning Commission for August 27, 2008. Please let me know if that date does NOT work for you. The revised project plans dated 7-15-08 have been reviewed with the Director of Planning, including the two revisions you have made, and the items recommended from the 5-28-08 Planning Commission hearing that you have chosen not to revise. As noted in my staff report excerpts sent yesterday via e mail, we have added an Administrative Minor ModificaLion to recommend the project with 7 units, and note that the basement stairs and clearance in the garages have been resolved. It appears however that the ramps to the garage are still steeper than allowed by the CBC. We were somewhat surprised that you have elected not to integrate more of the recommendations from the Planning Commission's list of redesign issues. Whi,Je we have made every attempt to favorably consider your project-, we are unable to make a recommendation to approve your project for the August 27th hearing. As we explained to you after the last hearing, when the Planning Commission makes recommendations and votes unanimously to send the applicant back to redesign Lhe project, most of Lheir suggestions are usually integrated by the applicant. With only two of the 15 concerns addressed (and one still in question whether it is compliant) , it i.s not possible for staff to support the project at this time- As soon as the staff report is finalized you will be provided a copy prior to the August 27th meeting_ Ken Lyon, Associate Planner City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 Phone 760 323 8245 Fax 760 322 8360 From: "Milan" cmilan@sbcglobal.net> To: <semonean@yahoo.com> Sent- Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:03 PM Subject: Re- 3.3010 Aqua Villas Condos > Ken, > 1 am sending you 10 sets of plans in large format and 10 sets of plans in > small format. > > Changes are: > 1) Different cairs from basement to 1st• floor 7 > 2) Corrections to garange ramp > > Milan > 1 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION 1) CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT James Thompson, City Clerk Meeting Date: October 1, 2008 Subject: AN APPEAL BY GRANT HOVAKIMYAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION OF AUGUST 27, 2008, DENYING CASE 3.3010 MAJ, TTM 35601, AND RELATED CASE 7.1296 AMM, \ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I, Kathie Hart, CMC, 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 September 19, 2008, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (225 notices) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct- Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Kathie Hart, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Public Hearing Notice was published in the Desert Sun on September 20, 2008. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Joanne Bruggemans, Senior Secretary, 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 September 19, 2008. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. C✓�y�e./J �-e�r�-s Joanne Bruggema� enior Secretary PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Cleric's Piling Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) No.3250 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CRY COUNCIL STATE OF CALI ITO RNIA CITY OF PALM SPRINGS County Of Riverside AN THE CITY TO OF PALM SPRINGS ByUNCIL GRANT HOVAKIMYAN REQUESTING THE COUNCIL OVERTURN THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CASE 3.3010 t1NJd'CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 517 EAST VISTA CHINO ROAD I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of NDTIce IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Cityy Council of the Cllyul Pakn-Sprl"gs,California will the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen hoki- piiblic:hearing at Its meeVnp oLocmber 1, ears,and not a a to or interested in the 2000. The Cil Council meetingp begins at 600 y party s.,in the Council Chamber e7 Ciryry Hall,3200 above-entitled matter.f am the principal cleric of a East Tahgmlz Canyon Way Palm Springs. printer Of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING The urvese of this hearing is to consider an ap, COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, peal gy Grant Hovaklmysn reqquusung that City Council ovenurn the color,of the Plannmg Com- rinted and published in the city of Palm Springs, mission to deny Case 3.3010 MAJ TTM 5601, P P ty AMM 7.1296 a seven unlr condominium develop- County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been ment located 517 East Vista Chino Road adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the - - Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of California under the dale of March 24,1988.Case Number 191236,that the notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller J 1 i than non pariel,has been published in each regular 1 -Tand entire issue of said newspaper and not in any ---- supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: September 2161,2008 ' _y C,rv_=Ltt a'awGu _—_ All in the year 2008 ._... ....__________ I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION,Pur.,uant to the Calimrma Enulonmental Quality foregoing is true and correct. Act (CEQA Guidelines the proposed project is C3teporlcally Exempt under Section 15302 In-Fill Duvollopment Projects. Dated at Palm Springs,California this--22"d,--day REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff repon'and-inner suppedi" documsms mgnrding ihl6proNtl are also evadable for public --�---------^,2008 review Al me Clry Hull between the h of 0 00 vm. and 500 p.m. Monday inrough Fridd Please contact the office of the Cit Clerk(i 6tl� 323-3204 d you would like to schedule anappom- Mont to review tnoee document.^ COMMENT ON CryhlC Hearing en Scoam6msl In n Mining bol verballyode hfor mill or e Re- Mines nr- Stl re p 4 James Thompson Ciyty Clerk 32 Palm Springs CAri92262 aY Any chellengo al Ina proppsad protect In court :7y• 4 - Lei may ba limited ar rws,n9 only those not, raised b at the public hearng a aif et m this a Cty,or In _ L Q y ,�� of, or pcnor t othenpce lie hears to the(Government Clerk L3 L�oz C`.1 '' �, 1 ` Cado Section to the hearing. (Government I"' vn t An rested persons will t be given at said hearing r for all z ` • interested ieheaM.Questions AESDe- C/•d J,_�' a.this case mayy nn directed to Kan Lyon Assocr - m .