HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/30/2008 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.B. A.
4ppLM SA?
i�
ci u
<,FORN�P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: --Jaiy-9•;2G08- (ovv\ YV L -�o )0\� ?o, onDr PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: AN APPEAL, BY FELIX BARTHELEMY AND RICHARD SAVING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION OF MAY 28, 2008, APPROVING
CASE NO. 3.3216 SFR, AN APPLICATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW OF A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT HILLSIDE SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 844 PANORAMA ROAD.
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: The Planning Department
SUMMARY
The City Council will consider an appeal by Felix Barthelemy and Richard Saving
("appellants") requesting that the Council reverse the Planning Commission's action to
approve Case No. 3.3216 SFR to construct a new 4,000 square foot residence at 844
Panorama Road. A hearing has been noticed on this item.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt RESOLUTION NO. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL BY
FELIX BARTHELEMY AND RICHARD SAVING AND UPHOLDING THE
DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE CASE NO. 3.3216
SFR."
BACKGROUND
On April 7, 2008, the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed project
and voted 4-0-2-1 (King and Sanborn absent; O'Donnell abstained) to recommend
approval to the Planning Commission.
On May 14, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the proposed
project and voted 5-0-1-1 (Conrad absent; Marantz abstained) to continue the project.
Item No. 1 • B •
City Council Staff Report
July 9, 2008-- Page 2
3.3216 SFR Appeal
On May 28, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the proposed
project and voted 6-1 (Conrad opposed) to approve the project-
BACKGROUND-
Michael Marini submitted a request for Architectural Approval of a 4,000 square foot
hillside residence to be located at 844 Panorama Road (APN. 604-211-004). The
parcel is approximately 238 feet wide, 185 feet deep and approximately 46,609 square
feet in size. The site has a varying terrain in the north-south direction and a downward
sloping terrain from west to east. The vacant site contains a scattering of vegetation
and boulders. The subject site is surrounded by single-family residences to the west,
east, north and south.
The building will be located at the northwest corner of the site and consists of two
rectangular structures that are generally oriented in the east west direction. A pool is
proposed to the west of the residence.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The project has been determined to be consistent with the General Plan designation of
Estate Residential. Details of the property development standards for the proposed
project in relation to the requirements of the R-1-A zone are shown in the table below.
R-1-A Hillside Proposed Project (approx.)
Lot Area 20,000 square feet 46,609 square feet
Lot Width 130 feet 238 feet
Lot Depth 120 feet 185 feet
Front Yard 25 feet W 103 feet
Side Yard 10 feet 20 feet (west); 127 feet east
Rear Yard 15 feet 18.5_feet
Building Height max. 18 feet 21.5 feet
Building Coverage max. 35% 8.5%
Dwelling size 1,500 square feet 4,000 sic uare feet
The front, side and rear yard setbacks conform to the requirements of the R-1-A
standards. Additionally, the lot size and depth conform to the R-1-A development
standards. The maximum height of the dwelling is 21.5 feet, measured from the
average grade of the roadway plus 18 inches. Since the property is on a hillside lot, the
maximum building height may reach 30 feet provided that an Administrative Minor
Modification (AMM) to increase the height beyond 18 feet is approved by the Planning
Commission, pursuant to Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the PSZC.
The proposed residence is styled as contemporary architecture consisting of two
integrated buildings, pool, and retaining walls. An enclosed bridge connects the two
main buildings. The proposed structure incorporates a modern influence with simple
lines and flat roof. The exterior of the house and walls consist of smooth trowel plaster
000082
City Council Staff Report
July 9, 2008 -- Page 3
3,3216 SFR Appeal
and CMU block finishes. The color palette consists of desert colors. The landscape
plan proposes water-efficient trees and some shrubbery.
Following the Planning Commission's approval of the new single-family residence on
May 28, 2008, a neighboring property owner filed an appeal letter on June 11, 2008
(letter attached). Staff has reviewed the appellant's letter and identified the following
reasons by which the applicant seeks to overturn the Planning Commission's approval.
Staff's response is provided immediately following.
"We are asking the City Council to use its discretion regarding the placement of the new
house an the lot and require that the proposed house be placed a more reasonable
distance from our home. It is a concern due to the Planning Commission's lack of
requiring story poles to validate that the proposed construction will have minimal impact
on our view. Additionally, there are many more factors that should be considered when
evaluating the impact of the placement of the house on the lot, such as visual and
sound privacy, peace, tranquility and visual aesthetics. There will be a substantial and
disproportionate impact on our quality of life and our property value."
The appellant's property is located directly west and adjacent to the new residence.
The proposed single-family residence will be approximately twenty feet from the west
property line and approximately eighty-one feet from the west property's residence. The
minimum required side yard setback is ten feet.
The maximum height of the dwelling is 21.5 feet, measured from the average grade of
the roadway plus 18 inches. Since the property is on a hillside lot, the maximum
building height may reach 30 feet provided that an Administrative Minor Modification
(AMM) to increase the height beyond 18 feet is approved by the Planning Commission,
pursuant to Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the PSZC. The findings in support of the AMM
may be found on page 5 of the Planning Commission staff report.
The proposed size of 4,000 square feet and height of 21.5 feet are not disproportionate
with other properties in the neighborhood. The neighborhood has a variety of homes
that are not located at the center of their property. Therefore, staff is recommending
that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Case
3.3216 — SFR.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal ' pact. p
-tai A. ing, A C Thomas J. Wil n
Dir of Plannt Services Assistant City Manager, Dev't Svcs
David H. Ready
City Manager
-• 0000��
City Council Staff Report
July 9, 2008 -- Page 4
3.3216 SFR Appeal
Attachments=
1. Draft Resolution
2. Appeal letter received June 11, 2008
3. Letters received from neighbors
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7132
5. Planning Commission meeting minutes dated May 28, 2008 (excerpt)
6. Planning Commission staff report dated May 28, 2008, with exhibits
600084
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL
BY FELIX BARTHELEMY AND RICHARD SAVING AND
UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION TO APPROVE CASE NO. 3.3216 SFR,
ZONE R-1-A, SECTION 3.
WHEREAS, Felix Barthelemy and Richard Saving ("Appellant") have filed an appeal,
pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the Municipal Code, to the Planning Commission's decision
to approve a 4,000 square foot single family residence located on a hillside lot at 844
Panorama Road, Zone R-1-A, Section 3; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2008, the Architectural Advisory Committee met and voted to
recommend approval of the new single family residence to the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2008, a public meeting on the application for architectural
approval was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2008, a public meeting 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 and approved the
proposed 4,000 square foot single family residence; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2008, the appellant filed a request with the City Clerk to
appeal the Planning Commission's action; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2008, a public meeting on the appeal was held by the City
Council in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and has been determined to be
Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (single-family residence) pursuant to
Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not limited to, the
staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
the project Is Categorically Exempt, Class III, per Section 15303(a), new construction of
a single-family residence in a residential zone-
__ 000025
City Council Resolution
Page 2
SECTION 2. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 94.04.00(E) and Section
94.06.01(A)(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, the City Council finds the following:
The required findings for the Administrative Minor Modification (Section 94.06.01(A)(8)
of the Palm Springs Zoning Code) are as follows.
1, The requested minor modification is consistent with the General Plan, applicable
Specific Plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance.
There is no General Plan Policy that would be adversely affected by this
modification nor are their any specific plans associated with this property. The Palm
Springs Zoning Code, Section 94.06.01(A)(8), specifically allows the modification of
building height to a maximum height of thirty feet.
2. The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval
or conditional approval of the minor modification.
There will be no structures built within the setback that will affect neighboring
properties; residences on hillside lots are allowed a maximum height of 30 feet; and
the proposed height of the project is similar to maximum heights seen in the
adjacent properties_ Therefore, it is concluded that there is no adverse effect to the
surrounding properties.
3. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working
on the site or in the vicinity.
All building and renovations will be built to the Uniform Building Code, and Palm
Springs Zoning Code as modified by this Administrative Minor Modification, and
Fire Code.
4. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site
conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of
the property or neighborhood.
The modification is necessary due to the location of the subject property within a
hillside neighborhood. The nature of the Administrative Minor Modification is
specifically addressed in the Palm Springs Zoning Code. The development is in
harmony with the current standards of the neighborhood, and is in keeping with
historical development patterns of the neighborhood.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL:
The Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.04.00(D)(1-9) provides guidelines for the
architectural review of development projects conformance is evaluated, based on
consideration of the following:
City Council Resolution
Page 3
1. Site layout, orientation, location of structures and relationship to one another and to
open spaces and topography. Definition of pedestrian and vehicular areas, i.e.,
sidewalks as distinct from parking areas,-
The proposed building is located on the very northwest portion of the property. The
proposed residence is approximately 81 feet from the west property's dwelling, 210
feet from the north property's dwelling, 150 feet to the east property's dwelling, and
129 feet from the street centerline. This location is not central to the overall size of
the site; however, the neighborhood generally has dwellings that are not centrally
located. The building occupies approximately 8.5%, leaving a large amount of open
spaces.
2. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and in
the context of the immediate neighborhood community, avoiding both excessive
variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted,-
The surrounding properties are developed with single-family residences. The
project creates a visual harmony within the neighborhood, through use of desert
colors and modern contemporary architectural style.
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 maximum height of the proposed project is 21.5 feet measured from the
average grade of the street plus 18 inches. Pursuant to Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of
PSZC, hillside properties have a maximum allowable height of 30 feet but require an
approval of an Administrative Minor Modification maximum height allowed. The
proposed building height would be compatible with the heights found in other hillside
residences and with the existing topography. Retaining walls are used throughout to
allow construction on a boulder-strewn terrain.
4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings,-
AND
5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure,
including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously,
AND
6. Consistency of composition and treatment,
The proposed residence is styled as contemporary architecture consisting of two
integrated buildings, pool, and retaining walls. An enclosed bridge connects the two
main buildings. The proposed structure incorporates a modern influence with
simple lines and flat roof. The exterior of the house and walls consist of smooth
trowel plaster and CMU block finishes.
000007
City Council Resolution
Page 4
7. Location and type of planting, with regard for desert climate conditions.
Preservation of specimen and landmark trees upon a site, with proper irrigation to
insure maintenance of all plant materials;
The vacant site contains a scattering of vegetation and boulders. There are no
specimen trees to preserve. The landscape plan proposes water-efficient trees and
some shrubbery which are located in a manner that conforms to the topography of
the site.
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
approve Case No. 3.3216 — SFR.
ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 2008.
David H. Ready, City Manager
ATTEST:
James Thompson, City Clerk
_- OOQQQB
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
000099
T OF PA LF^i SP9lli -
June 10, 2008
860 W. Panorama Rd.
d i-1 H 5 1 I I U rt I' l Palm Springs, CA 92262
CITY CLErrcK
Mr. James Thompson
City Clerk
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Case No. 3.3216 SPR
Dear Mr. Thompson
We are writing to you to appeal the May 28, 2008 decision of the Planning Commission
regarding Case Number 3,3216 SPR. Our concerns are primarily about the impact of the
placement of the house, not its design or the owners right to develop the property. What
we are asking is for the City Council use its discretion regarding the placement of a house
on a hillside lot and require that the proposed house be placed a more reasonable distance
from our home.
As background the lot for this proposed project is approximately a one acre parcel.
Originally the developer, Mr. Marini, was planning to build two houses on the site. He
applied to split the lot on November 8, 2007. In order to achieve his objective of building
two houses on the lot, he proposed to construct the first house on the extreme northwest
comer of the property adjacent to our home with the minimum required setbacks. On
April 25, 2008 Mr. Marini withdrew his application to subdivide the lot because the lot in
its current configuration cannot be split. However, he did not alter his plan regarding the
placement of the proposed house on the lot.
The lot for this project is over 46,600 square feet with a minimum 30% slope. As you
proceed east on the site the lot height gets lower but maintains the western mountain
views. At the April 7, 2008 Architectural Advisory Committee, Mr. O'Donnell,the
architect for the project, stated that the orientation of the house was to capture the
mountain views. Mr. O'Donnell now denies that he said that and now claims that the
location of the house was chosen because it is the highest point on the lot and they wish
to capture the down valley views. The plans for the house confirm that the primary
orientation of the house is toward the mountain views not down valley. Planning
Commissioner Tracy Conrad stated at the May 281h Planning Commission meeting that
she had walked the lot and stated her belief that little if any down valley would be
captured from the house. The mountain views from the proposed building site are not
unique on the property but are substantially the same from nearly any location on the .
backside of the lot. We are also concerned that the solar panels are not accounted for in
the height calculations of the roof line. Because of the close proximity of the house,the
refection and glare fxom the solar panels may also have an adverse affect on our view and
possibly create additional heat gain to our home.
