Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/9/2008 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.B. �04 p A LM spR 'y c U N 4 d r C9</FORN�P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 2008 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 toot 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: 504-211-004). 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 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 square 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 000002 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. Stafi's response is provided immediately following. "We are asking the City Council to use its discretion regarding the placement of the new house on 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. ,,-rai A. Ing, A C Thomas J. Wil n Dir ,u of Plannr Services Assistant City onager, Dev't Svcs David H. Ready City Manager .- OOp0 �3 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 000004 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. 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. 00©007 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 gth day of July, 2008. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk Clty Council Resolution Page 5 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) 1, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California o June 10, 2008 JU'%l j j PH 6= V 860 W. Panorama Rd. ' I-I F 'i i l G 'i 1 ,i.; Palm Springs, CA 92262 CITY CLrFCK Mr. James Thompson City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 B. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm. Springs, CA 92262 Re: Case No. 3.3216 SFR Dear Mr. Thompson We are writing to you to appeal the May 28, 2008 decision of the Planning Commission regarding Case Number 3.3216 SIR. 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 28 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 from the solar panels may also have an adverse affect on our view and possibly create additional heat gain to our home. Man 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,there 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 of 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 Richard Saving Hand Delivered.Tune 11, 2008 . OOa0�.1 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. Goo •Ih 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. Marina 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, LJ4 Resident of Little Tuscany Estates ���j J �� •,_T,; . _ .tip' 000013 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 Corrmrission 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 This 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. 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 �� R ident of Little Tuscany Estates 72 -� iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillillilllllllllllllllllillillillinwMMONOMMMMM PAGE 01/01 B5/27/2008 11:59 9496407.�47 DUMAMSKIS Planning Commission May 22,206 Department of Planning Services i 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262t] Re: Case No. 3.3216 SP'R i 1 Dear Commission Members, i I am writing as a concerned resident directly across from the proposedreject at 844 Panorama Road. One relates to how the developer has approached this oject and what appears to be manipulation of the planning process and total disregard ,ir the impact of his project on our neighborhood. 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 bisto•ic/celebrity houses as well as modernism residences known throughout the world. T e narrow streets, low density and substantial open space between our homes amplifies this In addition,the proposed cut 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 alues in our neighborhood during construction and after completion if two homes are guilt there and out of character for the neighborhood. . ] 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 I 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 st ould not be granted. if granted, it will open the door for other developers for the next i till projects to come to our neighborhood. I respectfully request that the Planting commission reject the request to so divide this lot and approve only a single family home on.this lot! I am not against the nstruction of a single family home for which this lot was intended,following architectu 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 e property values in this historic neighborhood and make it less of an attractive tourist till s )rdward&Kiesba Dotnanskis ! SIs west Panorama Road � palm springs,California 92662 1 000015 May 22, 2008 Planning Commission Department of Planning Services 3200 E. Tahquitz Carryon 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, Resident of ittle Tusc by 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 84-4 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, ! V7, K. F[TJ'ERER & JO ANNE FUITFER 590 CHTNO CANYON RD. 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 SFR 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 Urne 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 snake 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, Resident of Little Tuscany Estates I �� 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 geoteclniical 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 d 9 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. I-le 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 hum 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. U 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 l 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. J respectfully submitted, Robe S. Bryant Resident of Little Tuscany states 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 bow 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 Ell 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 geoteclurical 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 be 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 conutussion 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, Jew 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 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 fox the residents for an extended period of time and will be compounded if two houses are constructed. I-Ie 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_ Respec lly Submitt Resident of Little TdScany Estates 000022 May 22, 2008 Planning Commission Department of Planting Services 3200 L. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Case No- 3-3216 SFR Dear Commission Members, l 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 of time and will be compounded if two houses are constructed. He has fiirther shown his disregard for our neigbborhood by not having performed a single environmental, engineering or geolechnical 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 plats for this project in its entirety and not have it piecemealed to hide its true rnagnittide 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 Cully evaluate its impact on our community. Respectfully submitted, 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, 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 pants 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-sttewn 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. 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- I- 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- ector of Pla in Services 000027 EXHIBIT A CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,_ CASE NO. 3.3216 SFR e -- 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 owners) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation sidewalks, bikeways, parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, signs, walls, and fences between the t 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 ill applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the properly 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 000029 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 000030 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'/z 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 . ODd0�2 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 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 0000133 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 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 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. � D0�035 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 505.1.1): 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 000029 apparatus (73,000 lbs. GV'W) 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 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 (FIREX # 0408 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 hdrn/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 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2008 CONSENT CALENDAR, M/S/C (Ceffery/Cohen, 7-0) To approve Items 2A, 2C and 2D, 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 SFR - 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 Clerks office. 00®Or V 2 I OF ?ALM S A� U rn F011cainning Commission Staff Repo C4CC FORN�P 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. 000040 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. 00004 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 a Road. The surrounding Land Uses are tabled below: Table 1: Surrounding land uses General Plan Zone Land Use North Estate Residential ( 11 du/ac) R-1 A Single-Family Residence South Estate Residential 0-2.0 du/ac R-1-A Single-Family Residence East Estate Residential (0-2.0 du/ac) R-1-A Single-Family Residence West Estate Residential (0-2.0 du/ac) 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 I � 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 (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 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 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. 000063 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 21.5 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 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 Cade, and Palm Springs Zoning Code 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 0000G1 1 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 r 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 00004:6 1 Planning Commission Staff Report May 28, 2008 Case No. 3.3216—SFR Page 8 of 8 1 ; additional notice was sent to adjacent properly 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, AI Associate Planner Dir or of Pla ng ervlces Attachments: - Vicinity Map - Draft Resolution - Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Reductions of site plan and elevations - Letter received from neighbor 000047 ,,ALM,, 40 Department of Planning Services N Vicinity Map WE + cgLlFO RH,p. S DRONA w 4 Legend Site a, 400' 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. OOOOx8 504150007 504150008 504201024 DESERT WATER AGENCY FOSTER,CHRISTOPHERW GRIMM,WILLIAMJ PO BOX 1710 44100 MONTEREY AVE 216-3 1011 W CIELO DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92203 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 504201025 504201026 504202003 ANDERSON,THOMAS T TRUST HIRSHLEIFER,MARILYN CONNORS,DENNIS L LIVING TRUST PO BOX 4450 877 W PANORAMA RD 3445 ANDREAS HILLS DR PALM DESERT,CA 92201 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 504202007 504202008 504202010 HIBLER,DOR.OTHY A ONDERDONK,KAY SUTTON THOMPSON,DAN LIVING TRUST 12839 MARLBORO ST 12839 MARLBORO ST 1860 N VISTA DR LOS ANGELES,CA 90049 LOS ANGELES,CA 90049 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 504202013 504211001 KENDIG,JACQUELINE TRUST 504202014 PUOPOLO,MARK A TRUST 1889 N VISTA DR 341 ADENA ST PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 PASADENA,CA 91104 504211002 504211003 304211004 BARTHELFMY,FELIX R WHITTIER,LORI A GRINCHUK,ROBERT 860 W PANORAMA RD 73091 COUNTRY CLUB DR A4-3 1751 UNIVERSITY AVE PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 PALM DESERT,CA 92260 SAN DIEGO,CA 92103 504211008 504211009 504211010 I-IELBLING,ROBERT J&JUDY K LUMPKTN,PHILIP G CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC 821 W CHINO CANYON RD 4608 N VIRGINIA AVE PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 CHICAGO,IL 60625 504211011 504212001 504212002 BARRETT,TRAVIS M&STAFFORD OLIN,REUEL K SACKS,LOLA N TRUST 1751 UNIVERSITY AVE 777 W CHINO CANYON RD STEPHANIE R SAN DIEGO,CA 92103 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 1840 N LEONARD RD PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 504212003 504212004 504212005 TEITELBAUM,CHERIE W LUEKING,CHRISTOPHER D SACKS,LOLA N TRUST 5167 PARKWAY CALABASAS 1014 W GRACE ST 777 W CHINO CANYON RD CALABASAS, CA 91302 CHICAGO,IL 60613 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 504213001 504213002 504213004 DEUTSCHE BK NATL TRUST 2006-17 DOMANSKTS,E J LIVING TRUST DOMANSKIS,EDWARD J TR 2049 OCEAN WAY 1441 AVOCADO AVE 307 N/AVAIL LAGUNA BEACH,CA 92651 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 504213005 505030007 505041008 HOFFMAN,STUART&PATRICIA J TOOR,EDTTH ARMSTRONG M TRUST STEVENS,ARNOLD&MELINA 777 W PANORAMA RD 1000 W CORONADO AVE 3500 LAKESIDE CT 140 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 RENO,NV 89509 5 505044015 505044016 505044017 ALL CALIFORNIA FUNI)lNQ TOOR,EDITH ARMSTRONG M TRUST DOMANSKIS,EDWARD J N/AVAIL 1000 W CORONADO AVF, 1441 AVOCADO AVE 307 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 505360003 505360004 505360005 HOUSLEY,BRIAN&AMERO SHEILA BLESSING,KEVIN S STEVENS,ARNOLD&MELINA PO BOX 2307 100 S SUNRISE WAY 316 3500 LAKESIDE CT 140 KIRKLAND,WA 98083 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 RENO,NV 89509 505360011 505360012 505360014 LAS PALMAS HEIGHTS DOMANSKIS,EDWARD J STEVENS,ARNOLD&MELINA 100 S SUNRISE WAY 1441 AVOCADO AVE 307 3500 LAKESIDE CT 140 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 RENO,NV 89509 r 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 (CFQA 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 y � Planning Commission Resolution May 28, 200& 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, 000050 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 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 28" day of May, 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services 000052 } 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 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 cashiers 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 000054 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 OHM 1 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 000a� s 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'/z 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 out 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 1' r 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 4 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 009059 l 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 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 000060 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 apparatus (73,000 lbs. GVW) and shall be surfaced to provide all-weather driving capabilities. 'W 4. Surface (CFC 503.23): 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 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 thanl,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 000062 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 11 800063 III ��/� • ��� �/ hIP 0] �•• ,'-:F� _ .r�,"'Ar J Il�r. '�.. ,'YM l.,�n I �C r � I f l�� AL L �•�r''����'SY "•1 Y�'•.� r Y _ _ r I i.'' m L.r'",.� it..0 _ ', . y'• , ', 'i i, y.- �' � , �o����r. '.,�I 11-�r1�~ "� Ir �� '.�'Jlr ..•v, '.4�.*r,l .Ire�4vri�.•` ��,_J a�l```4 / I .� /:l it 1 '� rA 9�.� L Jl ' .� 'ti r.a V• IY' i�L`:"' �F_.i.,L�`i'',�l"Trrv,.r, ., � r I 1' ;vnn J 4 f{ n-iV]ial.• n . 1`rA �Lr� 1 •f1�1•i�1>J"Cry _.r :1. 1:.. �.^ 1 I n. � e! IL 1i����y I, 5�r"+�"� } t'y'"i.1',��;:_•,i.I rrpi• � � 'ir rli'.�FT t � I .��v' f�::q�.'��?-�.� ' 1 a'{Jr,yr'r" -�'Y.:- *•�i� .` � �r' 111111 sS 'L?fic'�i { 1 '7�•�' -,X1~."t��":. n��I ry�,�'�rY,.��S tir�-•,•�_X,��s: _ ,w� 1• •.�.r� c�°d .7�' - - t•,t:, !{?':b�4,�'mt.�}=--'p'r��^ .y n"'�y�T�r• ' t� : rr�_1J... I � .":'r v- 71 r-+��"ZL •c.• �+�: .^.i._ Y:::L�r6�: Yr^ .�h - ,� : a' •.}'' M�''r�y�'s' air' 'a^;- � II yv1 ��� �,YiL yv a 4 �°;Ix' �,/•T �l� r�.tid:*i�LL � � ..,i i ' ��yi a "1 • I'� J4 r • Y ._;11 ,��aac.��''...,.l;r��. .���4� i•v v'�a���� �i:����. r F c I�u^v-aa ,�J� t't• N. � r+'���PY !•" i.fk'r.'e: - r•'r °p� '~' f ...�t��..y-'w� i' '" - :_Y=.''.� `.' 1 -� 7 7��''!'•;r;.4:ri:';�, ' � .'q e�, - ,�•''d�y `�,it N�-��"/� r �':{.,i.'�;,5..� _����• I.0 _ a�$,-` °A�r•7 ..,•R.. _rti�r1;]�;,+::�n i' - .,�h:. :.':" - ,,_�.>f'..',�..,e;• "mil j :�r, - -•y"' e <' ter+ .y'r, Y-. . 'i�I��b�,..- - /' Ilk {•f'r ° .. lnti ,>=Y' 7i:�` ..: .JI _q.". ^'d�`" Yrrk'{' i'y,.•yr,, �y,n�i,i # � � f j.a R� 'I"%.." i ��R y�5 r 1 v ���''e • d�,'r'i'p'ta ), d q �. ' hir' X`rr�./.•�- + r�• 1 .,,+" '=: �'T;.. _—r71,"�" IE�VEIS IFL ^I j'L.l; nX. .ti. - a 11" ;. F.:w.'�r•",..'::D'r��-'�.�- ' - ',r( F i �•':-1•r r r'-'''4 w-I 3 �,,p�7r .�., .' fir," •^. I ,b, 9 E n av v� �.n - i... - ,.i j•.J t r-:%+r' ,;i,,,,L1, I''Y i'.''. "�. �^ m 617ELAND LANDSCAPE,PLAN MARINI RESIDENCE o2 ARCHITECTURE �e __---_ _ --_ yV'igc3� +_SOUTH ELEVATION _ - - —_—_ - --_I --_ --_— __ - _— —- - --_— - _ —>— —�—_ _�_ I — � iu l F1 ---- ----- - - - ----- -- ------ - -- - �.3 -WEESi ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION : E i? _ -_ _- y_ --_—_—_ _ _ _ _— 5 NORTH ELEVATION jF W _ MEAN" , - W S Ob 'f :a g. M3 A2.1 +s STRETE,EyELEVATION MAR 14 1606 CD POWINGSERMES 3 . 3 ? 16 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. 33216 SFR 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 SFR. 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'Donnel, 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 die lower portion lot. The planning for this second house had advanced enough so that Mr. 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 approached. RECEIVED s:.i 0.KRMSE"CES 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 this lot to be subdivided. Even if Mr. Marini is willing to take the risk of getting the necessary approvals alter 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 property 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 attacliment HAND DELRTRED May 5,2008 000067 OF?ALM3,0 N City of Palm Springs u Departmenc of'Planning Services )200 C. Tingmc�Canyon Wry • P.LIm Springy, C21darni.r y?2[2 Nea P Ted (7(,0) j,2 i-$215 u� p f 60) D 22-BiCrU • WO) wWw.pa6nspriuis'-C.i.gav CQZIF0B�� 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, Cralg A. Ewi A P Director of Pla I ung Services 0000�8 Post Office Box 2743 ' Palln SI]L1R`S, Catlfornia 9226'-2743