� ate Planner mg Services Department at (760)323-6245 N SI mill Ayuda con esla Cans,porfavor Ilame a (a Cludad de Palm $pringgs yy pucob hall con Nadine Fleger telefono(7 801 323-6 24 5. James Thompson,City Clerk puffin 9TdV06 NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS Case 3.3010 MAJ &TTM 35601 MR PETE MORU=I Agua Villas MODCOM AND PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE PHN for CC Meeting 10.01.08 HISTORIC SITE REP I I I PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE 3,3010 MAJ VERIFICATION NOTICE I I I ATTN SECRETARY MRS. JOANNE BRUGGEMANS PO BOX 2743 506 W. SANTA CATALINA ROAD PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 MS MARGARET PARK AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS INDIANS 11 1 1 1 1 5401 DINAH SHORE DRIVE PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 MR MILAN LOJDL MR GRANT HOVAKIMYAN MILAN LOJDL ARCHITECT,A LA 9538 BRIGHTON WAY, SUITE 326 SPONSORS 9538 BRIGHTON WAY, SUITE 326 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 -, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 MR YAEL LIR 1010 SYCAMORE AVENUE,#313 SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030 o o Rcc#: 1 APN: 501-090-01-4 RecN- 2 APN: 501-092.00.1 HBF PALM SPRINGS RESORT LLC ALLISON R&C FAMILY TRUST 1000 N PALM CANYON DR 1537 VISTA CLARIDAD PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 LA JOLLA,CA 92037-7842 Rec#: 3 APN: 501-092.00.2 Rec#! 4 APN: 501-002-00.3 BASS FAMILY TRUST DEBRA C GUYOVICH 511 STONEWOOD DR 725 W AVENUE R12 BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90210-2544 PALMDALE,CA 93551-7700 Rec#' 5 AP 01-092.00.4 Rec#: 6 APN; 501-092-00-5 SAUL A VE CHARLES H MARX 1975 N A MIRALESTE 1215 1975 N VIA MIRALESTE 1214 PA�W SPRINGS,CA 92262-3167 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262-3167 Rec#: 7 APN: 501.092-00-6 Rec#: 8 APN: 501-092-00-7 MADELINE GOLDBERG BRUCE A MCFADDEN 17700 LEGENCY CIR 1465 SW WADLEIGH DR BELLFLOWER,CA 90706 PULLMAN,WA 99163.2048 Rec#- 9 APN: 501-092.00.8 Rec#; 10 APN: 501.092-00-9 ATHINA VENEZIA T MICHAEL HIESTER 4510 W 64TH ST 1975 N VIA MIRALESTE 1224 INGLEWOOD, CA 90302-1336 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3182 Rec#: 11 APN: 501-092-01-0 Rec#: 12 APN: 501-002-01-1 AUDIE L PAGE LEE THOMAS J 1985 TRUST 1975 N VIA MIRALESTE 1223 1802 TAMARISK RD PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262.3182 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-5904 Rec#: 13 APN: 501-092.01-2 Rec#: 14 APN: 501-092-01-3 CHRISTOPHER H BUCKLEY DANIEL E ROBERTSON 1975 N VIA MIRALESTE 1221 721 ROME OR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3182 LOS ANGELES,CA 90065-4040 X - Rec#: 16 APN: 501-092-01-5 HANS L KRONAWETTER RALESTE 1314 14653 N EL PUEBLO BLVD S,CA 92262.3179 FOUNTAIN HILLS,AZ 85268-2661 I Rec# 17 APN: 501-092-01-6 Rec#: 18 APN: 501-092.01.7 TI•IOMgS WATKINS ROBERT PARKA 34300 LANTERN BAY DR 103 1462 HUNTERS TRL DANA POINT,CA 92629-2373 1 GLENDORA.CA 91740-4525 I I I Rack: 19 APN:501-092-01-8 Rec#: 20 APN: 501-092-01-9 MERCIER REAL FRANK BOJAR 1955 N VIA MIRALESTE 1324 1 1955 N VIA MIRALESTE 1323 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3180 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262-3180 ee Rec#: 21 APN: 501-092-02.0 Rec#: 22 APN: 501-092-02-1 JIM R KARPIAK TERRY MASTERS 1634 PAGE ST 2309 S PEBBLE BEACH DR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94117-2020 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264.5961 Rec#: 23 APN: 501-092-02-2 Reck 24 APN: 501-092-02-3 JOHN R REYNOLOS HENRY C HFRBST 20400 REYNOLDS DR 2308 E AVALON AVE TORRANCE, CA 90503-2209 SANTA ANA CA 92705.7901 Rec#: 25 APN: 501-092-02-4 Rec#: 26 APN: 501.092-025 WILLIAM M BRIGHT RONALD LEMPERT 2662 S HARCOURT AVE 511 10TH ST LOS ANGELES. CA 90016.2827 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 02648-4001 Rec#: 27 APN: 501-092-02-6 Rec#. 28 AP • 01-092-02-7 JOHN J TOOMEY MARILYN D AZZA 4804 N PINK POPPY DR 1925 N�>aA MIRALESTE 1424 BEVERLY HILLS, FL 34465-2804 PAL SPRINGS,CA 92262-3177 Rec#: 29 APN: 501-002-02-8 Rec#: 30 APN: 501-092-02-9 DAVID S ZELIGSON LECANN HOLMES 1925 N VIA MIRALESTE 1423 23477 WINDCREST PL PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262.3177 NEWHALL,CA 91321-3558 Rec#: 31 APN: 501-092-03-0 Rec#; 32 APN: 501.092-03.1 BURGHGRAEF F&H FAMILY TRUST HIDEO KOMURO 1925 N VIA MIRALESTE 1421 8902 KALANIANAOLE HWY PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3177 HONOLULU, HI 96825-2821 Rec#: 33 AP . 501-092-03-2 Rec#: 34 APN: 601-092-03-3 KING COC ORP DAVID SAWKINS PO BO 899 590 SHAWNEE LN FAIL PRINGS,CA 92263.0899 SAN JOSE,CA 95123-4132 Rec#: 35 APN: 501-092-03-4 Rec#: 36 APN: 501-002-03-5 PASCHER DIEGO R&SONIA JOHN ONLEY 5117 NESTLE AVE 17 N VIA MIRALESTE 1517 TARZANA,CA 91366-4342 ALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 I Rec#: 37 APN' 501-092-03-6 Rec#: 38 APN: 501-092-03-7 KELU A SHUH RITA SIEGEL 1895 N VIA MIRALESTF 1514 1895 N VIA MIRALFSTE 1613 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3166 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262.3175 Rec#: 39 APN: 501.092-03-8 Rec#: 40 APN: 501-092-03-9 YVONNE GUTIERREZ JEFFREY W HENGES 446 MONROE 15001 HAWTHORNE BLVD IRVINE,CA 92620-3655 LAWNDALE, CA 90260-1504 0 Rec#: 41 APN: 5 1f092-04-0 Rec#. 42 APN: 501-092-04-1 CLAUDIA S BABB JERRY FEINSTEIN 1895 N VIA rRALESTE 1526 5$41 LONG SHADOW CT PALM SP INGS,CA 92262.3176 WESTLAKE VILLAGE,CA 91362.5223 Rec#: 43 APN: 501-092-04-2 Rec# 44 APN: 501-092-04-3 VIRGINIA B MERSCH YVONNE GUTIERREZ 231 S THURSTON AVE 446 MONROE LOS ANGELES, CA 90049.3123 IRVINE,CA 92620.3655 Rec#: 45 APN: 501-092.04.4 Rec#: 46 APN:501-092.04.5 KEVIN C MCGRADE TRACY L ALPERN 225 N CEDAR DR 1728 EVANS AVE COVINA,CA 91723-1805 VENTURA,CA 93001-3427 Rec#: 47 APN:501-092-04-6 Rec#: 48 N: 501-092-04-7 REUBEN A CAPPE JACK A NTHER 2121 BATHURST ST 210 3634 H AVE 6E S DIEGO,CA 92103.4342 Rec#: 49 APN:501-092-04-8 Rec#: 50 APN: 501-092.04-9 DANITA A JEFFRIES FREDRICA J GOVER 1835 N VIA MIRALESTE 1615 PO BOX 165 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3161 LAYTONVILLE,CA 95454-0165 Rec#: 51 APN: 501-092-05-0 Rec#: 52 N: 501-092-05-1 NANNETTE J MATTHEWS FOEWIN �OM 1835 N VIA MIRALESTE 1617 1A MIRALESTE 1614 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3161 PRINGS,CA 92262-3161 Rec#: 53 APN: 501-092-05-2 Rec#: 54 AP 5 ASIA 01-002-05-3 NANCY LEA LESKY TH01 SON 401 E HIGHLAND AVE 1835 N MIRALESTE 1612 SIERRA MADRE,CA 91024-2124 Pq SPRINGS,CA 92262-3191 Rec#: 55 APN: 501-092-05-4 Rec#: 56 APN: 501-092-05-5 VERIAL MONTONYE WILLIBY J S FAMILY TRUST 2910 W 235TH ST 8 1 2342 CENTURY HL 96 TORRANCE,CA 90505-4151 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-3513 Rcc#: 57 APN: 501-002-05-6 Rec#; 58 APN: 501.092-05.7 JON HABER STRICKLAND J HOLETON 1128 E 6TH ST 2 2887 N BELLFLOWER BLVD CORONA CA 92879-1698 LONG BEACH,CA 90815-1126 Rec#: 59 APN: 501.092-05-8 Rec#: 60 APN: 501.092.05.9 OLIVER W ANDERSON D R NEWSOME&ASSOCIATES LTD 1835 N VIA MIRALESTE 1623 4516 SW 4A STREET PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3165 L /G. tti /. op w Rec#: 61 yr,: 501.092-06-0 Rec#- 62 APN: 501-092-05-1 LORICE A ITH DOUGLAS G KNAPP 1119D OVENCAL PL 8600 GLEN RD SAN [EGO,CA 92123-3669 CORONA.CA 92883-5624 Rec#: 63 APN: 501-092-06-2 Rec#. 