The Planning Commission approved this project by a 5 to 1 vote without even requiring
story poles to validate the architects claim that the proposed construction will have
minimal impact on our view. However,therc are many more factors than the view that
contribute to our quality of life and the value of our property. We believe that the impact
on visual and sound privacy, peace, tranquility and visual aesthetics should also be
considered when evaluating the impact of the placement of this house on the lot_ The
placement of the proposed house immediately adjacent to our home will have a
substantial and disproportionate impact on our quality o f life and our property value.
We therefore plead with the City Council to use your discretion and require the developer
to place the house in a more sensitive location using the midpoint of the lot or the
proposed "second site" as a guide for the placement of the house on the lot. Given the
size of the lot we believe that the placement of the house with substantial open space
barriers between homes would preserve and guarantee the quality of what we currently
have and also achieve the aesthetic objective that the developer wants to achieve.
Sincerely
Felix Barthelemy and Ric rd Saving
Hand Delivered June 11, 2008
The Planning Commission 440 West Chino Canyon Road
City of Palm Springs Palm Springs, CA 92262
P.O. Box 2743
Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 May 28, 2008
Dear Commissioner,
844 Panorama Road
(Item 213 on the Planning Commission's Agenda for May 28)
Little Tuscany is a unique area of Palm Springs; Panorama Road is its
focal point. Within a few hundred feet of Mr. Marini's proposed home there
are at least a dozen houses whose architectural style and significance draw
visitors to our city from all over the world. These homes were described and
illustrated in a twenty page brochure produced by the neighborhood in 2004,
multiple copies of which are in the files of the Planning Department.
APN 504-211-004 is not just any vacant plot of land; it is the heart of a
legacy which has slowly evolved over seven decades. Under these
circumstances, we ask that Item 2B be tabled and that the Planning
Department arrange for a public meeting during which Mr. Marini's
proposals can be fully presented and the neighborhood given an adequate
opportunity to express their concerns.
Yours si erely
John H. Goodr'
y ,. - 000012
May 22, 2008
Planning Commission
Department of Planning Services
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Case No. 3.3216 SFR
Dear Commission Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident of the Little Tuscany Estates neighborhood. My
concerns are about the proposed project for the vacant lot at 844 Panorama Road and are----
twofold. One relates to how the developer has approached this project and what appears
to be manipulation of the planning process and total disregard for the impact of his
project on our neighborhood. That disregard is demonstrated by the fact that he has a plan
to subdivide the property and build two houses while pretending to be seeking approval
for a single family home on a one acre lot. Our neighborhood is unique because of its
narrow streets, low density and substantial open space between our homes. The proposed
cut and fill construction will substantially increase the noise, dust,traffic and impede
travel for the residents for an extended period of time and will be compounded if two
houses are constructed. He has further shown his disregard for our neighborhood by not
having performed a single environmental, engineering or geotecbnical study of the
impact of his project on the area or been willing to make that information available to the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates. Mr. Marini has clearly shown that he has only one
interest and that is to exploit the lot to generate the maximum profit for him regardless of
the impact it will have. Clearly if that property were being developed by a home owner
they would be making an effort to preserve everything that makes our neighborhood
unique.
The second area of concern that I have is that Mr- Marini is seeking variances to
construct his project and I and most of my neighbors are strongly against any variances
being granted no matter how minor. If Mr. Marini is granted variances to exploit our
neighborhood it will open the door for other developers to use them as precedents for the
next projects to come to our neigbborbood.
Our Neighborhood deserves to know the plan for this project in its entirety and not have
it piecemealed to bide its true magnitude or impact. Therefore I respectfully request that
the Planning commission table this project and require Mr. Marini to submit the entire
project for review with all required engineering and environmental studies so that the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates can fully evaluate its impact on our community.
Respectfully submitted,
Resident of Little Tuscany Estates
. - ooao�a
May 22, 2008
Planning Commission
Department of Planning Services
3200 E. Talrquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Case No. 3.3216 SFR
Dear Commission Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident of the Little Tuscany Estates neighborhood. My
concerns are about the proposed project for the vacant lot at 844 Panorama Road and are
twofold. One relates to how the developer has approached this project and what appears
to be manipulation of the planning process and total disregard for the impact of his
project on our neighborhood. That disregard is demonstrated by the fact that he has a plan
to subdivide the property and build two houses while pretending to be seeking approval
for a single family home on a one acre lot. Our neighborhood is unique because of its
narrow streets, low density and substantial open space between our homes. The proposed
cut and fill construction will substantially increase the noise, dust, traffic and impede
travel for the residents for an extended period of time and will be compounded if two
houses are constructed. He has further shown his disregard for our neighborhood by not
having performed a single environmental, engineering or geotecbrucal study of the
impact of his project on the area or been willing to make that information available to the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates. Mr. Marini has clearly shown that he has only one
interest and that is to exploit the lot to generate the maximum profit for him regardless of
the impact it will have. If that same property were being developed by a home owner
they would be making an effort to preserve everything that makes our neighborhood
unique.
The second area of concern that I have is that Mr. Marini is seeking variances to
construct his project and I and most of my neighbors are strongly against any variances
being granted no matter how minor. If Mr. Marini is granted variances to exploit our
neighborhood it will open the door for other developers to use them as precedents for the
next projects to come to our neighborhood.
Our Neighborhood deserves to know the plan for this project in its entirety and not have
it piecemealed to hide its true magnitude or impact. Therefore I respectfully request that
the Planning commission table this project and require Mr. Marini to submit the entire
project for review with all required engineering and environmental studies so that the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates can fully evaluate its impact on our community.
Respectfully submitted
741--7-
R ident of Little Tuscany Estates
05/2712008 11:59
9496407?67 DoMANSKIS PAGE 01161
Planning Commission May 22,206
Department of Planning Services 1�
3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs,CA 92262
Re; Case No. 3.3216 SkR ;
1
t
bear Commission.Members, I
a
e
I ate writing as a concerned resident directly across from the proposed t�llject at 844
Panorama Road. One relates to how the developer has approached thisject and what
appears to be manipuiation of the planning process and total disregardthe impact of
his project on our neighborhood, i
That disregard is demonstrated by the fact that he has a plan to subdivid the property and
build two houses while pretending to be seeking approval for a single f ' y home on a
one acre lot. Our neighborhood is unique because of the number of histo lic/celebrity
houses as well as modernism residences known throughout the world. T t narrow streets,
low density and substantial open space between our homes amplifies this In addition,the
proposed out and fill construction will substantially increase the noise,dt st,traffic and
impede travel for the residents for an extended period of time and will be compounded if
two houses are constructed This will have a negative impact on property slues in our
neighborhood during construction and after completion if two homes ate wilt there and
out of character for the neighborhood. i
The developer has not provided any geological,environmental,soils repo is to you or the
neighborhood or shown,any architectural drawings. Why is there no form 1
environmental impact report, especially if he is proposing a two house pro ect7
The second area of concern that 1 have is that the developer is seeking one or more
variances to construct his project and I and most of my neighbors are stron ly against any
variances being granted no matter how minor.None of the properties in tb subjacent
area has been granted such a variance and this would set a precedent and sl ould not be
granted. If granted, it will open the door for other developers for the noxt i fill projects
to conic to our neighborhood. ;
I respectfiily request that the Planning commission reject the request to su divide this
lot and approve only a single family home an this lot) I am not against the nstruction of
a single family home for which this lot was intended,following ambiteetu guidelines.
We are vehemently opposed to a subdivision of this•lot and granting of a 'ance that
others do not have and construction of two houses,which would decrease t..property
values in this historic neighborhood and make Mess of an attractive tourist ocalel
t
Ys, �
Edward&Kiesha Domanskis
81.5 West Panorama Road J
palm Springs,California 92662
t
May 22, 2008
Planning Conunission
Department of Planning Services
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Case No. 3.3216 SPR
Dear Commission Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident of the Little Tuscany Estates neighborhood. My
concerns are about the proposed project for the vacant lot at 844 Panorama Road and are
twofold. One relates to how the developer has approached this project and what appears
to be manipulation of the planning process and total disregard for the impact of his
project on our neighborhood. That disregard is demonstrated by the fact that he has a plan
to subdivide the property and build two houses while pretending to be seeking approval
for a single family home on a one acre lot. Our neighborhood is unique because of its
narrow streets, low density and substantial open space between our homes. The proposed
cut and fill construction will substantially increase the noise, dust, traffic and impede
travel for the residents for an extended period of time and will be compounded if two
houses are constructed. He has further shown his disregard for our neighborhood by not
having performed a single environmental, engineering or geoteclnncal study of the
impact of his project on the area or been willing to make that information available to the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates. Mr. Marini has clearly shown that he has only one
interest and that is to exploit the lot to generate the maximum profit for him regardless of
the impact it will have_ Clearly if that property were being developed by a home owner
they would be making an effort to preserve everything that makes our neighborhood
unique.
The second area of concern that I have is that Mr_ Marini is seeking variances to
construct his project and I and most of my neighbors are strongly against any variances
being granted no matter how minor. if Mr. Marini is granted variances to exploit our
neighborhood it will open the door for other developers to use them as precedents for the
next projects to come to our neighborhood.
Our Neighborhood deserves to know the plan for this project in its entirety and not have
it piecemealed to hide its true magnitude or impact. Therefore I respectfully request that
the Planning commission table this project and require Mr. Marini to submit the entire
project for review with all required engineering and environmental studies so that the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates can fully evaluate its impact on our community.
Respectfully submitted,
(14 A4
Resident of Little Tuscany Estates
000016
May 22, 2008
Planning Commission
Department of Planning Services
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Case No. 3.3216 SFR
Dear Commission Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident of the Little Tuscany Estates neighborhood. My
concerns are about the proposed project for the vacant lot at 844 Panorama Road and are
twofold. One relates to how the developer has approached this project and what appears
to be manipulation of the planning process and total disregard for the impact of his
project on our neighborhood. That disregard is demonstrated by the fact that he has a plan
to subdivide the property and build two houses while pretending to be seeking approval
for a single family home on a one acre lot. Our neighborhood is unique because of its
narrow streets, low density and substantial open space between our homes. The proposed
cut and fill construction will substantially increase the noise, dust, traffic and impede
travel for the residents for an extended period of time and will be compounded if two
houses are constructed. He has further shown his disregard for our neighborhood by not
having performed a single environmental, engineering or geotechnical study of the
impact of his project on the area or been willing to make that information available to the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates. Mr. Marini has clearly shown that he has only one
interest and that is to exploit the lot to generate the maximum profit for him regardless of
the impact it will have. Clearly if that property were being developed by a home owner
they would be making an effort to preserve everything that makes our neighborhood
unique.
The second area of concern that I have is that Mr. Marini is seeking variances to
construct his project and I and most of my neighbors are strongly against any variances
being granted no matter how minor. If Mr. Marini is granted variances to exploit our
neighborhood it will open the door for other developers to use them as precedents for the
next projects to come to our neighborhood.
Our Neighborhood deserves to know the plan for this project in its entirety and not have
it piecemealed to hide its true magnitude or impact. Therefore I respectfully request that
the Planning commission table this project and require Mr. Marini to submit the entire
project for review with all required engineering and environmental studies so that the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates can fully evaluate its impact on our community.
Respectfully submitted, I
ld, K. FUTERER & JO ANNE FUTEREB
590 CHINO CANYON RD.
Resident of Little Tuscany Estates
00001
May 22, 2008
Planning Commission
Department of Planning Services
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Case No. 3.3216 SPR
Dear Commission Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident of the Little Tuscany Estates neighborhood. Our
concerns are about the proposed project for the vacant lot at 844 Panorama Road and are
twofold. One relates to how the developer has approached this project and what appears
to be manipulation of the planning process and total disregard for the impact of his
project on our neighborhood. That disregard is demonstrated by the fact that he has a plan
to subdivide the property and build two houses while pretending to be seeking approval
for a single family home on a one acre lot Our neighborhood is unique because of its
narrow streets. low density and substantial open space between our homes. The proposed
cut and fill construction will substantially increase the noise, dust, traffic and impede
travel for the residents for an extended period of time and will be compounded if two
houses are constructed. Ile has further shown his disregard for our neighborhood by not
having performed a single environmental, engineering or geotechnical study of the
impact of his project on the area or been willing to make that information available to the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates. Mr. Marini has clearly shown that he has only one
interest and that is to exploit the lot to generate the maximum profit for him regardless of
the impact it will have. Clearly if that property were being developed by a home owner
they would be making an effort to preserve everything that makes our neighborhood
unique.
The second area of concern that we have is that Mr. Marini is seeking variances to
construct his project and we as well as most of our neighbors are strongly against any
variances being granted no matter how minor. If Mr. Marini is granted variances to
exploit our neighborhood it will open the door for other developers to use them as
precedents for the next projects to come to our neighborhood.
Our Neighborhood deserves to know the plan for this project in its entirety and not have
it piccemealed to hide its true magnitude or impact. Therefore we respectfully request
that the Planning commission table this project and require Mr. Marini to submit the
entire project for review with all required engineering and environmental studies so that
the residents of Little Tuscany(states can fully evaluate its impact on our community.
Respectfully submitted,
Resident of Little Tuscany Estates
May 22,2008
Planning Commission
Department of Planning Services
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Case No. 3.3216 SPR
Dear Commission Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident of the Little Tuscany Estates neighborhood. My
concerns are about the proposed project for the vacant lot at 844 Panorama Road and are
twofold. One relates to how the developer has approached this project and what appears
to be manipulation of the planning process and total disregard for the impact of his
project on our neighborhood. That disregard is demonstrated by the fact that he has a plan
to subdivide the property and build two houses while pretending to be seeking approval
for a single family home on a one acre lot. Our neighborhood is unique because of its
narrow streets, low density and substantial open space between our homes. The proposed
cut and fill construction will substantially increase the noise, dust,traffic and impede
travel for the residents for an extended period of time and will be compounded if two
houses are constructed. He has further shown his disregard for our neighborhood by not
having performed a single environmental, engineering or geotechnical study of the
impact of his project on the area or been willing to make that information available to the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates. Mr. Marini has clearly shown that he has only one
interest and that is to exploit the lot to generate the maximum profit for him regardless of
the impact it will have. Clearly if that property were being developed by a home owner
they would be making an effort to preserve everything that makes our neighborhood
unique.
The second area of concern that I have is that Mr. Marini is seeking variances to
construct his project and 1 and most of my neighbors are strongly against any variances
being granted no matter how minor. If Mr. Marini is granted variances to exploit our
neighborhood it will open the door for other developers to use them as precedents for the
next projects to come to our neighborhood.
Our Neighborhood deserves to know the plan for this project in its entirety and not have
it piecemealed to hide its true magnitude or impact. Therefore I respectfully request that
the Planning commission table this project and require Mr. Marini to submit the entire
project for review with all required engineering and environmental studies so that the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates can fully evaluate its impact on our community.
Respectfully submitte ,
Resident of Little Tuscany Estates • • 000019
May 22, 2008
Planning Commission
Department of Planning Services
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, C.A.92262
Re: Case No. 3.3216 SFR
Dear Cormission Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident of the Little Tuscany Estates neighborhood. My
concerns are about the proposed project for the vacant lot at 844 Panorama Road and are
twofold. One relates to how the developer has approached this project and what appears
to be manipulation of the planting process and total disregard for the impact of his
project on our neighborhood. That disregard is demonstrated by the fact that he has a plan
to subdivide the property and build two houses while pretending to be seeking approval
for a single family home on a one acre lot. Our neighborhood is unique because of its
narrow streets, low density and substantial open space between our homes. The proposed
cut and fill construction will substantially increase the noise, dust, traffic and impede
travel for the residents for an extended period of time and will be compounded if two
houses are constructed. He has further shown his disregard for our neighborhood by not
having performed a single environmental, engineering or geotechnical study of the
impact of his project on the area or been willing to make that information available to the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates. Mr. Marini has clearly shown that he has only one
interest and that is to exploit the lot to generate the maximum profit for him regardless of
the impaci it will have. Clearly if that property were being developed by a home owner
they would be making an effort to preserve everything that makes our neighborhood
unique.
The second area of concern that I have is that Nir. Marini is seeking variances to
construct his project and i and most of my neighbors aree strongly against any variances
being granted no matter how minor. If Mr. Marini is granted variances to exploit our
neighborhood it will open the door for other developers to use them as precedents for the
next projects to come to our neighborhood.
Our Neighborhood deserves to know the plan for this project in its entirety and not have
it piecemealed to lode its true magnitude or impact. Therefore I respectfully request that
the Planning commission table this project and require Mr. Marini to submit the entire
project for review with all required engineering and environmental studies so that the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates can hilly evaluate its impact on our community_
Respectfully submitted,
Robe S. Bryan �—�
Resident of Little Tuscany Estates
1060 West Cielo Drive (]
Palm Springs, Ca. 92262
May 22, 2008
Planning Commission
Department of Planning Services
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Case No. 3.3216 SFR
Dear Commission Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident of the Little Tuscany Estates neighborhood. My
concerns are about the proposed project for the vacant lot at 844 Panorama Road and are
twofold. One relates to how the developer has approached this project and what appears
to be manipulation of the planning process and total disregard for the impact of his
project on our neighborhood. That disregard is demonstrated by the fact that he has a plan
to subdivide the property and build two houses while pretending to be seeking approval
for a single family home on a one acre lot. Our neighborhood is unique because of its
narrow streets, low density and substantial open space between our homes. The proposed
Cut and fill construction will substantially increase the noise, dust, traffic and impede
travel for the residents for an extended period of time and will be compounded if two
houses are constructed. IIe has further shown his disregard for our neighborhood by not
having performed a single environmental, engineering or geotechnical study of the
impact of his project on the area or been willing to make that information available to the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates. Mr. Marini has clearly shown that he has only one
interest and that is to exploit the lot to generate the maximum profit for him regardless of
the impact it will have. Clearly if that property were being developed by a home owner
they would be making an effort to preserve everything that makes our neighborhood
unique.
The second area of concern that I have is that Mr. Marini is seeking variances to
construct his project and I and most of my neighbors are strongly against any variances
being granted no matter bow minor. If Mr. Marini is granted variances to exploit our
neighborhood it will open the door Car other developers to use them as precedents for the
next projects to come to our neighborhood.
Our Neighborhood deserves to know the plan for this project in its entirety and not have
it piecemealed to hide its true magnitude or impact. Therefore I respectfully request that
the Planning comnhission table this project and require Mr. Marini to submit the entire
project for review with all required engineering and environmental studies so that the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates can fully evaluate its impact on our community.
Respectfully submitted,
� �
Jeff ey B. Angell
Resident of Little Tuscany Estates
1060 West Cielo Drive
Palm Springs, Ca_ 92262 000021
May 22, 2008
Planning Commission
Department of Planning Services
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Case No. 3.3216 SPR
Dear Commission Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident of the Little Tuscany Estates neighborhood. My
concerns are about the proposed project for the vacant lot at 844 Panorama Road and are
twofold. One relates to how the developer has approached this project and what appears
to be manipulation of the planning process and total disregard for the impact of his
project on our neighborhood. That disregard is demonstrated by the fact that he has a plan
to subdivide the properly and build two houses while pretending to be seeking approval
for a single family home on a one acre lot. Our neighborhood is unique because of its
narrow streets, low density and substantial open space between our homes. The proposed
cut and fill construction will substantially increase the noise, dust,traffic and impede
travel for the residents for an extended period of time and will be compounded if two
houses are constructed. He has Further shown his disregard for our neighborhood by not
having performed a single environmental, engineering or geotechnical study of the
impact of his project on the area or been willing to make that information available to the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates. Mr. Marini has clearly shown that he has only one
interest and that is to exploit the lot to generate the maximum profit for him regardless of
the impact it will have. Clearly if that property were being developed by a home owner
they would be making an effort to preserve everything that makes our neighborhood
unique.
The second area of concern that I have is that Mr. Marini is seeking variances to
construct his project and I and most of my neighbors are strongly against any variances
being granted no matter how minor. If Mr. Marini is granted variances to exploit our
neighborhood it will open the door for other developers to use them as precedents for the
next projects to come to our neighborhood.
Our Neighborhood deserves to know the plan for this project in its entirety and not have
it piecemealed to hide its true magnitude or impact_ Tberefore I respectfully request that
the Planning commission table this project and require Mr. Marini to submit the entire
project for review with all required engineering and environmental studies so that the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates can fully evaluate its impact on our community.
Respec 11y submitted,
Resident of L' e scany Estates C�
000022
May 22, 2008
Planning Commission
Department of Planning Services
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Case No. 3.3216 SPR
Dear Commission Members,
1 am writing as a concerned resident of the Little Tuscany Estates neighborhood. Our
concerns are about the proposed project for the vacant lot at 844 Panorama Road and are
twofold- One relates to how the developer has approached this project and what appears
to be manipulation of the planning process and total disregard for the impact of his
project on our neighborhood. That disregard is demonstrated by the fact that lie has a plan
to subdivide the property and build two houses while pretending to be seeking approval
for a single family home on a one acre lot. Our neighborhood is unique because of its
narrow streets, low density and substantial open space between our homes- The proposed
cut and fill construction will substantially increase the noise, dust, traffic and impede
travel for the residents for an extended period ortime and will be compounded if two
houses are constructed. He has further shown his disregard for our neighborhood by not
having performed a single environmental, engineering or geotechnical study of the
impact of his project on the area or been willing to make that information available to the
residents of Little Tuscany Estates. Mr. Marini has clearly shown that he has only one
interest and that is to exploit the lot to generate the maximum profit for him regardless of
the impact it will have- Clearly if that property were being developed by a home owner
they would be making an effort to preserve everything that makes our neighborhood
unique.
The second area of concern that we have is that Mr. Marini is seeking variances to
construct his project and we as well as most of our neighbors are strongly against any
variances being granted no matter how minor. if Mr. Marini is granted variances to
exploit our neighborhood it will open the door for other developers to use them as
precedents for the next projects to come to our neighborhood.
Our Neighborhood deserves to know the plan for this project in its entirety and not have
it piecemealed to hide its true magnitude or impact. Therefore we respectfully request
that the Planning commission table this project and require Mr. Marini to submit the
entire project for review with all required engineering and environmental studies so that
the residents of Little Tuscany Estates can fully evaluate its impact on our community-
Respectfully submitted,
�7
Resident of Little Tuscany Estates
000023
RESOLUTION NO. 7132
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING CASE NO. 3.3216 — SFR TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 844 PANORAMA
ROAD, ZONE R-1-A, SECTION 3.
WHEREAS, Michael Marini ("Applicant") has filed an application with the City pursuant
to Section 94.04.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a 4,000-square foot single-family
dwelling unit located at 844 Panorama Road, Zone R-1-A, Section 3; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2008, the Architectural Advisory Committee met and voted to
recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2008, a public meeting on the application for architectural
approval was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2008, a public meeting on the application for architectural
approval was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and has been determined to be
Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (single-family residence) pursuant to
Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the
evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not
limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines,
the proposed project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303(a) (New Single-
family residence).
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 94,04.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, the
Planning Commission finds:
1. Site layout, orientation, location of structures and relationship to one another and
to open spaces and topography. Definition of pedestrian and vehicular areas,
i.e., sidewalks as distinct from parking areas,
The proposed building is located on the very northwest portion of the property.
000024
Planning Commission Resolution May 28, 2008
Case 3.3216—SFR Page 2 of 4
The proposed residence is approximately 81 feet from the west property's
dwelling, 210 feet from the north property's dwelling, 160 feet to the east
property's dwelling, and 129 feet from the street centerline. This location is not
central to the overall size of the site; however, the neighborhood generally has
dwellings that are not centrally located. The building occupies approximately
8.5%, leaving a large amount of open spaces.
2. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and
in the context of the immediate neighborhood community, avoiding both
excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if
warranted;
The surrounding properties are developed with single-family residences. The
project creates a visual harmony within the neighborhood, through use of desert
colors and modern contemporary architectural style.
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 maximum height of the proposed project is 21.5 feet measured from the
average grade of the street plus 18 inches. Pursuant to Section 94.06.01(A)(8)
of PSZC, hillside properties have a maximum allowable height of 30 feet but
require an approval of an Administrative Minor Modification maximum height
allowed. The proposed building height would be compatible with the heights
found in other hillside residences and with the existing topography. Retaining
walls are used throughout to allow construction on a boulder-strewn terrain.
4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings;
AND
5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure,
including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously,
AND
6. Consistency of composition and treatment,
The proposed residence is styled as contemporary architecture consisting of two
integrated buildings, pool, and retaining walls. An enclosed bridge connects the
two main buildings. The proposed structure incorporates a modern influence
with simple lines and flat roof. The exterior of the house and walls consist of
smooth trowel plaster and CMU block finishes.