64 AP : 501-092-06-3 H TODD JOHNSON MILDRED LLIVAN 1785 N VIA MIRALESTE 1712 68710 5 GATOS RD PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3164 C - EDRAL CITY,CA 92234-3763 Rec#, 65 APN:501-092-06-4 Rec#: 66 APN: 501-092.06-5 DOUGLAS G KNAPP GERTRUDE ZINT 8600 GLEN RD 265 ARCH ST CORONA,CA 92883.5624 LAGUNA BEACH,CA 92651-391 5 Rec#: 67 APN: 501-092.06-6 Rec#, 68 APN' 501-002-06-7 IRMA HERNANDEZ JERELDINNE B BOYL 2324 HILLVIEW DR 1785 N VIA MIRALESTE 1723 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651.2212 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262.3129 Rec#: 69 APN: 501-092-06-8 Rec#: 70 APN: 501-092-06-9 MICHAEL D GRIST ROBERT ORREN MOORE 907 E 5TH ST 1198 PAC COAST HWY D ROYAL OAK, MI 48067.2310 SEAL BEACH,CA 90740 Rea#: 71 APN' 501-092.07.0 Rec#: 72 APN:501-092.07-1 DONALD CLEVELAND ESQUIVEL MANUEL TRUST 5926 CAMBRIDGE DR 1365 N VIA MIRALESTE 1815 FREDERICKSBURG,VA 22407-1270 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3160 Rec#: 73 APN: 501-092.07-2 Z147� CHOCO APN: 501-092-07-3 KAREN C REYES Y 3971 HANCOCK FOREST TRL RD ANNANDALE,VA 22003-1571 LEY,CA 92307-5263 Rec#: 75 APN:501-002-07-4 1 Rec#: 76 APN: 501-092.07.5 HARRY D GREER PETER L MOREJON PO BOX 250 4591 WARNER AVE 204 EASTSOUND,WA 98245-0250 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 02640-3893 Rcc#: 77 APN: 501-092-07-6 Rec#! 78 APN: 501-092.07-7 JAMES W ANDERSON MANION FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 820425 10 VIA SANTA VELERA VANCOUVER.WA 98682-0009 RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270-5818 Rec#: 79 APN: 501-002-07-8 Rec#: 80 APN: 501-092-07-9 RICHARD KROLL LORENZ LAWRENCE P TRUST 24122 LA HERMOSA AVE 1865 N VIA MIRALESTE 1825 LAGUNA NIGUEL,CA 92677-2229 PALM SPRINGS.CA 92262.3172 Rec#' 81 APN: 501.092-08-0 Rec#: 82 APN' 501-092-08-1 GLENN LEWMAN THOMAS VERDIN 1865 N VIA MIRALESTE 1824 5335 CANTERBURY DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262.3172 SAN DIEGO,CA 92116.2009 Rec#: 83 APN: 501.002-08-2 Rec#: 84 APN: 501-002-08-3 HAROLD W WADE PETER O SCHIEFELBEIN 3396 CHEROKEE DR S 5831 ABRAHAM AVE SALEM,OR 97302-9673 WESTMINSTER,CA 92683-2805 Rec#: 85 APN: 501-092.08.4 Rea:: 86 APN:501-092-08-5 STANLEY EGLIN RONALD J BESHK 18927 LA MONTANA PL 28084 SAINT KITTS TARZANA,CA 91356-4819 MISSION VIEJO,CA 92692-3085 Rectlk 87 APN: 501-092.08.6 Rec#: 88 APN:501-092-08-7 GLORIA M GISLASON WILLIAM R MFAGOR 1735 N VIA MIRALESTE 1915 34 MERCED AVE PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262.3110 SAN ANSELMO,CA 94960-1811 Rec#: 89 APN: 501-092.08.8 Rec#: 90 APN: 501-092.08-9 W EITKAMP OF,ZDONZYK TRUST JACK T MARDESICH 19240 LUDLOW ST PO BOX 3490 NORTHRIDGE,CA 91326-2318 COOS BAY,OR 97420-0417 Rec#: 91 APN: 501-002-09-0 Rec#: 92 APN:501-092-09-1 RONALD J BESHK EDWARD T DORSEY 28084 SAINT KITTS 3907 WALNUT CLAY DR MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692.3085 AUSTIN,TX 78731-3933 Rec#: 93 APN' 501-092-09-2 Rec#: 94 APN: 501-092.09-3 ANTHONY SERRA LAWRENCE M KINSELLA 2646 JESSICA RD 240 SHERWOOD ST RIVERSIDE,CA 02506-5024 COSTA MESA,CA 92627-2160 Rec#: 95 APN: 501-092-09.4 Rec#: 96 APN: 501.092-09-5 JANICE MARIE MATTHEWS JOHNNIE G GUTIERREZ 2217 N 35TH ST 10727 JORDAN RD SEATTLE,WA 98103-9107 WHITTIER,CA 90603.3003 Rec#: 97 APN: 501.092.00-6 Rec#: 98 APN: 501-002-00-7 MICHAEL S CURRY THOMAS A DELGADO 7659 VISTA RIO PO BOX 71038 HIGHLAND,CA 92340-5953 LOS ANGELES,CA 90071-0038 Rec#: 99 APN: 501-092-09-8 Rec#: 100 APN: 501-092-09-9 LUGO EDWARD J&SYLVIA A ELSA F OLSON 14605 OSAGE AVE 1 1051 BERYL ST B LAWNDALE,CA 90260.1773 SAN DIEGO,CA 92109-2076 Rea#: 101 APN: 501-093.00-1 Rcc#: 102 APN: 501-093-00-2 LISA SCARPELLO MICHELLE S SHAGENA PO BOX 1941 11352 PEMBERTON RD VALLEY CENTER,CA 92082-1941 ROSSMOOR,CA 90720-3024 ReC#: 103 APN: 501.093-00-3 Rec#: 104 APN: 501-093-00-0 RICHARD A MUENCH HARVEY GELLER 26732 ESTANCIERO DR 4805 BRANDENBURG PL MISSION VIEJO,CA 92691-5409 TARZANA,CA 91356-1707 Rec#. 105 APN: 501-003-00-5 Rec#: 106 APN. 501-093-00-6 JAMES E FRAZIER KRISTEN WARNICK 450 E VISTA CHINO 2024 450 E VISTA CHINO 2023 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3206 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262.3206 Rec#: 107 APN: 501-003-00.7 Rec#: 108 APN: 501-093-00-8 STEVE L COLSON RICHARD SNELL 10414 N SAINT CLAIR AVE 25 W 683 JEWELL RD KANSAS CITY,MO 64154.1785 WHEATON,IL 60187 Rea#: 109 APN: 501-093-00.9 Rec#: 110 APN• 01-093-01-0 BRODWELL C CHRISTOPHER CARMEN 61SES RODRIGUEZ 1186 S SIERRA BONITA AVE 1725 N)k, MIRALESTE 2116 LOS ANGELES.CA 90019-2550 PAL SPRINGS,CA 92262-3108 Rec#: 111 APN: 501-093-01-1 ReC#: 112 APN: 501.093.01-2 THEODORE H HAGGSTROM DOROTHY M HOLETON 27809 LONGHILL DR 2887 N BELLFLOWER BLVD RCH PALOS VRD,CA 90275-3008 LONG BEACH,CA 9081 5-1 1 26 ReC#: 113 APN, 501-093.01-3 Rcc#: 114 APN: 501-093-01.4 MARK GRAHAM PAUL JUSTIN FIDLER PO BOX 8991 PO BOX 2404 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-6991 CANOGA PARK,CA 91306 ReC#: 115 APN: 501-093.01-5 Rec#: 116 APN: 501-093-01.6 SONYA RELEI HOWARD LEE RAY 3422 NW 66TH ST 625 EKLUND AVE SEATTLE,WA 98117.6025 HOQUTAM,WA 98550-1826 ReC#: 117 APN: 501-093.01-7 Rec#: 118 AP ! 501-093-01-8 MAX HENRY ZIMMERMAN 1 BILLIE T V 62 RADIANCE LN 24131 STILLA LN RCHO STATION MARG,CA 92688.8719 MI5 ON VIEJO,CA 92691-4143 Rec#: 119 APN:�/961-093-01-9 ReC#: 120 APN: 501.093-02-0 MARIT BRITT EVENS GEORGE G MAHR 1725 N VIA IRALESTE 2125 1 3221 VINELAND AVE 79 PALM INGS, CA 92262-3103 BALDWIN PARK,CA 91706-5168 o Rec#: 121 APN: 501.093-02-1 Rec# 122 APN:501-093.02-2 BRODWELL C CHRISTOPHER LEE PRICILLA 1180 S SIERRA BONITA AVE 1885 VETERAN AVE 204 LOS ANGELES,CA 90019-2550 LOS ANGELES,CA 90025-4580 Rec# 123 APN: 501-09$-02-3 Rec#: 124 APN- 501-093-02-4 HELEN V LESKY RIVIERA PROJECT 1326 S 5TH AVE 2000 N INDIAN AVE ARCADIA,CA 91006-4338 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 Rec#: 125 APN: 501-150-00-1 ReC#: 126 APN: 501.150.00.2 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 127 APN: 501-150.00.3 Rec#, 128 APN: 501-150.00.4 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST 1710 N VIA MIRALESTE PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262.3141 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 129 APN: 501-150-CO.5 Rec#. 130 APN: 501-150.00-6 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 131 APN: 501-150-00-7 Rec#: 132 APN: 501-150-00-8 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 1760 N VIA MIRALESTE PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262.3141 i Rec#: 133 APN:501-150-00.9 Rec#: 134 APN: 501-150-01-0 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 135 APN: 501-150-01-1 Rec#: 136 APN: 501-150-01-2 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 137 APN: 501-150-01-3 1 Rec#: 138 APN: 501-150.01-4 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 031 E LODISE DR PALM SPRINGS, CA 9226$-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3201 Rec#: 139 APN: 501.150-01-5 Rec#: 140 APN: 501-150.01-6 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263.2739 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263.2739 Rec#: 141 APN: 501-150-01-7 Rec#, 1d2 APN' 601-150-01-8 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 143 APN: $01-150.01.9 Rec#: 144 APN: 501-150-02-0 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST 2919 21ST AVE C10 PO BOX 2739 ASTORIA, NY 1 1 1 05-2651 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 145 APN: 501-150-02.1 ReC#: 146 APN: 501.150.02.2 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#. 147 APN: 501-150-02-3 Rec#: 148 APN: 501-150-02-4 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#- 149 APN. 501-150.02.5 Rec#: 150 APN: 501-150-02-6 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 151 APN: 501-150-02-7 Rec#. 152 APN: 501-150-02-8 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 153 APN: 501.150.02-9 Rec#: 154 APN: 501-150.03-0 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263.2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 155 APN: 501-150-03-1 Rec#! 156 APN: 501-150-03.2 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 02263.2739 Rec#: 157 APN: 501-150-03-3 Rec#: 158 APN: 501-150-03-4 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 159 APN: $01-150-03.5 Rec#: 160 APN: 501-150.03-6 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 ReC#: 161 APN: 501.150-03-7 Rec#: 102 APN: 501-150-03-8 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST USA BIA PO BOX 2739 741 E LOUISE DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3203 Rec#. 163 APN: 501-150-03-9 Rec#: 164 APN: 501-150-04-0 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST WILSON L M SURVIVORS TRUST PO BOX 2739 2528 E TULARE AVE PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 VISALIA,CA 93292.5261 ReC#, 165 APN: 501-150-04-1 Rec#; 166 APN- 501-150-04-2 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#; 167 APN: 501.150-04-3 Rec#: 168 APN: 501.150.04-4 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST 11894 HIDDEN CANYON LN PO BOX 2739 SANDY, UT 84092-6804 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263.2739 Rcc#: 169 APN: 501-150-04.5 Rec#: 170 APN: 501-150.04.6 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 ReC#: 171 APN: 501-150-04-7 Rec#: 172 APN: 501-150-04-8 ❑ESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263.2739 Rcc#: 173 APN: 501-150-04-9 RecVR- 174 APN: 501.150.05.0 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST USA BIA PO BOX 2739 772 E VISTA CHINO PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262-3215 Rec#: 175 APN: 501.150-05-1 Rec#: 176 APN: 501-150-05-2 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 177 APN, 501-150.05-3 Rec#: 178 APN: 507-022-00-3 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST GREGORY R DORN PO BOX 2739 38905 VISTA DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 CATHEDRAL CITY,CA 92234-2156 Rcc#: 179 APN:507-022-00.4 Rec#. 180 APN: 507-022-00-5 ALISA T&GRANT HOVAKIMYAN I AQUA VILLAS LLC 928 N ONTARIO ST 928 N ONTARIO ST BURBANK,CA 91505-2629 BURBANK,CA 91505-2629 Rec#: 181 APN: 507.022-00-6 Rec# 182 A' : 507-022-00-7 GEORGE D CEBRA BRIAN KgPLAN 1677 N VIA MIRALESTE 704�LINCOLN BLVD A PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-4627 SANTA MONICA,CA 90402-2859 Rec#: 183 /AKN: 507-022-00.8 Rec#: 184 N: 507-022-00-9 BRIAN K{{APLAN eRIAN KlAPLAN 704 LI COLN BLVD A 704 )NliOLN BLVD A SP�Af7A MONICA,CA 90402.2859 ! 9lMTA MONICA,CA 90402-2859 Reo#, 185 APN- 507.022-01-0 Rec#: 186 PN: 507-022-01-1 GERALD H GREENBACH RICHA' LF FURSTENBERG PO BOX 14090 23�545 PALO MINO Al PALM DESERT,CA 92255.4090 DfAMOND BAR,CA 91765 Rec#: 187 APN: 507-022-01-2 Rcc#- 188 N: 507-022-01-5 RICHARD WOLF FURSTENBERG SEAN M AHILL 400 S BEVERLY DR 214 401 EIJISTA CHINO 1 BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90212-4414 P" M SPRINGS,CA 92262-3273 Rec#: 189 APN: 507-022-01-6 Rec#: 190 APN:507-022.01.7 BEVERLY H HEIBERG LISA A TORRES 8181 MALLOY DR 401 E VISTA CHINO 3 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646-5015 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3273 Rec#: 191 APN: 507.022-01-8 Rec#: 192 N: 507-022-01-9 CAROLE A&STEVEN A WILLIAMS RONAL MENDIOLA 6552 WRENFIELD DR 401 EIJISTA CHINO 5 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647-5650 PFlLM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3273 Rec#: 193 APN: 507-022.02-0 Rec# 194 APN: 507-022.02.1 C ELLIOTT COLLIER KATHLEEN B SUNDBERG 401 E VISTA CHINO 6 401 E VISTA CHINO 7 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262.3273 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3273 Rec#: 195 APN: $07-022.02.2 Rec#: 196 APN: 507-022-02-3 JACK T REAL SAM N DAWOOD 401 E VISTA CHINO 8 1483 SUTTER ST UNT 514 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3273 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 Rec#: 197 APN: 507-022-02-4 Rec#: 198 APN: 507-022-02-5 BEULAH MAE TOLLIVER SCOTT GARFIELD 641 E ERWIN ST 3923 FERNWOOD AVE RIALTO,CA 92376-6023 LOS ANGELES CA 90027-4735 ReC#: 199 APN:507-022-02-6 Rec#: 200 APN: 507-023-00-1 HILTON HEAD TOWNHOMES RICHARD MARTIN 3251 KEMPTON DR 13071 JCNET CIR LOS ALAMITOS,CA 90720-4806 SANTA ANA,CA 92705-2834 �1+ ev Rec#' 201 APN: 50 A23.00-2 Rec#. 202 APN: 507-023-00-3 MAGNUS �� LEONARD KANNER 1276 N PAL CANYON DR 210 241 W DRYDEN ST J PALM SPdGS, CA 92262.4430 GLENDALE,CA 01202-3022 Rec#- 203 APN: 507-023-00-4 Rec#: 204 /.1PN: 507-023-00.5 LEONARD KANNER ANDRE ARNOLD 241 W DRYDEN ST J 625 OTTTNWOOD RD GLENDALE, CA 91202-3022 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262.4641 Rec#. 