T. Location and type of planting, with regard for desert climate conditions.
000025
Planning Commission Resolution May 28, 2008
Case 3.3216—SFR Page 3 of 4
Preservation of specimen and landmark trees upon a site, with proper irrigation
to insure maintenance of all plant materials;
The vacant site contains a scattering of vegetation and boulders. There are no
specimen trees to preserve_ The landscape plan proposes water-efficient trees
and some shrubbery which are located in a manner that conforms to the
topography of the site.
Section 3: Pursuant to Section 94.06.01 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, the
Planning Commission finds:
1. The requested minor modification is consistent with the general plan, applicable
specific plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance,
There is no General Plan Policy that would be adversely affected by this
modification nor are their any specific plans associated with this property. The
Palm Springs Zoning Code, Section 94.06.01(A)(8), specifically allows the
modification of building height to a maximum height of thirty feet.
2. The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the
approval or conditional approval of the minor modification;
There will be no structures built within the setback that will affect neighboring
properties; residences on hillside lots are allowed a maximum height of 30 feet;
and the proposed height of the project is similar to maximum heights seen in the
adjacent properties. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no adverse effect to
the surrounding properties.
3_ The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or
working on the site or in the vicinity;
All building and renovations will be built to the Uniform Building Code, and Palm
Springs Zoning Code as modified by this Administrative Minor Modification, and
Fire Code,
4. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site
conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of
the property or neighborhood.
The modification is necessary due to the location of the subject property within a
hillside neighborhood. The nature of the Administrative Minor Modification is
specifically addressed in the Palm Springs Zoning Code. The development is in
000026
Planning Commission Resolution May 28, 2008
Case 3,3216—SFR Page 4 of 4
harmony with the current standards of the neighborhood, and is in keeping with
historical development patterns of the neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning
Commission hereby approves Case No. 3.3216 -- SFR, subject to the conditions of
approval attached herein as Exhibit A.
ADOPTED this 28"' day of May, 2008.
AYES: 6, Scott, Caffery, Marantz, Hochanadel, Cohen and Ringlein
NOES: 1, Conrad
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None,
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
a Ewing, P
D' actor of Pla in Services
000027
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. 3.3216 SFR -
844 PANORAMA ROAD y,
^: N-,it Oli '•` ---- UY ��MAY 28, 2008 an_-u}i ciI?' TO
D;1, n'HONS K ,ABNE E:o'„-,
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning Services, the Chief of Police,
the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the
condition.
Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
ADMINISTRATIVE
1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations
of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes,
ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations.
2. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul,
an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or
administrative officers concerning Case No. 3.3216 — SFR of Palm Springs will
promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay
the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter
by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of
any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless
the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to
settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the
City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or
abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause
a waiver of the indemnification rights herein.
3. That the property owner(s) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain
and repair the improvements including and without limitation sidewalks, bikeways,
parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, signs, walls, and fences between the
t 1 000028
curb and property line, including sidewalk or bikeway easement areas that extend
onto private property, in a first class condition, free from waste and debris, and in
Accordance with -all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all federal,
state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner's sole
expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the
property if required by the City.
4. Pursuant to Park Fee Ordinance No. 1632 and in accordance with Government
Code Section 66477 (Quimby Act), all residential development shall be required to
contribute to mitigate park and recreation impacts such that, prior to issuance of
residential building permits, a parkland fee or dedication shall be made. Accordingly,
all residential development shall be subject to parkland dedication requirements
and/or park improvement fees. The parkland mitigation amount shall be based upon
the cost to acquire and fully improve parkland.
5. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 a filing fee of $64.00 is required.
This project has a de minimus impact on fish and wildlife, and a Certificate of Fee
Exemption shall be completed by the City and two copies filed with the County Clerk.
This application shall not be final until such fee is paid and the Certificate of Fee
Exemption is filed. Fee shall in the form of a money order or cashier's check
payable to Riverside County_
Cultural Resources
6. Prior to any ground disturbing activity, including clearing and grubbing, installation of
utilities, and/or any construction related excavation, an Archaeologist qualified
according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines, shall be
employed to survey the area for the presence of cultural resources identifiable on
the ground surface.
7. A Native American Monitor shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities.
a. Experience has shown that there is always a possibility of buried cultural
resources in a project area. Given that, a Native American Mcnitor(s) shall be
present during all ground disturbing activities including clearing and grubbing,
excavation, burial of utilities, planting of rooted plants, etc. Contact the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Cultural Office for additional information on
the use and availability of Cultural Resource Monitors. Should buried cultural
deposits be encountered, the Monitor shall contact the Director of Planning
Services and after the consultation the Director shall have the authority to halt
destructive construction and shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist to
investigate and, if necessary, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a
treatment plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and
Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Coordinator for approval.
b. Two copies of any cultural resource documentation generated in connection
2
with this project, including reports of investigations, record search results and
site records/updates shall be forwarded to the Tribal Planning, Building, and
Engineering Department and one copy_ to the City Planning and Zoning
Department prior to final inspection.
FINAL DESIGN
8. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted
for approval by the Department of Planning Services prior to issuance of a building
permit. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner's Office prior to submittal.
GENERAL CONDITIONS/CODE REQUIREMENTS
9. Commencement of use or construction under this Architectural Approval shall be
within two (2) years from the effective date of approval_ Extensions of time may be
granted by the Planning Commission upon demonstration of good cause.
10.The appeal period for a Major Architectural Application is 15 calendar days from the
date of project approval. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period has
concluded.
11.The project is subject to the City of Palm Springs Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance. The applicant shall submit an application for Final Landscape Document
Package to the Director of Planning and Zoning for review and approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Refer to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code for
specific requirements.
12.Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan shall
be submitted and approved by the Building Official. Refer to Chapter 8.50 of the
Municipal Code for specific requirements.
13.The grading plan shall show the disposition of all cut and fill materials. Limits of site
disturbance shall be shown and all disturbed areas shall be fully restored or
landscaped.
14.All materials on the flat portions of the roof shall be earth tone in color.
15.No exterior downspouts shall be permitted on any facade on the proposed
building(s) which are visible from adjacent streets or residential and commercial
areas.
16.The design, height, texture and color of building(s), fences and walls shall be
submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
17.The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height.
3 �QQQ
18.Submit plans meeting City standard for approval on the proposed trash and
recyclable materials enclosure prior to issuance of a building permit.
19.Details of pool fencing (material and color) and equipment area shall be submitted
with final landscape plan.
20_No sirens, outside paging or any type of signalization will be permitted, except
approved alarm systems.
21.No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of
the proposed plan.
22.Prior to the issuance of building permits, locations of all telephone and electrical
boxes must be indicated on the building plans and must be completely screened and
located in the interior of the building. Electrical transformers must be located toward
the interior of the project maintaining a sufficient distance from the frontage(s) of the
project. Said transformer(s) must be adequately and decoratively screened.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
STREETS
1. Engineering Division recommends deferral of off-site improvement items at this time
due to lack of full improvements in the immediate area. The owner shall execute a
street improvement covenant agreeing to construct all required street improvements
upon the request of the City of Palm Springs City Engineer at such time as deemed
necessary_ The covenant shall be submitted with the Grading Plan, and shall be
executed prior to approval of the Grading Plan or issuance of grading or building
permits. A covenant preparation fee in effect at the time that the covenant is
submitted shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of any grading or building
permits.
2. Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs
Encroachment Permit.
3. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a registered California civil engineer
to the Engineering Division_ The plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior
to issuance of any building permits. Deferred
PANORAMA ROAD
4. Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, 18 feet north of centerline along the entire
frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200.
Deferred
4 000031
5. Construct a 6 inch concrete driveway, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer, from the property line to the existing edge of pavement.
6. Construct a driveway approach in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard
Drawing No. 201. Deferred
7. Construct a 5 feet wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in
accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. Deferred
8. Construct pavement with a minimum pavement section of 2% inches asphalt
concrete pavement over 4 inches crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum
subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal, from edge of proposed
gutter to clean sawcut edge of pavement along the entire frontage in accordance
with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110. Deferred
9. All broken or off grade street improvements shall be repaired or replaced.
SANITARY SEWER
10. Construct private sanitary sewer system in accordance with City of Palm Springs
Ordinance No. 1084. The sewer connection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of
the current building permit (for future connection). The record property owner shall
enter into a covenant agreeing to extend the private sewer lines the necessary
distance to connect to the public sewer system within one year of official notice that
an operating public sewer has been completed within 600 feet of the lot. The
covenant shall be executed and notarized by the property owner and submitted to
the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. A current title report or a
copy of a current tax bill and a copy of a vesting grant deed shall be provided to
verify current property ownership. A covenant preparation fee in effect at the time
that the covenant is submitted shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of any
grading or building permits.
GRADING
11. Submit cut and fill quantities to City Engineer to determine if a Grading Plan is
required. If required, the Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Engineering
Division for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading
permit. If the earthwork quantity is less than 50 cubic yards, a formal grading plan is
not required. To qualify for the exemption, a signed original written statement of
design earthwork quantities from the owner (or design professional, prepared on
company letterhead) shall be provided to the Engineering Division. Exemption of a
formal Grading Plan reviewed and approved by the City Engineer does not exempt
the applicant from a site grading plan that may be required from the Building
5
000622
Department, or any other requirement that may be necessary to satisfy the Uniform
Building Code.
a- A Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and/or its
grading contractor and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and
approval- The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall be required to
comply with Chapter 8-50 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, and shall
be required to utilize one or more "Coachella Valley Best Available Control
Measures" as identified in the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook
for each fugitive dust source such that the applicable performance standards
are met- The applicant's or its contractors Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be
prepared by staff that has completed the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (AQMD) Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Class. The applicant
and/or its grading contractor shall provide the Engineering Division with current
and valid Certificate(s) of Completion from AQMD for staff that has completed
the required training. For information on attending a Fugitive Dust Control
Class and information on the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook
and related "PM10" Dust Control issues, please contact AQMD at (909) 396-
3752, or at www.AQMD.gov- A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, in conformance with
the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Grading plan-
b- The first submittal of the Grading Plan shall include the following information: a
copy of final approved conformed copy of Conditions of Approval; a copy of a
final approved conformed copy of the Site Plan; a copy of current Title Report;
a copy of Soils Report, and a copy of the associated Hydrology Study/Report.
12. In accordance with an approved PM-10 Dust Control Plan, perimeter fencing shall
be installed. Fencing shall have screening that is tan in color; green screening will
not be allowed- Perimeter fencing shall be installed after issuance of Grading
Permit, and immediately prior to commencement of grading operations.
13. Perimeter fence screening shall be appropriately maintained, as required by the
City Engineer. Cuts (vents) made into the perimeter fence screening shall not be
allowed. Perimeter fencing shall be adequately anchored into the ground to resist
wind loading-
14. Within 10 days of ceasing all construction activity and when construction activities
are not scheduled to occur for at least 30 days, the disturbed areas on-site shall be
permanently stabilized, in accordance with Palm Springs Municipal Code Section
8.50.022. Following stabilization of all disturbed areas, perimeter fencing shall be
removed, as required by the City Engineer-
15. Contact Whitewater Mutual Water Company to determine impacts to any existing
water lines and other facilities that may be located within the property if any. Make
6
ooaa��
appropriate arrangements to protect in place or relocate any existing Whitewater
Mutual Water Company facilities that`are impacted by the development. A letter of
approval for relocated or adjusted facilities from Whitewater Mutual Water Company
shall be submitted to the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Grading Plan.
16. Prior to approval of a Grading Plan, the applicant shall obtain written approval to
proceed with construction from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahullla Indians, Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist. The applicant shall contact the
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Richard Begay, or the Tribal Archaeologist,
Patty Tuck at (760) 325-3400, to determine their requirements, if any, associated
with grading or other construction. The applicant is advised to contact the Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist as early as possible. If
required, it is the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate scheduling of Tribal
monitors during grading or other construction, and to arrange payment of any
required fees associated with Tribal monitoring_
17, A Geotechnical/Soils Report prepared by a California registered Geotechnical
Engineer shall be required for and incorporated as an integral part of the grading
plan for the proposed development. A copy of the Geotechnical/Soils Report shall
be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of a grading plan_
18. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the
California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project,
applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the export of
soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food
and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved "Notification of Intent To
Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los
Angeles Counties" (RIFA Form CA-1) prior to approval of the Grading Plan (if
required). The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-
710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert (Phone: 760-776-8208).
DRAINAGE
19. All stormwater runoff passing through the site shall be accepted and conveyed
across the property in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. For all stormwater
runoff falling on the site, on-site retention or other facilities approved by the City
Engineer shall be required to contain the increased stormwater runoff generated by
the development of the property. Provide a hydrology study to determine the
volume of increased stormwater runoff due to development of the site, and to
determine required stormwater runoff mitigation measures for the proposed
development. Final retention basin sizing and other stormwater runoff mitigation
measures shall be determined upon review and approval of the hydrology study by
the City Engineer and may require redesign or changes to site configuration or
layout consistent with the findings of the final hydrology study.
7
000024
20. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees. The
'acreage drainage fee at the present time is $ 6511.00 per acre per ROfsolution No.
15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.
GENERAL
21. Any utility trenches or other excavations within existing asphalt concrete pavement
of off-site streets required by the proposed development shall be backfilled and
repaired in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. The
developer shall be responsible for removing, grinding, paving and/or overlaying
existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets as required by and at the
discretion of the City Engineer, including additional pavement repairs to pavement
repairs made by utility companies for utilities installed for the benefit of the
proposed development (i.e. Desert Water Agency, Southern California Edison,
Southern California Gas Company, Time Warner, Venzon, etc.). Multiple
excavations, trenches, and other street cuts within existing asphalt concrete
pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development may require
complete grinding and asphalt concrete overlay of the affected off-site streets, at
the discretion of the City Engineer. The pavement condition of the existing off-site
streets shall be returned to a condition equal to or better than existed prior to
construction of the proposed development.
22. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground.
23. All existing utilities shall be shown on the improvement plans required for the
project. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main
line to the property line.
24. Upon approval of any improvement plan by the City Engineer, the improvement
plan shall be provided to the City in digital format, consisting of a DWG (AutoCAD
2004 drawing file), DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange file), and PDF (Adobe
Acrobat 6.0 or greater) formats. Variation of the type and format of the digital data
to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon prior approval of the City
Engineer.
25. The original improvement plans prepared for the proposed development and
approved by the City Engineer (if required) shall be documented with record
drawing "as-built" information and returned to the Engineering Division prior to
issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Any modifications or changes to
approved improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval
prior to construction.
26. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any driveway
which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight
distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.02.00, D.
9 000025
27. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public
sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed in
accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 904.
TRAFFIC
28. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided during all phases of
construction as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a
minimum, all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance
with Part 6 "Temporary Traffic Control' of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for Streets and Highways, dated September 26, 2006, or
subsequent editions in force at the time of construction.
29. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee which shall be
paid prior to issuance of building permit.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. Fire Department Access: Fire Department Access Roads shall be provided and
maintained in accordance with (Sections 503 CFC)
• Minimum Access Road Dimensions:
Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20
feet, a greater width for private streets may be required by the City engineer to
address traffic engineering, parking, and other issues. The Palm Springs Fire
Department requirements for two-way private streets, is a minimum width of 24
feet is required for this project, unless otherwise allowed by the City engineer. No
parking shall be allowed in either side of the roadway.
2. Fire Personnel Access Requirements: Provide fire personnel 3 ft. access gates
and minimum 3 ft, clearance around entire house.
3. Buildings and Facilities (CFC 503.1.1): Approved fire apparatus access roads
shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter
constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road
shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet
(45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the
first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of
the building or facility.
"*NOTE: The building location on this property extends beyond the 150'
requirement of this code section. Applicant must mitigate this issue. One
option is to engineer the driveway to support the imposed loads of fire
9 1 000086
apparatus (73,000 lbs. GVW) and shall be surfaced to provide all-weather
driving capabilities.;" -
4. Surface (CFC 503.2.3): Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and
maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (73,000 lbs. GVW) and
shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
5. Premises Identification (CFC 505.1): New and existing buildings shall have
approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification
placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting
the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers
shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4" high
with a minimum stroke width of 0.5
6. Fire Hydrant Flow and Number of Fire Hydrants (CFC 508.5): Fire hydrants shall
be provided in accordance with CFC Appendix III-B for the protection of buildings, or
portions of buildings, hereafter construcled. The required fire hydrant flow for this
project is 1,750 gallons per minute (CFC Appendix III-A) and one fire hydrant is
required.
7. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all new detached
one and two-family dwellings where more than1,500 gallons per minute fire flow is
required.
8. Operational Fire Hydrant(s) (CFC 508.1, 508.5.1 & 1412.1): Operational fire
hydrant(s) shall be installed within 250 feet of all combustible construction. They
shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during construction. No
landscape planting, walls, or fencing is permitted within 3 feet of fire hydrants,
except ground cover plantings.
9. Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic fire sprinkler system is required. Only a C-
16 licensed fire sprinkler contractor shall perform system design and installation.
System to be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA standard 13D, 2002
Edition, as modified by local ordinance. The contractor should submit fire sprinkler
plans as soon as possible. No portion of the fire sprinkler system may be installed
prior to plan approval.
10.Residential Smoke Alarms Installation With Fire Sprinklers (CFC 907.2.10.1.2,
907.2.10.2 & 907.2.10.3): Provide Residential Smoke Alarms (FIREX # 0498
accessory module connected to multi-station FIREX smoke alarms or equal per
dwelling and fire sprinkler flow switch). Alarms shall receive their primary power
from the building wiring, and shall be equipped with a battery backup. In new
construction, alarms shall be interconnected so that operation of any smoke alarm
causes all smoke alarms within the dwelling to sound.
10 000037
11.Audible Residential Water Flow Alarms (CFC 903.4.2): An approved audible
sprinkler flow alarm (Wheelock horn/strobe # MT4-115-WH-VFR with WBB back box
or equal) shall be provided on the exterior of the building in an approved location.
The horn/strobe shall be outdoor rated.
12,Residential Smoke Alarms (CFC 907.2.10): Provide residential single and multiple-
station smoke alarms which shall receive their primary power from the building
wiring, and shall be equipped with a battery backup. In new construction, alarms
shall be interconnected.
13.Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area: This building site is located in a geographical
area identified by the state as a "Fire Hazard Severity Zone" in accordance with the
Public Resources Code Sections 4201 through 4204 and Government Code
Sections 51175 through 51189, or other areas designated by the enforcing agency
to be at a significant risk from wildfires.
14.Construction Methods & Requirements Within Established Limits (CFC 4705.2)
Construction methods intended to mitigate wildfire exposure shall comply with the
California Building Code Chapter 7A, and this chapter_
15.Establishment Of Limits (CFC 4705.3) The establishment of limits for the Wildland-
Urban Interface Fire Area's required construction methods shall be designated
pursuant to the California Public Resources Code for State Responsibility areas or
by a local agency following a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record
that the requirements of this section are necessary for effective fire protection within
the area. This wildland-urban interface area has been designated as a "Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone".
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal
Code_
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured.
END OF CONDITIONS
II QQQO��
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Minutes
of May 28, 2008
CONSENT CALENDAR:
M/S/C (Caffery/Cohen, 7-0) To approve Items 2A, 2C and 217, as a part of the Consent
Calendar.
2A. Draft minutes of May 7, 2008 and May 14, 2008.
Approved, as part of the Consent Calendar,
2B. Case 3.3216 SPR An application by Michael Marini to construct a 4,000
square foot single-family residence on a hillside lot located at 844 Panorama
Road, Zone R-1-A, Section 3, APN: 504-211-004. (Project Planner: David A.
Newell, Associate Planner)
Chair Marantz stated that at the previous meeting she abstained on this
project; however, upon further review she does not have a conflict of interest.
David A. Newell, Associate Planner, provided background information as outlined in the
staff report dated May 28, 2008, Mr_ Newell noted the applicant will be required to
provide a hydrology study to determine the volume of increase stormwater runoff due to
the development of the site.
Lance O'Donnell, architect for the project, provided additional information pertaining to
the natural arroyo, height, setbacks, pad location, rooftop panels and sustainable
development for the project. Mr. O'Donnell addressed questions from the Commission-
-Michael Marini, applicant, provided further details on his intent for the project.
-Felix Barthelemy, Palm Springs, voiced concern with the possibility of a lot split and the
lack of engineering and environmental studies conducted for the project.
-J.R. Roberts, Palm Springs, voiced concern with the project not fitting with the
neighborhood and possible flood issues on the site.
-Dr. Livia Kovats, Palm Springs, voiced concern with more traffic and pollution from new
construction in the neighborhood-
-Mark Puopolo, Palm Springs, voiced concern with the possible glare from the roof
panels and the impact to his view.
Further discussion occurred on a lot split the hydrology study and proper noticing to the
adjacent property owners.
Commissioner Ringlein noted that all requirements are met and spoke in favor of the
project. Commissioner Scott concurred.
M/S/C (Scott/Caffery, 6-1/Conrad) To approve, subject to Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Ewing reported this action may be appealed with the City Clerk's office.
0000219
2
'V
i
OF ?ALAJ Sp
C
V n
t w
" y`41a'.1cv"' * Plannin
'14 FOY, Commission Staff Report
CN,�
Date: May 28, 2008
Case No.: 3.3216 — SFR
Type: Single-Family Residence (Hillside)
Location: 844 Panorama Road
APN: 504-211-004
Applicant: Michael Marini
General Plan: Estate Residential
Zone: R-1-A (Single Family Residential)
From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
Project Planner: David A. Newell, Associate Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposal is a request by Michael Marini, for architectural approval to construct a
4,000-square foot single-family residence on an approximately 46,609-square foot
vacant hillside lot For the property located at 844 Panorama Road. (This staff report
replaces the previous staff report dated May 14, 2008.)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission approve Case No. 3.3216, a single-family residence on
a hillside lot for the property located at 844 Panorama Road,
PRIOR ACTIONS:
On April 7, 2008 the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the project and voted
4-0 (King and Sanborn absent) to recommend approval to the Planning Commission.
000m
1 ,
Planning Commission Staff Report May 28, 2008
Case No. 3,3216-SFR Page 2 of 8
BACKGROUND AND SETTING:
On May 14, 2008, the Planning Commission continued the project and directed staff to
provide information regarding the following:
• How much grading (cut and fill) is proposed as part of this project?
The applicant performed an on-site earthwork estimate and determined that there
will be approximately 750 cubic yards of cut and approximately 350 cubic yards of
fill. While a detailed grading plan has not been prepared, Engineering conditions
11 through 18 are recommended to provide project conformance with applicable
codes.
• How will drainage be affected by the project?
To ensure that the proposed project does not have a detrimental effect on existing
drainage paths and neighboring sites, the applicant must follow Engineering
Condition of Approval No. 19, which states...
All stormwater runoff passing through the site shall be accepted and
conveyed across the property in a manner acceptable to the City
Engineer. For all stormwater runoff falling on the site, on-site retention
or other facilities approved by the City Engineer shall be required to
contain the increased stormwater runoff generated by the development
of the property. Provide a hydrology study to determine the volume of
increased stormwater runoff due to development of the site, and to
determine required stormwater runoff mitigation measures for the
proposed development. Final retention basin sizing and other
stormwater runoff mitigation measures shall be determined upon review
and approval of the hydrology study by the City Engineer and may
require redesign or changes to site configuration or layout consistent
with the findings of the final hydrology study.
• Construction fencing
In order to regulate construction fencing color and duration, Engineering conditions
12-14 are recommended...
12.In accordance with an approved PM-10 Dust Control Plan, perimeter fencing
shall be installed. Fencing shall have screening that is tan in color,- green
screening will not be allowed. Perimeter fencing shall be installed after
issuance of Grading Permit, and immediately prior to commencement of
grading operations.
13.Perimeter fence screening shall be appropriately maintained, as required by the
City Engineer. Cuts (vents) made into the perimeter fence screening shall not
be allowed. Perimeter fencing shall be adequately anchored into the ground to
resist wind loading.
000041
- —I
Planning Commission Staff Report May 28, 2008
Case No. 3.3216—SFR Page 3 of 8
14.Within 10 days of ceasing all construction activity and when construction
activities are not scheduled to occur for at least 30 days, the disturbed areas
on-site shall be permanently stabilized, in accordance with Palm Springs
Municipal Code Section 8.50.022. Following stabilization of all disturbed areas,
perimeter fencing shall be removed, as required by the City Engineer.
• Building location and potential subdivision
The proposed building is located on the very northwest portion of the property.
The proposed residence is approximately 81 feet from the west property's dwelling,
210 feet from the north property's dwelling, 150 feet to the east property's dwelling,
and 129 feet from the street centerline. This location is not central to the overall
size of the site; however, the proposal is consistent with the development
standards that are required by the Palm Springs Zoning Code- Because of the
location of the building on the property, there is a possibility that the applicant
could apply for a lot split in the future. Also, an application for a two lot subdivision
for the site was submitted by the applicant, but was withdrawn.