205 AP 507-023-00-6 Rec#: 206 APN: 507-023-00-9 SIERRA V S A PALM SPGS-3 LLC SIERRA VISTA PALM SPGS-3 LLC 555 E , TTONWOOD RD 556 E CHUCKWALLA RD PAS. SPRINGS,CA 92262-4640 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-1640 Rec#: 207 'PP4: 507-023-01-0 Rec#: 208 APN: 507.023.01.1 MICHAE �A.POINT JACK E WACKERMAN 520E,ZHUCKWALLA RD 1604 KELLY ST PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-4551 OCEANSIDE,CA 92054.5526 Rec#: 209 AP 07-023-01-2 Rec#: 210 APN: 507-023-01-3 JACK E W ERMAN BRYAN N KROGAN 644 CY� ESS HILLS DR 10825 HARTSDOK ST EN ITAS,CA 92024.2394 NORTH HOLLYWOOD,CA 91601-3915 Rec#: 211 APN: 507-023-01-4 Reck 212 PN: 507.023.01.6 MEYER ROBERT E TRUST SIERR ISTA PALM SPGS-3 LLC 27 TICKNOR PL 585 OTTONWOOO RD LAGUNA NIGUEL.CA 92677.4133 PA, M SPRINGS,CA 92262-4639 Rec#: 213 507-023-01-7 Rec#: 214 507-041-00-1 SIERRAV&A PALM SPGS-3 LLC SIERRA TA PALM SPGS3 LLC 594 E UCKWALLA RD 600E OOTONWOOD RD P SPRINGS,CA 92262-4650 PAL SPRINGS,CA 92262-4622 Rec#: 215 APN: 607-041-00-2 Rec#: 216 APN: 507-042.00.2 XENA ACQUISITIONS LLC SIERRA VISTA PALM SPGS-3 LLC 681 ENCINITAS BLVD 403 685 E COTTONWOOD RD ENCINITAS,CA 92024-3762 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262-4638 I Rec#: 217 AP 507-042-01.5 Rec#: 218 APN- 507.044.01.5 RICHARD 0 FURSTENBERG MIRALESTE PARTNERS 23545 P OMINO DR Al $001 MACARTHUR BLVD 350 DIAWND BAR,CA 91765-1625 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 926603041 Rec#60. 50 1-092-059 Rec#47. 501-092-046 RETURNED MAIL D.R. NEWSOME&ASSOC LTD. REUBEN A CAPPE Case 3.3010 MAJ 4516 SW 4A STREET 1835 N. VIA MIRALESTE, 31619 Agua Villas CALGARY ALBERTA, CANADA T2S 2 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 Rec#183.507-022-008 Rec# 184 507-022-009 Rec#182. 507-022-007 BRIAN KAPLAN 1049 18TH STREET SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 - 1 Rec#: 125 APN: 501-150.00-1 Rec#: 126 APN: 501-150-00-2 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#,' 127 APN: 501-150.00-3 Rec#: 128 APN: 501-160-00.4 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST 1710 N VIA MIRALESTE PO BOX 2739 / PALM SPRINGS,CA 92202.3141 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 129 APN: 501.150-00.5 Rect 130 APN: 501-150.00.6 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-27$9 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263.2739 Rec#: 131 APN:501-150-00-7 Red#: 132 APN: 501-160-00-8 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 1760 N VIA MIRALESTE PALM SPRINGS.CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262.3141 Rec#: 133 APN:501-150-00-9 Rec#: 134 APN: 501-150-01-0 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92203-2739 Rec#: 135 APN: 501-150.01-1 Rec#: 136 APN: 501.150-01-2 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL.DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Recll: 137 APN:501-150-01-3 Rec#: 138 APN:501-150-01-4 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 631 E LOUISE DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262.3201 Rect 139 APN:501-150.01-5 Rect 140 APN:501-150-01-6 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS.CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 L3 . 3 .01u Rec#: 141 APN. 501.150-01-7 \ ReC'#: 142 APN: 501-150-01-8 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 _ PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 ReC#: 143 APN: 501.150-01-9 Rea: 144 APN: 501-150-02-0 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST 2919 21 ST AVE C10 PO BOX 2739 ASTORIA.NY 11105-2651 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 145 APN:501-150-02.1 Reck 146 APN: 501.150-02-2 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 147 APN:501-150.02.3 Rec#: 148 APN: 501-150-02-4 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 27$9 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 149 APN:501-150-02-5 Rea: 150 APN. 501-150-02-6 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263.2739 ReC#: 151 APN:501-150-02-7 Rec#: 152 APN. 501-150-02-8 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263.2739 ReC#: 153 APN:501-150-02.9 ReC ,, 154 APN: 501-150.03-0 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 155 APN: 501.150-03-1 Rec#: 156 APN: 501-150-03-2 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 02263.2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 j Rec#: 157 APN: 501.150-03-3 Reek 158 APN: 501-150-03.4 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 159 APN; 501.150-03.5 Rec#: 160 APN: 501-150-03-6 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PD BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 F23 . 3a10 Reck 163 APN: 501-150-03-9 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 165 APN:501-150-04-1 Rec#: 166 APN: 501-150.04-2 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 167 APN:501-150-04-3 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST Rec#: 168 APN: 501-150-04-4 11894 HIDDEN CANYON LN DESERT HOSPITAL DIST SANDY,LIT B4092.6804 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 ' Rec#: 169 APN:$01-150.04-5 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST Rec#: 170 APN: 501-150-04-6 PO BOX 2739 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PALM SPRINGS.CA 9226$-2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 171 APN: 501-150-04-7 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST Rec#: 172 APN: 501-150-04-8 PO BOX 2739 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Rec#: 173 APN: 501.150.04-9 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Red: 175 APN: 501-150-05-1 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST RGc#: 176 APN: 501-160.05.2 PO BOX 2739 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 PO BOX 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 Red; 177 APN:501-150-05-3 DESERT HOSPITAL DIST PO 90X 2739 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-2739 i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS BY GRANT HOVAKIMYAN REQUESTING THE COUNCIL OVERTURN THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CASE 3.3010 MAJ, TTM 35601 AMM 7,1296 A SEVEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 517 EAST VISTA CHINO 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 October 1, 2008. 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 Grant Hovakimyan requesting that the City Council overturn the action of the Planning Commission to deny Case 3.3010 MAJ, TTM 35601, AMM 7.1296; a seven unit condominium development located 517 East Vista Chino Road. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects- REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this project are also available for public review at the City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the Planning Commission by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to,- James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Ken Lyon, Associate Planner, Planning Services Department at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta Carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245. Jr mes Thompson, City Clerk = Department of Planning Services W+ HN. Vicinity Map s LOui9[ov I ---------- --- via rn CHINO nu � III I I l I I I l I I I I II I I � I s I I I CHIICKWnLu nu y Legend Projec[Site I � I 400 Foot Radius �----" Surrounding Parcels CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 3.3010 MAJ & DESCRIPTION: To consider an appeal by Grant TTM 35601 Hovakimyan requesting that the City Council overturn the action of the Planning Commission to deny Case APPLICANT: Grant Hovakimyan 3.3010 MAJ, TTM 35601, AMM 7.1296; a seven unit condominium development located 517 East Vista Chino Road. S2 OF PALM Sa C1r V of Palm SPI-IMLY JJ Office of the City Cleric f HC�APOHniEO,o) ` 3200 E Tahquirz Canyon Wny • Palm Springs, California 92263 IPpRN\P Tel: (760) 323-8204 ° Tax (760) 422-5332 • Wclr www.paIrnspnngc-eu.gov September 19, 2008 Ms. Claudia Salgado Bureau of Indian Affairs P. O. Box 2245 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Dear Ms. Salgado: RE: City Council Meeting —October 1, 2008 Case 3.3010 MAJ, TTM 35601, AMM 7,1296 Appeal by Grant Hovakimyan Seven unit condominium development at 517 East Vista Chino Road The City Council of the City of Palm Springs will be conducting a public hearing relating to the above referenced on October 1, 2008. Enclosed are 6 copies of the public hearing notice to be forwarded to the appropriate Indian landowner(s) within the 400 ft. radius of the project location as listed below: 501-150-038 501-150-050 Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or concerns, 323-8206. Sincerely, Cynthia A. Berardi Deputy City Clerk /cab PHN to BIA—Appeal by Grant Hovakimyan 10.01-08.doc Encl: Public Hearing Notice Rec#: 162 APN:501-150-03-8 USA BIA 741 P LOUISE DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3203 Roc#: 174 APN; 501-150-o5-o USA BIA 772 E VISTA CHINO PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262.3215 Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 �� RBl�$[Dif$ NO. SITE PLAN VICINITY MAP SHEET INDEX ARCHITECTURAL' LOT 14&15 TO BE MERGED TOGETHER . I `7s� ,'�3'. . 4_=f- _=�Y n s''u_=_ A-9 COVERSHEET 171I i ��• �-i;�-ems_{'r=�-`- f�: a-_s :_ R2 �� R2 I -'s-;31=�,`�-" 5q- 2L- -` =•I` -L.,_ ��4� F s •"�--1.al a _.'_''I=[ra A-0.1 TOPOG RAP HIC hMP =N. A-1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR P LAN PROPOSED IST FLOOR PLAN � d A-3 PROPOSED 2RO FLOOR PLAN / M "�.. —•' +"`=�' " -_" A-4 PROPOSED ROOF FLOOR PLAN / IMF `�„�]`�'sI-min I c•F, j D'9i�.: A5 PROPOSE SECTION A A -� �i "1-=l_ -M 4N PROPOSED SECTIDN S-B - I a - I - IhsT�==8^.�i�v.�{_,-_ _it-==-_=•�''=q�-1_"= A-6 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION Q 0 A-7 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 2 v CONSULTANTS PROPOSED ELEVATION 01-SIGN Fo PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION Y o o vi <u 1= A 9 PROPOSED SECTION C-G Q QU a re b � _ _ _ _ _ _ _._._.._. . ..�.,� ARCHITECT: _. ._._._._. - _£ ._ N am PI _ _, _ _,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 m MLAN ARCHITECTSh9 PROPOSED EXTERIOR 1ST FLOOR LIGHTING PLAN g - -'- g ' - �"""`""` 9538 Bng llon Way,SuileR 326 Z j n 4 Beverly Hills,CA 90210 L-1 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN ¢ > [el:310 285,9701 a Liax'C-13435 .- - -._ .-.-._4_._.- -.- ._._ ._._. _,_ ._.-.- . - -,-. - VISTA CHINO ROAD u�] m 'o u a SITE LOCATION GENERAL NOTES PROJECT DATA LEGAL DESCRIPTION = -TYPECONSTRUCTION= Tu-IHR LOT 15 TRACT PALM SPRINGS 5 AS RECORDED -PROPOSED 2 STORIES BUILDING -ZONE= R2 IN MAP BOOK018 PAG 091. (APPROVED BY PLANNING COMM[SSION} T N F o / TABULATION OF LAH❑AREA: Lu - -�I` _ _ .:}!{c.sx_ _ - ___-- - ' _ 7"-s^� Y -LOT[4 AREA 700'A'x 105'-0"=i0,5905.F. Lu L_ >v�. ��;,¢f-: :r,T•s�.'.g� � " 19a .F _6 S. u ,� S -LOT 15 AREA= 706'-0'x305'-0'=21,00 S.F. � � 7 l / -TOTALARFR= 21,0005.F. Ate.= -=' 1F`.177 R 4, BY Sr ?feV':lS .f '€ '_ ';-F > 9 F `S. , 9 2 3 .F- 1 ' - 300 S.F.BUILDING COVERAGE_ Ei 11 ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE= 30%OF 2I,000 S.F.-6, �':.--_ U T 8 I 5 .F 4 S 7,362 S.F.=35%. if Ll.I Wm" c �'-'l- o�� ,1 S . 9 -REQU;RED OPEN SPACE(LANDSCAPE AND RECREATION)=50%OF LOT AREA=50%OF G 4^` - E c •(.iy s {��,3 ` 21,000 S F.=10,500 S.F. f[ J y L I :"' e � e:b._L?-`L-;_=-" " -�+ -LEGAL DESCRIPTION= -FROM DC LOOP AREA SPRINGS 5 AS RECORDED SPACE(LANDSCAPE AND RECREATlON}=27,000-7,362=13,6385 F. ! \ LOT 14 TRACT PALM 2,... ":, zef. �.... {.�•, ,yr:s� j t - 'JS Iil�,fi...T •l,ea+r�a�e...a.;.``. . .. 1N MAP BOOK PAG 099. 65h OF T I� F j j (-: l -AREA OF PARKING(SUBTERRANEAN)= 1Q,337 S.F. mil• - a'r. : _�°_�..ie.tc.�., F[ - _ I u `^•fi-�y+';Vq- � :�...- ;: 7.e - - _ _ -PARKING SPACES=UNiT7[2.25]+UNlT2(1.50]+UNIT3(2.25] IJ UNIT ; ,�(i4'U13-�-yii F).L (;_ pj7.Hs3),�4'��-=-k; •=�I . - ;i;.3-= "i,•s r: -i 'r,'e PROPOSED BASEMENT 1ST FLOOR 2NO FLOOR ROOF DECK TOTAL (1.50)<-UNIT 6(1.59}+UNIT 7(2 25) =M E VIS)TOR PARKING=1 FOR EACH 4 PARKING SPACES = 4 Iry 1x'= _ ' •i �' UN[T4 282 SF, 1,065SF 969SF 405 S.F. 2,7135.E .TOTAL PARKING SPACES I c.'.,1',:• - =18 DATE `- 07115l2008 K. - _ AT .�a - UNITS 279 S.F, 1.034 S F. 935 S,F. 395 S F. 2,643 S.F. I , - wr -BUILDING TOTAL AREA= TOTAL 7 UNITS{1NCLUDItiG ROOT DECK) +GARAG A3SHOWN 7 _ __= -_ - . �^_r._"`_-_ _. � rr -1i-, IC• S.F.+10337SF.=2s,1765.F. 11 _ UNIT 6 279 SF. 11,034 S.F. 935 S.F. 395 S.F. 2,643 S.F. Yg rj f f� / '�, . , ,_ �„r;..r;�: `"�:rt':nr,J� ��• m_/_-� rj. ,i llN1T7 282 S.F. � i,065 S.F. 960SF 068 F. 2,173 S.F. SCOPE OF WORK. RUE. S.F. 10.7125.Ei -P ROPOSEO NEW 2 STORI ES RESI DENTIAL BUI LD ING WITH 7 TO'J dNHOUSES. Pt07 1 -3 TOWNHOUSES WERE APPROVED BY PLANNING COMM ISSION ON LOT 15 VISTA CHINO Rd G��'�;'�R�� - - GRAND TOTA 420 !6 REVISIONS k0 rg i 8e I I _. .—.—.—. _LEGEND. R. NOTE, 1.1R E Curbs Shall be Placed 2'fmm Mjacrnt Walls of Parking Space E [Nol+Nneel fd;ocRs]at The Front of The Parkng Spaces to PrEvent Water sci j Car fmrn Hlilln TGe Front Wall Z Q 2F f O Palm free on]wand � z o 1 1 _ 7 r I G ax 1 ai ' O zo, `�"`'`'"""7 rn IIu Graund Covet � � uAr . j ! r r r io ie n uxc,�r,Ax J rxc,vert x v?m Amax r_c Rc[•A c�xx xz°rua xm:ar e-e�x z,rw w;enur Fa'uu, m._,r,y _ r [See Landscape Pfan] Z —1 r.arp flra. �y [ifx rat lirv=w1 Isrv,rs] Ora.al praxsvl I,rmx.vl I�rvavf [v;',ra] Pis',ex] [v •Ys'] Q STORMWATERAE I ENTION j 1 IIILLL f 1 dIC ParWn _ fCOLLECTION.SYSTEM AS PER Proposed Columns Q c "PRELIMNARY HYDROLOGY Typ c , &HYDRAULICS STUDY 6Y �l '�j I HEIGHT OF GAILAGE IS V-13' PJ \ AULTE ENS IN EERING — \cn e REQUIRED HiGHT f56'-6' I I IQ 19 sit gI 91 ,` u o CCESSAULE PATH 0 !RAVEL FROM H C P G CK01 j n 1 NIL1 UNIT2 UPfIT3 �� j UNITd llNIT5 UNITfi UVlT7 ` � _Ci•. �:">';' rI 1V c�rt,rvxvrm Z¢ 1 -- a, -"i/, IYrt• ITI� ,[� I` }9]I V .ti,• n % ,f izx n- h"Alf! dO l 1 �/ 1�� 11� �� / lri! t O ,O O O 9 ryee: 1 O LU _..— _ _ LU LU OUT N Q F ❑ O O — e — -- — — — — — — -- —� VISTA CHINO ROAD — — — — — — — — — — — w F PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN DAB. scw-E.tea•=T-0• Rl fi711572fi68 SCALE: ALREADY APPROVED EY ARCHITECTURAL&PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED 2 STORIES RUILIJI NG WITH 4 UNITS AS SHOWN DRAW: FILE SHEET: A-1 REVISIONS r+0 5 G S GRAS A GRASS - q � GRASSGRASS GRASSfp7o�LO"Ir POOR POOL OL POOL POOL TERM CE ?ERRACE� rTER' E xl, TER GE � CE I FER C TERRACE i Of 00 O a i flSu Lf . r. 2 c ,_ n t + ! !I II 11 f r I _ II!! Iu tl J T___-_- g of c I- <a •!i 1vr �t i Z > m UNIT UNIF2 UN1�3 VRIT4 UNITS UNITS UNIF7 _ 1Ti tz'-a• �i "y i I� � O FZ eta d a• ' — �G:� x C7 � r ___-_-_If - _____ -_____ r ______ tJ a r------- -1 r 7 I F + i 11_ 4 1 \- - __,_ 4 fl 1 / 1 1 ! a--'-�.a' -}. <- l f l f � -s � •---9 1 f .�< \ / \ __ 4 f V f _ \ ✓_ ,�}. / -- , r , 1 !1 k�' �. / 1 Y' .' lrs • - \� a ! - -, \ s - Y yd v' y }�/ - �,,S .'�d t, - •. '��t_�-_ - i\/F_� 1 Li V$_..,�- ! ' f a of I p OUT � r IN - - - ._._. i______ ILL! ..„.. 8 o VI STA CH I NO ROAD VISTACHINOROAD wO a PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN a w ALREADY APPROVED BY ARCHITECTURAL & PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED 2 STORI E58 U[LDI N G WITH LIN ITS '- DATE: 07JI-V2008 SGSLC AS SHO WN RRAvh. FILE: SHEET. FOR LANDSCAPE PLAN _ SEE L-1 A-2 REVISIONS NO. z 75 0 - -Ry----- - - -•- - - - -- -- - ------- - ---•- -� - - - -- - ------- - -------- - - - - - - - iR-- I I i z j J� =o 0> OIII ai 14 :a-0• z ID a I!g! ! E1I I. m 2-0- nF' ! UN� � UNIT5 UNIT 2 3 UNIT 7,� J z ' ATM I I I g _..—.1_.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _.._.._ .._ . _ ..—.._ .._..—..—.. _ ._..—.1—.._..—.._..—..— . —..—. —..—.. —.._..—..— ..—.. _.. — . _.._.�—. ._ °o I I 1 LL cl I I I zz Ju I I o o a- -- ----- - - ------- - -•- ------ - - ---- --- -•-• - - B a VISTA CHINO ROAD ❑. PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN SCALE:U..=Y 6' G9 OATS ALREADY APPROVED BY ARCHITECTURAL G PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED2 STORIES HUJLDI NG WITH 4 UNITS OM512006 SCALE; ASSNOWN DRAW.. ALE SHEEP: AQ 3 r7 RMSICNS NO I � 3 — — - - - - - - - - - - -1— —— _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - — pj - - --- - - j a � �L I I I z O SO I sn'li• 1' �,.... �a.,f. F�.�p �,r. �. a.�n,.Y .s.....a...nt - .. o,.s, �..�.�.�,.,�. IIr <.,g.�.� i' rc.o- i O S Q a > c i 1 GQ -0`IF 1 1 i Kz 1 ll IT I UNIT2 UNIT® UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIy 6 NNJT 7 w i ROUF GE4{ RCC6 CEC5 ROOF G-CK LF--f F. I j I I a j I I iL IL I I o i � I. I o—._._. — .—. _.—.—.—._ a.VISTA CHINO ROAD e.—. - ---.—. d_ n PROPOSED ROOF FLOOR PLAN � � DATE: ALREADY APPROVED EY ARCHITECTURAL&PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED 2 STORIES BUILDING WITH 4 UNITS 0711=008 SCALE A5 SHOWN DRAW'. FILE SHEEC A-4 ti V PL 6. P g e 6•p' A F n� n-p '—'—'— -- ---�� m MO o To NNa h p• "o $ '(n 1 n W I' 11'A" 10'o' s•o I'a VJ T' F� R .—.—. —.R.—.-- -..— — — —.— �.� n 6 T n I r C xb 0 Do r I CO y rr i sz � (1 I - z a 1 _ r I ::................ rrj & siq,.�..:rw:rn ..:.:.::...:....... a r I r � I a 1 I m q 1 1 � 1 I , ti T y �:.�..":.�:�::^eou�:�n s Ste" y I = s� y ; ... -_t_ L ]u• I � � 4 W I` h'.p• 6'.6• z � � m c� r m z 0 z m c m 0 I— m m TITLE. m TITLE. CLIENT. GRANT HOVAKIMYAN MILAN G `am PROPOSED SECTION A-A I O AQUA VILLAS CONDOMINIUMS o cn PROPOSED SECTION B-B -1iLCT �� y VISTA CHINO ROAD LOT I4 PALM SPRINGS,CAo�zoc-evol p +1 11'•p• to•-o• 3-p• r m ar� II 0 I I ITo 'Ll] TE m 1 I d� S I' 9 Fig m I L "� ❑ I �; y" 'n Vl I I I I I I I I•n I I r ��7hLLL m N b I�t r' IIIrL i�o..... . .?.. [/J 1 8 1 rr 1 4 Ir ��Md{ ����,a� .rex I I r `I j Ur�Ir I .................... O ; i , i ; 7 �ii F—. �` . I I I It I I I I III •:,`.lk,'n,Y:;:,j I I 1 ;�; ; I 1 � I 'il / 1 i iim ili ill I I 0.eiva` 2°=" S'aa: j —4... % Ir ---1""•kf':^:y'al.i%'R^f�:+ife j�•:^earl: II ":z?:5::➢':ii;^iI'il::i'i'i"•lv:,:y I II I se..-.ho ej:^e':':vaoF.... l'aE::i�wi'��x , II I II II \ II \ II I 11 II r I II I I I \ \\ r--�— ................ / . p.::..?.�..o. -M i:ac.a.:�tii: I u l I I I I I 1 I� ,I-- •:':��:��:�:::'. /:!f:..:.::.:.:.r:roi.;i�s���rt�'�� I I I � � II ;--T— I I I \ 11 I :!'10@'unay'$ri`i 'ir::9:_:�',,-n•�.'A?sii[p I / :........`;x.:.:;;a:::. I I Qp fi I I T 1 .. . :noYip+:?:�^:�e�i�r u. a?oe oro ............. ___•'___�� L—J]1 .'.eo.yi'; a __LEI 6 `F g I 'xLL7 1 ' I I I I ........... r, I — ram O A A b F Z r GJ � m z 0 z m 0 c a a r- m C ro TITLE: CLIENT: GRANT NOVAKIMYAN MILAN tNn m10. PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION A4UA VILLAS CONDOMINIUMSPROPOSEDWEST ELEVATIONVI5TA ChIINO ROAD Loi14ALM SPRINGS,CA REVISIONS NO L P - n o a III. 105E3 N,G.L NaWral G M¢ f _ _�____ __ _ _P z M � e: n i }' I A 1,w ] f ii 1 ii y ii 1 E ii I -- ii I j ii ii if MATERIAL CHART' o x 1 I I E I ' I I -------- '��- -- -1� _b= -u- -- ---- -�_ r- - ------- � -L-� =`` -u------1 Y 0__________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ drvorvrrs,ooc ,Rd�uecpucoNlEsl Q z �u PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION A DS.[ LIGHr EREEHGLIES VKCOL d v poa CJEE Ild'=l'G' N Z N O ri1KNVM,DOORS FRVJc AND MW49S TOP t� ALREADY APPROVED BY ARCHITECTURAL&PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED 2 STORIES B UILDING MATH 4UNIT5 ( 11111EM.fV1f5FiE❑INN4TnPALAL❑ML`lHl.1 H J Qe �l SNCCO FINE SRNO FLSH COLOR z ¢ j lJ PAIH SHIIANERFR0.2Te CYNOR'! C Tl ALL1.11N❑M FRUWY0.4O AND GdfigGE `L V C-AiES Fi�IIcRCttOR 1�fLF1EHIhE55 GREET!FRAT/Fz�.Y r11{ .'aas.:uxe o o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1111M rN ❑ o ❑ ❑ ° ' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ' ' ❑ of ❑ ❑ ❑ I I1I o Ir ��f� 6'S- ❑ G ❑ 3v PROPOSED ELEVATION 69 -SIGN sCRLE V3'=4'Y z P �t ONO IL x I > � > .y...' izx .z's., .�.�.' ua.