" The proposed residence is to be located on the northwest corner of the site. The parcel
is approximately 238 feet wide and 185 feet deep- The site has a varying terrain in the
north-south direction and a downward sloping terrain from west to east- The vacant site
contains a scattering of vegetation and boulders. There are no specimen trees to
preserve- The subject site is surrounded by single-family residences to the west, east,
north and south. Access to the proposed residence will be provided from Panorama
Road. The surrounding Land Uses are tabled below:
Table 1: Surrounding land uses
General Plan Zone Land Use
nNorthEstate Residential (0-2.0 dulac) R-1-A Single-Family ResidenceEstate Residential 0-2.0 du/ac R-1-A Sin Ie-Famil Residence
Estate Residential (0-2.0 du/ac) R-1-A Single-Family Residence
Estate Residential (0-2.0 dulac) R-1-A Single-Family Residence
ANALYSIS:
GENERAL PLAN:
The General Plan Designation of the subject site is Estate Residential (0-2.0 dwelling
units per acre)- This designation allows for single family dwellings to a maximum
density of two dwelling units per acre. The site is over one acre in size and, therefore,
consistent with the General Plan-
000042
Planning Commission Staff Report May 28, 2008
Case No. 3.3216—SFR Page 4 of 8
ZONING ORDINANCE:
The proposed site is zoned R-1-A. Pursuant to the City of Palm Springs Zoning Code
(PSZC), Section 92.01.01(A)(1), permanent single-family dwellings are permitted within
the R-1-A zone.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
The City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance Section 93.06.00(29)(a) requires all single-
family homes to provide two covered parking spaces per dwelling unit. The parking
standards are met by the proposed two-car garage.
Details of the property development standards for the proposed project in relation to the
requirements of the R-1-A zone are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Minimum Development Standards
R-1-A (Hillside) Proposed Project ap_pr_vx.
_Lot Area 20,000 square feet 46,609 square feet
Lot Width 130 feet 238 feet
Lot Depth 120 feet 185 feet
Front Yard 25 feet 103 feet
Side Yard 10 feet 20 feet (west); 127 feet east
Rear Yard _T 15 feet 18.5 feet
Building Hei ht max. 18 feet 21.5 feet
Building Coverage max.) 35% 8.5%
Dwelling size 1,500 square feet 4,000 square feet
The front and side yard setbacks conform to the requirements of the R-1-A standards.
Additionally, the lot size and depth conform to the R-1-A development standards.
ARCHITECTURE:
The proposed residence is styled as contemporary architecture consisting of two
integrated buildings, pool, and retaining walls. An enclosed bridge connects the two
main buildings. The proposed structure incorporates a modern influence with simple
lines and flat roof. The exterior of the house and walls consist of smooth trowel plaster
and CMU block finishes. The color palette consists of desert colors. The landscape
plan proposes water-efficient trees and some shrubbery.
00000
-� --I
Planning Commission Staff Report May 28, 2008
Case No. 3.3216—SFR Page 5 of 8
ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR MODIFICATION:
The maximum height of the dwelling is 21.6 feet, measured from the average grade of
the roadway plus 18 inches. Since the property is on a hillside lot, the maximum
building height may reach 30 feet provided that an Administrative Minor Modification
(AMM) to increase the height beyond 18 feet is approved by the Planning Commission,
pursuant to Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the PSZC- The findings in support of the AMM
may be found below.
Before the Planning Commission may approve a minor modification, the Commission
shall make all of the following findings, based on evidence presented:
a. The requested minor modification is consistent with the general plan, applicable
specific plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance;
There is no General Plan Policy that would be adversely affected by this modification
nor are their any specific plans associated with this property. The Palm Springs
Zoning Code, Section 94-06.01(A)(5),specifically allows for reduction of yards on
hillside lots with the approval of an AMM application.
b. The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval
or conditional approval of the minor modification;
There will be no structures built within the setback that will affect neighboring
properties; residences on hillside lots are allowed a maximum height of 30 feet; and
the proposed height of the project is similar to maximum heights seen in the
adjacent properties. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no adverse effect to the
surrounding properties.
c. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be detrimental
to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or
in the vicinity;
All building and renovations will be built to the Uniform Building Code, and Palm
Springs Zoning Cade as modified by this Administrative Minor Modification, and Fire
Code.
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 modification is necessary due to the location of the subject property within a
hillside neighborhood. The nature of the Administrative Minor Modification is
GODE4
Planning Commission Staff Report May 28, 2008
Case No 3 3216—SFR Page 6 of 8
specifically addressed in the Palm Springs Zoning Code. The development is in
harmony with the current standards of the neighborhood, and is in keeping with
historical development patterns of the neighborhood.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL,:
Although there are no required findings for applications for architectural approval which
do not require environmental assessments, the Zoning Ordinance Section
94.04.00(D)(1-9) provides guidelines for the architectural review of development
projects to determine that the proposed development will provide a desirable
environment for its occupants as well as being compatible with the character of adjacent
and surrounding developments, and whether aesthetically it is of good composition,
materials, textures and colors. Conformance is evaluated, based on consideration of the
following:
1. Site layout, orientation, location of structures and relationship to one another and to
open spaces and topography. Definition of pedestrian and vehicular areas, i.e.,
sidewalks as distinct from parking areas,-
The proposed building is located on the very northwest portion of the property. The
proposed residence is approximately 81 feet from the west property's dwelling, 210
feet from the north property's dwelling, 150 feet to the east property's dwelling, and
129 feet from the street centerline. This location is not central to the overall size of
the site; however, the neighborhood generally has dwellings that are not centrally
located. The building occupies approximately 8.5%, leaving a large amount of open
spaces.
2. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and in
the context of the immediate neighborhood community, avoiding both excessive
variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted,-
The surrounding properties are developed with single-family residences. The project
creates a visual harmony within the neighborhood, through use of desert colors and
modern contemporary architectural style.
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 maximum height of the proposed project is 21.5 feet measured from the
average grade of the street plus 18 inches. Pursuant to Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of
PSZC, hillside properties have a maximum allowable height of 30 feet but require an
approval of an Administrative Minor Modification maximum height allowed. The
proposed building height would be compatible with the heights found in other hillside
000045
Planning Commission Staff Report May 28, 2008
Case No. 3.3216—SFR Page 7 of 8
residences and with the existing topography. Retaining walls are used throughout to
allow construction on a boulder-strewn terrain.
4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings;
AND
5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure,
including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously,
AND
6. Consistency of composition and treatment,
The proposed residence is styled as contemporary architecture consisting of two
integrated buildings, pool, and retaining walls. An enclosed bridge connects the two
main buildings. The proposed structure incorporates a modern influence with simple
lines and flat roof. The exterior of the house and walls consist of smooth trowel
plaster and CMU block Finishes.
7. Location and type of planting, with regard for desert climate conditions. Preservation
of specimen and landmark trees upon a site, with proper irrigation to insure
maintenance of all plant materials;
The vacant site contains a scattering of vegetation and boulders. There are no
specimen trees to preserve. The landscape plan proposes water-efficient trees and
some shrubbery which are located in a manner that conforms to the topography of
the site.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed project is allowed by right-of-zone and is consistent with the land use
policies of the General Plan and the City of Palm Springs Zoning Code. The project has
received a recommendation of approval from the Architectural Advisory Committee_
And, while the project is not centrally located on the site, this is not inconsistent with the
existing neighborhood development. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of
Case No. 3.3216— SFR.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is a
Class III exemption and is categorically exempt per Section 15303(a) (New Single-
family residence).
NOTIFICATION:
Notification was sent to adjacent property owners on March 28, 2008 to inform the
neighbors that there has been an application submitted for the subject property. An
0000� 6
Planning Commission Staff Report May 28, 2008
Case No. 3.3216—SFR Page 8 of 8
1 --
additional notice was sent to adjacent property owners on May 16, 2008 to inform the
neighbors that the project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 28,
2008. Staff received one letter in opposition of the proposed project (attached).
David A. Newell r ' A. ing, All
Associate Planner Dir or of Pla ng ervices
Attachments:
- Vicinity Map
- Draft Resolution
- Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
- Reductions of site plan and elevations
Letter received from neighbor
000047
YPALM Sn
Department of Planning Services W E
V ""
f Vicinity Map V
^Cq<lFO RH`p s
h
r:•x y'u...rx �
ORONA
of
Q
Legend Cn
site f1'
Q400 Buffer
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO: 3.3216 SFR DESCRIPTION: To construct a 4,000 sq. ft. single-
family residence on a 46,609 sq. ft. hillside lot
APPLICANT: Michael Marini located at 844 Panorama Road, Zone, R-1-A,
Section 13, APN: 504-211-004.
HOES
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF '
THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING CASE NO. 3.3216 — SFR TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 844 PANORAMA
ROAD, ZONE R-1-A, SECTION 3.
WHEREAS, Michael Marini ("Applicant") has filed an application with the City pursuant
to Section 94.04.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a 4,000-square foot single-family
dwelling unit located at 844 Panorama Road, Zone R-1-A, Section 3; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2008, the Architectural Advisory Committee met and voted to
recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2008, a public meeting on the application for architectural'
approval was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2008, a public meeting on the application for architectural
approval was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and has been determined to be
Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (single-family residence) pursuant to
Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the
evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not
limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines,
the proposed project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303(a) (New Single-
family residence).
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, the
Planning Commission finds:
1. Site layout, orientation, location of structures and relationship to one another and
to open spaces and topography. Definition of pedestrian and vehicular areas,-
i.e., sidewalks as distinct from parking areas,-
The proposed building is located on the very northwest portion of the property.
The proposed residence is approximately 81 feet from the west property's
Planning Commission Resolution May 28, 2008
Case 3.3216—SFR Page 2 of 4
dwelling, 210 feet from the north property's dwelling, 150 feet to the east
property's dwelling, and 129 feet from the street centerline. This location is not
central to the overall size of the site; however, the neighborhood generally has
dwellings that are not centrally located. The building occupies approximately
8.5%, leaving a large amount of open spaces.
2. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and
in the context of the immediate neighborhood community, avoiding both
excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if
warranted;
The surrounding properties are developed with single-family residences. The
project creates a visual harmony within the neighborhood, through use of desert
colors and modern contemporary architectural style.
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 maximum height of the proposed project is 21.5 feet measured from the
average grade of the street plus 18 inches. Pursuant to Section 94.06.01(A)(8)
of PSZC, hillside properties have a maximum allowable height of 30 feet but
require an approval of an Administrative Minor Modification maximum height
allowed. The proposed building height would be compatible with the heights
found in other hillside residences and with the existing topography. Retaining
walls are used throughout to allow construction on a boulder-strewn terrain.
4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings;
AND
5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure,
including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously,
AND
6. Consistency of composition and treatment,
The proposed residence is styled as contemporary architecture consisting of two
integrated buildings, pool, and retaining walls. An enclosed bridge connects the
two main buildings. The proposed structure incorporates a modern influence
with simple lines and flat roof. The exterior of the house and walls consist of
smooth trowel plaster and CMU block finishes.
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;
000010
Planning Commission Resolution May 28, 2008
Case 3 3216—SFR Page 3 of 4
The vacant site contains a scattering of vegetation and boulders. There are no
specimen trees to preserve. The landscape plan proposes water-efficient trees
and some shrubbery which are located in a manner that conforms to the
topography of the site.
Section 3: Pursuant to Section 94.06.01 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, the
Planning Commission finds:
1. The requested minor modification is consistent with the general plan, applicable
specific plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance;
There is no General Plan Policy that would be adversely affected by this
modification nor are their any specific plans associated with this property. The
Palm Springs Zoning Code, Section 94.06.01(A)(5),specifically allows for
reduction of yards on hillside lots with the approval of an AMM application.
2, The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the
approval or conditional approval of the minor modification;
There will be no structures built within the setback that will affect neighboring
properties; residences on hillside lots are allowed a maximum height of 30 feet;
and the proposed height of the project is similar to maximum heights seen in the
adjacent properties. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no adverse effect to
the surrounding properties.
3. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or
working on the site or in the vicinity,-
All building and renovations will be built to the Uniform Building Code, and Palm
Springs Zoning Code as modified by this Administrative Minor Modification, and
Fire Code.
4. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site
conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of
the property or neighborhood.
The modification is necessary due to the location of the subject property within a
hillside neighborhood. The nature of the Administrative Minor Modification is
specifically addressed in the Palm Springs Zoning Code. The development is in
harmony with the current standards of the neighborhood, and is in keeping with
historical development patterns of the neighborhood.
000051
I ,
Planning Commission Resolution May 28, 2008
Case 3.3216—SFR Page 4 of 4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning
Commission hereby approves Case No. 3.3216 — SFR, subject to the conditions of
approval attached herein as Exhibit A.