� yr � Z J FrF J w o w 2 s _ _ - _ - C) 0 0 0 _ _ _ ------ - - it = 0 0 0 -- - , -----------INI 1 f NI 1 ] 1 1 1 I [ 1 I f fl H II [ 11 I i i 1 1 i 1 1 1�I [ 1 I =I T---- II I ! f �I! I I ! II �I I`I -- --- O- a- a' f1L_leJ__i_ _______ , ------J _l._J__1 L_S__I__1_J___ ___---�___.1 -___ �z__ _____ _______ ---------------- -------------- SCALE:_ 1Pd IL_� m+. d E-j 1E_i IEq E-3 ❑ATE: y_z, E=3 __________________ AS SHOVIN oRAvr: ROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCiLE`u'16'=I'+I PROPOSED 2 STORIES BUILDING SMITH 4 UNITS ALREADY APPROVED BY ARCHITECTURAL&PLAN NNG COMPAISS ON LEGEND: FILE. M.G.L. Ha[ural Ground Lewl SHEET A-7 T'i REWSIOKS NO z IT �I I — —'—' —'— uL ,5FJ Lill ter; > (D — —'—' —' ----- ----- —' —'— —'—' LL- 2 � _s'_ 1:. F T Z N -- 1 — .— .—.—.—. .—.—.—. —.--- —.—.—.—. — Q > PROPOSED SECTION C-C rxeva•=rr ALREADY AP PROVED BY ARCH ITECTU RAL&PLANNING COMPASSION PROPOSED 2STORIES BUILDING WITH 4 UNITS 6 Z Z U` Z 0 cr) 0 LU J Z J LLl 0 W 1 0 I 0 Z W ❑7 non IL W UJ 000 0 O O aaaa F DATE 0711&2008 SCALE: AS SHO W N DRAW. L wIL FILE: m:A.e SHEET: A-8 I REVISION'S NO I GfL75S GRASS GRASS � + #GRASS� ,!, . .c y, .., ' POOL POOLS a POOL rPOOL POOL P ��• POOL [ a41 _ •n + q TERRACE TERRACE TERRACE I TERRACE TERRACE ❑ TERRACE TERRACE T fin® 1J t is :llll3' �Ilil " li 1 I I ' I 11 �� �--------- •=� UNIT VNIT2 VNIT3 UNR9 UNTT9 UNITS UMH`7 �=- �;• Q � Z oz j > ° -3� T - 1 ,.. I 1 e.. LLw .a.. a r 0 4 f` W- u _�_- < l 1 ,�,:----__s V ! 7 ! � < 1 1 l i' �q_`--._r� `�-,�----li 4 r V r ��'--�--'-t__ I � t"S - 1 f ♦ ._- <_ l f V f _ � � < _ V ! t rl _ _ � < _ _� ! _ l R1 l ! - � < f ASL- g '!• i fi T'� ..r�- !: V8 ..�[ - - _:say _ "- AR A?i _ A. ' e v v Y. V. <� 2 -0 r �T[ h� _--,n T. n• �2 1 +n� [. _.- -- e� i'� � -„ ' ���• � I' r � T' ' • ` <- 'uv � + ' r SE'r ;: y. I ei ,v I Y . ,'K f i r V ••e P - Ft l ! 1 "---- 3 s. si a o- I 3 s a I p I � L O -------J' — —'— '—' - - .----- -------- O _ VISTA CHINO ROAD VISTA CHINO ROAD J PROPOSED 15T FLOOR PLAN � ISO GALE:1l6•=sw• f3 0 O ALREADY APPROVED BY ARCHITECTURAL & PLANNING COMPd[SSIOTI PRO POSED 2 STORIES BUILDING WITH 4 UNITS w LIGHTING LEGEND: u� 0 a 4} i O fY nE DATE: _;a_t - - 07JM008 c t� _ AS SHOWN ORWI - y 5``i • _ - _ FILE _ �"•� RECESSED LIGHT-PATHWAY LIGHTING SHEET: - _ PATI-316rAY L1GFFfIP:G-EINISHED IN NATURAL ALUMINUM - SIGN LIGHTING-FINISHED IN NATURAL ALUrgINUPd - _ _ 'i:''' - FINIS BED IN NATURAL ALUMINUM R•m.lasareni.com hlfPalSlaresW-mrniohPlohfs.com - tWrN,elnlighllng.COm A'9 FqF rp 4z .P Rm A n C `m \ '� � Alexander and Ma am Zar MILAN a AXONOMETRIC VIEW(1) puGNr Zar Residence L 6o N 12630W SAN VICEN7E BLVD. .... �•�on LG3 ANGC•1,Z5,CA FEVISIOIds :!O i �I 3'deeH C.G. I IAmaiAetl Yo"eA��Ex.al.lclu armc_�nY Rtn:�m[_ Ban�InN:e�'FasFnkEfEtau�� ,r R ASP'- POOLan• = POO�. s POOL PODL ,y�: POOL , POOL _��� SPOOL rcw.wl:°uHacw.vwTlcEomscrcalHrssrxnLoan rsrn ��.�'�'" I• Y� - � I 51 ar' [ULIf1YGCil:f2[[4'.R!l131A511lS1ER:'�HFF(L' =:]iy3 b .�2 Yr' 1[ftT11Cl`FE4TfLLEY!SLPY'[IXa 3P'& I urrR , rE.nLour ,••CE•� � •T•R •.Y�RkA E 1TE EE .TERRA •.TEARAZ,E.•' ' •'�'• ••�. n • FERRA . . E R9 f?.'.' � � Fgi,4 � ❑ � kRRA� - luExrmlT uamaEL CHE cc4s:Aunnvexivs z ee o I M!IfW.Cr63W0 Ai ATM EQ. -A1LFFLfc WV.:[E MM1 i _ '•'L• may_ CCLIL'a'tl FN3 R,tl.FCr015fNLi11CIL ° _ s • -• •• - _ AA][EA]]T14LLFF5•,A,304&ECr'iCPIXRS[YflRRLVT • •® �'u' f F Q ® _ ® SRLE MUIM PLWrkl1EP.4Li4 aE RFMoMMEFT lei EWn III PI •nuon� _ 'I' aRATEL IFMCET&IME'IiEEIllRfATS•\1E^1G r¢i:16119iM'!Th£ F: r I.+xivn � Iwixal I'a.-a'ry v .navy fr-ra i:y F � f-sxry ,vr.�aa1 6i1<LFK.[C-iA'I�SYOA::R S _ � r.rre=ncR,cEro E=r�rAL'n•.ua,mas.u:ornrres .�.. a'R FE.C£9�AF ENFAFAfRRL R4ESSlBrtiiOACEPeII[F6'' -- T ° C •]L1I YHSXIHLCEIIN,Y:IS.:I�FR eMtaR FExM1Voos Art'+s Z y _ ]° ® ® � ° • °`c °° oc _ p anH SEs of eHnw,:_Rn•rtaaaumn Elaioins Y'Rwmce LM UNIT UNIT2 UNIT3 I UNlyd — UNITf, UNss16 UNIT? s AlmnLvfmEE mlCEASWCEl-!]nlP aWE r. PIARfA]Fa,1L Inuy .� a • • a _ &.C1_4N.9 QTl PlLiiOS] Z �I _ fy '.LI I .[."�. — 1 IimnA�ls irT�iL--sicuc'.-y1iE�wm ERvn_f r�av:.sennvr Y Q a 1 ac.�a rwrua •"iiy M+'xa.<F MAL O_N O _ � a > O x (D N py nvsm -_-_ - _ 1 NLE P¢rfR3l fH ifHzTPEliBPIHIE:JIIl'WRXIEWP[FT:ERW 4 SE WI-EnrM HLF£0.h'M 10 IF ncWAY UPlOi11E 1cP ROT FSIL 1 3WE i:------:----___Ai..-.-_ -10FM.AJ]Edll APaiS'NISRYe'RioQwXw TM 11 �' �•� n',+a...-, poairn I me.. I"a'aaq pm:.,q Ilwrvq Y - r �-� � r ora.irn - n 1] LEC'2Kf�FHfASRtiiOPE IR.�IlA[41LA'.L IFES ILGSi.IFI cy - _____ E r 1.TYlFaFF.CfPAVARR%ALP.-ANAV FACN4FFisPc[fY.A116:1; 1 --yl• q - r.� ^^ r r ..,,� - ..... 1 1 sv� A FRCM'M`M1Wa•AAT c MW%ERA°.-ASAAE TOa_rn PR � Q VaFHAPi_£'�ffW39IUZF1[F TAUO PYLTMI A RYPM __-j�, �-� ym • �E �. .[a �9i r •` Iq -_ R,R. IL M--PI R"E"IXi1 HYlFFQ1iV.VR1G 1 G)AT WF!By!:LHa WI -41:.YIEASE P:N AID CPYR£Fin CFOEl'}x LN.[EP� 121 LCWRRAiiYE. ttikLA 914lRRAIIM GPEiLl'Iit'Y'N II WE �[E'lCl I. 'M, ii3 ,11,E 141FAE H16aN7 SPTFGi1Cf3Yl].F3s'Y✓IE961FJrr11;E PlT1=3EI:H1E56;C1i I � �,��-"• - _>>i� aci•1ir T� --1 T�� �/ - v t-�\�`- I �Fu'u � `.` -jam d:'• r*� z - — '-"� - --- I$ _- r� I I , _= 1 I =__ __= I 1 I _• I 1 1' =r- I I I 1 — .—._ a. VISTA C NO ROAD x=, VISTA CHINO ROAD visTACHINOROAD UI Wdac N'nnirr=d GARart' lAiscar.•J1vs nen_a' Z PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN Fa a nk'Lr°erTeaRl Medean Ca ' Adx h'1 ParY'nsonaa ea Mart iPalu Verde O ! SCALE'[IV' P-0' � Ceram is es i[osal TldflEi Hair CY�s Z OL ALREADY APPROVED BY ARCHITECTURAL & PLANNING COMMI SS[ON PROPOSED 2 STORIES BUILDING WITH 4 UNITS u >- ZZ_ SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER LEGEND TREE LEGEND HARDSCAPE LEGENDa a SYfrt. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SYM. BDTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SY114. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME Bougainyillea'Rosenka' Bougainvillea -IN Buliacapflata Pfndo Palm-5'High 0 Concrete Payer LAKH3HEPEARCArTECT4 unE. ® Descampsia 0e5pit6sa Tuffted Hafr Grass 0 Parkinsunia aculeata iaterican Palo Verde-iQ Gal. Grass HORTICHLTearsT n711512 0 0 8 30110RTA RAY 00r10 AVE 111 E SCAM Erigemn k.'Moerheimfi' Mexican Daisy , Phoenix dactylifera Data Palm-20'High Brick Walkway AS SHOWN ® ® Pool E urment as 501iE 61 oPAvr. Hesperaloaparvilora Red Yucca i g PasnoEHAuueoxx1xs11Hs LavanduIsanguslifnlia English Lavender 01 PepPSZU93. .00 LA2EFvaal1A HIM NOTES: ® FAx lrr ra,zoas *:•� O Miscanlhus sinensis'Adagio' 1.Size of Plant Materials Galleons. LA L,CE III alrl Saivia c. Winnilred Gilman' 2. Irrigation System Will Be Completely Automates. YLL®ELA3N.11E1 ® Senec o ma ndraliscae 3.Storm Water Retaining Will Be Provided As Per Flydrology Study. swaer. L-1 �J