ADOPTED this 281h day of May, 2008,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
Craig A. Ewing, AICP
Director of Planning Services
000052
I y
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. 3.3216 SFR
844 PANORAMA ROAD
MAY 28, 2008
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning Services, the Chief of Police,
the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the
condition.
Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
ADMINISTRATIVE
1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations
of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes,
ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations.
2. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul,
an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or
administrative officers concerning Case No. 3.3216 — SFR of Palm Springs will
promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay
the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter
by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of
any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless
the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to
settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the
City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or
abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause
a waiver of the indemnification rights herein.
3. That the property owner(s) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain
and repair the improvements including and without limitation sidewalks, bikeways,
parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, signs, walls, and fences between the
1 000053
curb and property line, including sidewalk or bikeway easement areas that extend
onto private property, in a first class condition, free from waste and debris, and in
accordance with all applicable law, rules; ordinances and regulations of all federal,
state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner's sole
expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the
property if required by the City.
4. Pursuant to Park Fee Ordinance No. 1632 and in accordance with Government
Code Section 66477 (Quimby Act), all residential development shall be required to
contribute to mitigate park and recreation impacts such that, prior to issuance of
residential building permits, a parkland fee or dedication shall be made. Accordingly,
all residential development shall be subject to parkland dedication requirements
and/or park improvement fees. The parkland mitigation amount shall be based upon
the cost to acquire and fully improve parkland.
5. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 a filing fee of $64.00 is required.
This project has a de minimus impact on fish and wildlife, and a Certificate of Fee
Exemption shall be completed by the City and two copies filed with the County Clerk.
This application shall not be final until such fee is paid and the Certificate of Fee
Exemption is filed. Fee shall in the form of a money order or cashier's check
payable to Riverside County.
Cultural Resources
6. Prior to any ground disturbing activity, including clearing and grubbing, installation of
utilities, and/or any construction related excavation, an Archaeologist qualified
according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines, shall be
employed to survey the area for the presence of cultural resources identifiable on
the ground surface.
7. A Native American Monitor shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities.
a. Experience has shown that there is always a possibility of buried cultural
resources in a project area. Given that, a Native American Monitor(s) shall be
present during all ground disturbing activities including clearing and grubbing,
excavation, burial of utilities, planting of rooted plants, etc. Contact the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Cultural Office for additional information on
the use and availability of Cultural Resource Monitors. Should buried cultural
deposits be encountered, the Monitor shall contact the Director of Planning
Services and after the consultation the Director shall have the authority to halt
destructive construction and shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist to
investigate and, if necessary, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a
treatment plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and
Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Coordinator for approval.
b. Two copies of any cultural resource documentation generated in connection
2 00005V4
with this project, including reports of investigations, record search results and
site records/updates shall be forwarded to the Tribal Planning, Building, and
Ehgineering Department and one copy to the City Planning and Zoning
Department prior to final inspection.
FINAL DESIGN
8. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted
for approval by the Department of Planning Services prior to issuance of a building
permit. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner's Office prior to submittal.
GENERAL. CONDITIONS/CODE REQUIREMENTS
9. Commencement of use or construction under this Architectural Approval shall be
within two (2) years from the effective date of approval. Extensions of time may be
granted by the Planning Commission upon demonstration of good cause.
10.The appeal period for a Major Architectural Application is 15 calendar days from the
date of project approval. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period has
concluded.
11.The project is subject to the City of Palm Springs Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance. The applicant shall submit an application for Final Landscape Document
Package to the Director of Planning and Zoning for review and approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Refer to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code for
specific requirements.
12.Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan shall
be submitted and approved by the Building Official. Refer to Chapter 8.50 of the
Municipal Code for specific requirements.
13.The grading plan shall show the disposition of all cut and fill materials. Limits of site
disturbance shall be shown and all disturbed areas shall be fully restored or
landscaped.
14.All materials on the flat portions of the roof shall be earth tone in color.
15.No exterior downspouts shall be permitted on any facade on the proposed
building(s) which are visible from adjacent streets or residential and commercial
areas.
16.The design, height, texture and color of building(s), fences and walls shall be
submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
17.The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height.
3
QQQQc�S
18.Submit plans meeting City standard for approval on the proposed trash and
recyclable materials enclosure prior to issuance of a building permit.
19.Details of pool fencing (material and color) and equipment area shall be submitted
with final landscape plan.
20.No sirens, outside paging or any type of signalization will be permitted, except
approved alarm systems.
21.No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of
the proposed plan.
22.Prior to the issuance of building permits, locations of all telephone and electrical
boxes must be indicated on the building plans and must be completely screened and
located in the interior of the building. Electrical transformers must be located toward
the interior of the project maintaining a sufficient distance from the frontage(s) of the
project. Said transformer(s) must be adequately and decoratively screened.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
STREETS
1. Engineering Division recommends deferral of off-site improvement items at this time
due to lack of full improvements in the immediate area_ The owner shall execute a
street improvement covenant agreeing to construct all required street improvements
upon the request of the City of Palm Springs City Engineer at such time as deemed
necessary. The covenant shall be submitted with the Grading Plan, and shall be
executed prior to approval of the Grading Plan or issuance of grading or building
permits. A covenant preparation fee in effect at the time that the covenant is
submitted shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of any grading or building
permits_
2. Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs
Encroachment Permit.
3. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a registered California civil engineer
to the Engineering Division. The plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior
to issuance of any building permits. Deferred
PANORAMA ROAD
4. Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, 18 feet north of centerline along the entire
frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200.
Deferred
4
DDD056
5. Construct a` 6 inch concrete driveway, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer, from the property line to the existing edge of pavement.
6. Construct a driveway approach in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard
Drawing No. 201. Deferred
7. Construct a 6 feet wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in
accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. Deferred
8. Construct pavement with a minimum pavement section of 2'/2 inches asphalt
concrete pavement over 4 inches crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum
subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal, from edge of proposed
gutter to clean sawcut edge of pavement along the entire frontage in accordance
with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110. Deferred
9. All broken or off grade street improvements shall be repaired or replaced.
SANITARY SEWER
10, Construct private sanitary sewer system in accordance with City of Palm Springs
Ordinance No. 1084. The sewer connection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of
the current building permit (for future connection). The record property owner shall
enter into a covenant agreeing to extend the private sewer lines the necessary
distance to connect to the public sewer system within one year of official notice that
an operating public sewer has been completed within 500 feet of the lot. The
covenant shall be executed and notarized by the property owner and submitted to
the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. A current title report or a
copy of a current tax bill and a copy of a vesting grant deed shall be provided to
verify current property ownership. A covenant preparation fee in effect at the time
that the covenant is submitted shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of any
grading or building permits.
GRADING
11. Submit cut and fill quantities to City Engineer to determine if a Grading Plan is
required. If required, the Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Engineering
Division for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading
permit. If the earthwork quantity is less than 50 cubic yards, a formal grading plan is
not required. To qualify for the exemption, a signed original written statement of
design earthwork quantities from the owner (or design professional, prepared on
company letterhead) shall be provided to the Engineering Division. Exemption of a
formal Grading Plan reviewed and approved by the City Engineer does not exempt
the applicant from a site grading plan that may be required from the Building
5
000057
Y f
Department, or any other requirement that may be necessary to satisfy the Uniform
Building Code.
a. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and/or its
grading contractor and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and
approval. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall be required to
comply with Chapter 8.50 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, and shall
be required to utilize one or more "Coachella Valley Best Available Control
Measures" as identified in the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook
for each fugitive dust source such that the applicable performance standards
are met. The applicant's or its contractor's Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be
prepared by staff that has completed the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (AQMD) Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Class. The applicant
and/or its grading contractor shall provide the Engineering Division with current
and valid Certificate(s) of Completion from AQMD for staff that have completed
the required training. For information on attending a Fugitive Dust Control
Class and information on the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook
and related "PM10" Dust Control issues, please contact AQMD at (909) 396-
3752, or at www.AQMD.gov. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, in conformance with
the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Grading plan-
b. The first submittal of the Grading Plan shall include the following information: a
copy of final approved conformed copy of Conditions of Approval; a copy of a
final approved conformed copy of the Site Plan; a copy of current Title Report;
a copy of Soils Report; and a copy of the associated Hydrology Study/Report.
12. In accordance with an approved PM-10 Dust Control Plan, perimeter fencing shall
be installed. Fencing shall have screening that is tan in color; green screening will
not be allowed. Perimeter fencing shall be installed after issuance of Grading
Permit, and immediately prior to commencement of grading operations.
13. Perimeter fence screening shall be appropriately maintained, as required by the
City Engineer. Cuts (vents) made into the perimeter fence screening shall not be
allowed. Perimeter fencing shall be adequately anchored into the ground to resist
wind loading.
14. Within 10 days of ceasing all construction activity and when construction activities
are not scheduled to occur for at least 30 days, the disturbed areas on-site shall be
permanently stabilized, in accordance with Palm Springs Municipal Code Section
8.50.022. Following stabilization of all disturbed areas, perimeter fencing shall be
removed, as required by the City Engineer.
15. Contact Whitewater Mutual Water Company to determine impacts to any existing
water lines and other facilities that may be located within the property if any. Make
6
000058
appropriate arrangements to protect in place or relocate any existing Whitewater
Mutual Water Company facilities that are impacted by the development. A letter of
approval for relocated or adjusted facilities from Whitewater Mutual Water Company
shall be submitted to the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Grading Plan.
16. Prior to approval of a Grading Plan, the applicant shall obtain written approval to
proceed with construction from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist. The applicant shall contact the
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Richard Begay, or the Tribal Archaeologist,
Patty Tuck at (760) 325-3400, to determine their requirements, if any, associated
with grading or other construction. The applicant is advised to contact the Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist as early as possible. If
required, it is the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate scheduling of Tribal
monitors during grading or other construction, and to arrange payment of any
required fees associated with Tribal monitoring.
17. A Geotechnical/Soils Report prepared by a California registered Geotechnical
Engineer shall be required for and incorporated as an integral part of the grading
plan for the proposed development. A copy of the Geotechnical/Soils Report shall
be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of a grading plan.
18. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the
California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project,
applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the export of
soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food
and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved "Notification of Intent To
Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los
Angeles Counties" (RIFA Form CA-1) prior to approval of the Grading Plan (if
required). The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-
710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert (Phone: 760-776-8208).
DRAINAGE
19. All stormwater runoff passing through the site shall be accepted and conveyed
across the property in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. For all stormwater
runoff falling on the site, on-site retention or other facilities approved by the City
Engineer shall be required to contain the increased stormwater runoff generated by
the development of the property. Provide a hydrology study to determine the
volume of increased stormwater runoff due to development of the site, and to
determine required stormwater runoff mitigation measures for the proposed
development. Final retention basin sizing and other stormwater runoff mitigation
measures shall be determined upon review and approval of the hydrology study by
the City Engineer and may require redesign or changes to site configuration or
layout consistent with the findings of the final hydrology study.
7
000059
20. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees. The
acreage drainage fee at the present time is S 6511.00 per acre per Resolution No.
15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.
GENERAL
21. Any utility trenches or other excavations within existing asphalt concrete pavement
of off-site streets required by the proposed development shall be backfilled and
repaired in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. The
developer shall be responsible for removing, grinding, paving and/or overlaying
existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets as required by and at the
discretion of the City Engineer, including additional pavement repairs to pavement
repairs made by utility companies for utilities installed for the benefit of the
proposed development (i.e. Desert Water Agency, Southern California Edison,
Southern California Gas Company, Time Warner, Verizon, etc.). Multiple
excavations, trenches, and other street cuts within existing asphalt concrete
pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development may require
complete grinding and asphalt concrete overlay of the affected off-site streets, at
the discretion of the City Engineer. The pavement condition of the existing off-site
streets shall be returned to a condition equal to or better than existed prior to
construction of the proposed development.
22. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground.
23. All existing utilities shall be shown on the improvement plans required for the
project. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main
line to the property line.
24. Upon approval of any improvement plan by the City Engineer, the improvement
plan shall be provided to the City in digital format, consisting of a DWG (AutoCAD
2004 drawing file), DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange file), and PDF (Adobe
Acrobat 6.0 or greater) formats. Variation of the type and format of the digital data
to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon prior approval of the City
Engineer.
25. The original improvement plans prepared for the proposed development and
approved by the City Engineer (if required) shall be documented with record
drawing "as-built" information and returned to the Engineering Division prior to
issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Any modifications or changes to
approved improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval
prior to construction.
26. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any driveway
which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight
distance per City of Palm Springs zoning Code Section 93.02.00, D.
8
009060
27. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public
sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed in
accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 904.
TRAFFIC
28. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided during all phases of
construction as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a
minimum, all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance
with Part 6 "Temporary Traffic Control" of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for Streets and Highways, dated September 26, 2006, or
subsequent editions in force at the time of construction.
29. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee which shall be
paid prior to issuance of building permit.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. Fire Department Access: Fire Department Access Roads shall be provided and
maintained in accordance with (Sections 503 CFC)
• Minimum Access Road Dimensions:
Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20
feet, a greater width for private streets may be required by the City engineer to
address traffic engineering, parking, and other issues. The Palm Springs Fire
Department requirements for two-way privale streets, is a minimum width of 24
feet is required for this project, unless otherwise allowed by the City engineer. No
parking shall be allowed in either side of the roadway.
2. Fire Personnel Access Requirements: Provide fire personnel 3 ft. access gates
and minimum 3 ft. clearance around entire house.
3. Buildings and Facilities (CFC 503.1.1): Approved fire apparatus access roads
shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter
constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road
shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet
(45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the
first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of
the building or facility.
"NOTE: The building location on this property extends beyond the 150'
requirement of this code section. Applicant must mitigate this issue. One
option is to engineer the driveway to support the imposed loads of fire
9
I
apparatus (73,000 lbs. GVIM and shall be surfaced to provide all-weather
driving capabilities. **
4. Surface (CFC 503.2.3): Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and
maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (73,000 lbs. GVW) and
shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
5. Premises Identification (CFC 505.1): New and existing buildings shall have
approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification
placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting
the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers
shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4" high
with a minimum stroke width of 0.5".
6. Fire Hydrant Flow and Number of Fire Hydrant&(CFC 508.5): Fire hydrants shall
be provided in accordance with CFC Appendix III-B for the protection of buildings, or
portions of buildings, hereafter constructed. The required fire hydrant flow for this
project is 1,750 gallons per minute (CFC Appendix III-A) and one fire hydrant is
required.
7. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all new detached
one and two-family dwellings where more than1,500 gallons per minute fire flow is
required.
8. Operational Fire Hydrant(s) (CFC 508.1, 508.5.1 & 1412.1): Operational fire
hydrant(s) shall be installed within 250 feet of all combustible construction. They
shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during construction. No
landscape planting, walls, or fencing is permitted within 3 feet of fire hydrants,
except ground cover plantings.
9. Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic fire sprinkler system is required. Only a C-
16 licensed fire sprinkler contractor shall perform system design and installation.
System to be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA standard 13D, 2002
Edition, as modified by local ordinance. The contractor should submit fire sprinkler
plans as soon as possible. No portion of the fire sprinkler system may be installed
prior to plan approval.
10.Residential Smoke Alarms Installation With Fire Sprinklers (CFC 907.2.10.1.2,
907.2.10.2 & 907.2.10.3): Provide Residential Smoke Alarms (FIRER # 0498
accessory module connected to multi-station FIREX smoke alarms or equal per
dwelling and fire sprinkler flow switch). Alarms shall receive their primary power
from the building wiring, and shall be equipped with a battery backup. In new
construction, alarms shall be interconnected so that operation of any smoke alarm
causes all smoke alarms within the dwelling to sound.
10
000062
I
11.Audible Residential Water Flow Alarms (CFC 903.4.2): An approved audible
sprinkler flovJalarm (Wheelock horn/strobe # MT4-115-WH-VFR with WBB back box
or equal) shall be provided on the exterior of the building in an approved location.
The horn/strobe shall be outdoor rated.
12.Residential Smoke Alarms (CFC 907.2.10): Provide residential single and multiple-
station smoke alarms which shall receive their primary power from the building
wiring, and shall be equipped with a battery backup. In new construction, alarms
shall be interconnected.
13.Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area: This building site is located in a geographical
area identified by the state as a "Fire Hazard Severity Zone" in accordance with the
Public Resources Code Sections 4201 through 4204 and Government Code
Sections 51175 through 51189, or other areas designated by the enforcing agency
to be at a significant risk from wildfires.
14_Construction Methods & Requirements Within Established Limits (CFC 4705.2)
Construction methods intended to mitigate wildfire exposure shall comply with the
California Building Code Chapter 7A, and this chapter_
15.Establishment Of Limits (CFC 4705.3) The establishment of limits for the Wildland-
Urban Interface Fire Area's required construction methods shall be designated
pursuant to the California Public Resources Code for State Responsibility areas or
by a local agency following a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record
that the requirements of this section are necessary for effective fire protection within
the area. This wildland-urban interface area has been designated as a "Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone".
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal
Code.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured.
END OF CONDITIONS
11
000063
a 1
3i1S 4
Nv 3d'dOSONVI ON'C
w,::M,'-' 331J301S3a IIJIN:1`t
1 x{� ��'��s,' ;=> r"i;:-i'.r. l'n'�iv`"r:� :�i,`:' ' • -_ 's.'S �'?i >' If-I
..l . 1-4
$,iI;'tl{ (�;,z.L:`a:- ";I' . "' 4:Yr"s;.�«xga �•s1:t�'�.^.'r.".,. �• ,�,i.�',` tt �•� 3.
r,I'r.•, _- :?;ter` :�`d'.^ ''11 '�``{{tG";��''. ' :'l''; .,:%f ,(,�,/r�`,•��,• '...e _ ;;_ A.` s
�' 3 ,^V,- , :i'>-:Y'((' i�t ,�) F, t �, ) l •.• �.l'r Y.:,,1��,,+_'` i
F�'.. �'f,r �..,�fyj!Y,tl Y• ,Y' �t', �
f.:a"-�i.{
,T{,S� y�)''(f."�l. 1.�;_,_{ `. t ik-' "I': ,}3" '� f q (� `t':y��•- '
rK1;
e. Yf; v:.t ,•,.�<
4-I ..=,'- � _i-.�yA»]�Sla[-Y .("..f:Y.. �.L.` --4r a. .`'.•.�. �h a5 i
.j.� -I��1 . -. 4,•.-' - -'.ice,%��'s.:..,:s:<'i T'''1' );�',3-sz',�-.a-. F
jy( }?'� 1 ;, ( � �J !. �I i• s.'i -,if- 1f Y�>>>l ,•'y.. .: :�� � U
)
l �� +
--
-
,.! ;�OIJT,H,ELEVA71oN
U
� r heG
WMEMIR
�. WESr ELEVATION z li
10�EAST ELEVATION _
- 3
I �
f13l NRF2LH ELEVATION
- -f- - - � - - - - - - - -
a� I w
s Wt
!F: STAEETELEVATION MAR 14
GL
0
PLANNINGSERVICES
3 . 3216
May 5, 2008
860 W. Panorama Rd.
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Planning Commissioners
Department of Planning Services
City of Palm Springs
3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Case No. 3.3216 SPR
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing to you as the owners and residents of the property adjacent to the
proposed project at 844 Panorama Road. Case Number 3.3216 SI~R. Our concerns are
primarily about the impact of the location of the project not its design or the owners right
to develop the property.
As background the lot for this proposed project is a one acre parcel. On three separate
occasions we have been told by members of the Planning Services staff that with out
obtaining a major variance the lot could not be subdivided because it could not meet the
130 foot minimum width lot standard.
A few weeks before the April 9,2008 Architectural Advisory Committee we were invited
by Mr. Mirini and Mr. O'Domnel, his architect,to review the proposed project. In that
meeting they shared with us their proposed plan for the house which is before you for
approval and sketches of a proposed second house to be built on the lower portion lot.
The planning for this second house had advanced enough so that Ms. Mirini had engaged
Mr. Donald Wexler to consult on the design of the second home.
In order to achieve his objective of building two houses on the lot,he is proposing to
construct the first house adjacent to our property with the minimum required setbacks.
We understand that sometimes the impact of new construction on current homes is an
unavoidable consequence of development. However, in this case, it is totally avoidable
unless Mr. Marini receives a variance and subdivides the lot but no variance has been
sought.
Mr. O'Donnell confirmed at the Architectural Advisory Committee meeting that is was
the owner's intent to build two single family homes on the property. Mr. O'Donnell also
stated that the orientation of the house at the proposed location was to capture the
mountain views. In fact those views are not unique to the proposed location but are
substantially the same from nearly any location on the backside of the lot .
There are several other facts that cause us to be suspicious of the way this project is being 0 Q 0 O N
approached. RECEIVED
s ; 05 200B
nmMSE M
Prior to Mr. Marini purchasing the property we were approached by his realtor and asked
if we would sell a portion of our lot to Mr. Mirini so that he could subdivide the lot
without difficulty.'We advised his realtor that we had no interest is that arrangement.
Mr. Mirini subsequently purchase the property with full knowledge that it was zoned for
one single family home and that the specific dimensions of the lot would prohibit it from
being subdivided without obtaining a major variance. Yet Mr. Marini at considerable
expense is developing plans for two homes without seeking a variance that would allow
him to build two homes.
If Mr. Marini is not successful in getting a variance, the value of this first house will be
reduce its in relation to what its value would be if the house were position on the lot with
greater separation from the adjacent property.
It is very difficult to believe, that Mr. Marini who is an experienced developer and Mr.
O'Donnell who is an experience Architect with substantial dealings with the Planning
Department would be willing to risk going forward with such a major and expensive
project with the potential for major financial loss, without some reasonable assurances
that they will be able to subdivide the lot and build two homes.
When we met with Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Marini to review the proposed project, there
were two comments made which we found to be very curious. Mr. O'Donnell said that
they did not intend to seek a zoning variance and Mr. Marini commented that"zoning
laws change".
All of these facts combined make us wonder whether there is some kind of manipulation
or back room dealings occurring to allow (his lot to be subdivided. Even if Mr. Marini is
willing to take the risk of getting the necessary approvals after the first house is
completed,we appeal to the Commission to look closely into these issues and to not
approve any architectural plans until the issue of subdividing the lot is resolved. If the lot
cannot be subdivided the impact of Mr. Marini's decision to build the house with
minimal setbacks to our properly will have a permanent and lasting impact on the value
of our property and quality of life.
We ask that if the lot cannot be subdivided that the plans not be approved unless the
proposed house is located a substantial distance from our home. The ideal location would
be to position the house where Mr. Mirini wants to build a second house.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely
Felix Barthelemy and Rich d Saving
3 page attachment
HAND DELIVERED May 5,2005
000067
O�?ALM Spy'
Al
N City of Palm Springs
Duparcnienc of Planning Services
)00 C T,ihyu It/ Canyon Way • Pnlm Sp Imes, (:III FOrnil 922(12
Tcl (760) i2,-S'245 • Fix (761)) 322 19360 • Wfcb www.p.ilnr.prings•c,i hov
q�IFORN
June 26, 2008
Dear Property Owner(s):
The Department of Planning Services of the City of Palm Springs has received an
appeal request of the Planning Commission's action to approve Case No. 3.3216 SFR,
architectural approval of a 4,000 square Foot single-family residence located at:
Address: 844 Panorama Road
Assessor's Parcel Number: 504-211-004
The appeal letter and approved plans are available for review between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m. at the Department of Planning Services at City Hall, 3200 East
Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The City Council will review the project at 6:00
p.m., July 9, 2008, inside the City Council Chamber in City Hall.
Please feel free to contact the Planning Department at (760) 323-8245 should you have
any further questions regarding this application.
Sincerely,
Craig A. Ewi A P
Director of Pla mg Services
0000F8
Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743
PALM
City of Palm Springs
V u
* Office of the City Cleric
cOx°°xn.ca'9�y i200 I, T¢hquirz Canyon Way - Palm Spriggs,California 92262
CgLlFpR��P Tcl. (760)32)-S204 • Fax (760)32M332 - Wcb: www.palmsprings-ca.gov
NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE
NOTICE. IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regular meeting of July 9, 2008, Public Hearing
Item No. 1.13.
I.B. APPEAL BY FELIX BARTHELEMY AND RICHARD SAVING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION OF MAY 28, 2008, APPROVING
CASE NO. 3.3216-SFR, AN APPLICATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW OF A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT HILLSIDE SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 844 PANORAMA ROAD,
The City Council continued the public hearing to Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at the
Council Chamber, City Hall, 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as possible.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
State of California )
County of Riverside ) ss.
City of Palm Springs )
I, James Thompson, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, certify this Notice of
Continuance was posted at or before 5:30 p.m., July 10, 2008, as required by established
policies and procedures.
mes Thompson - -
City Clerk
Pose Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743