[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6083174,"mediaKeyId","2935274-9578fd76acb23470544c589b5e09fdfe","parentId",2935274,"title","Planning commission continues variance request for 725 South Sunrise Way amid right‑of‑way, cumulative‑addition questions","audioSeconds",3334,"startMs",1856000,"endMs",5190000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2935274-9578fd76acb23470544c589b5e09fdfe&start=1856&end=5190","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2935274-9578fd76acb23470544c589b5e09fdfe/thumbnail_1856000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6083174/Palm-Springs/Riverside-County/California/Planning-commission-continues-variance-request-for-725-South-Sunrise-Way-amid-rightofway-cumulativeaddition-questions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6083174-41d1c5f2944517e4f72705182564c58f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771069770&Signature=YMZ1g4z077A5Z~Q5EgY9va00fbb7H39YkI43Mz-E9HCOzOWcMSEXzX8YioyYo1buL4oM7iBci5CFmRws1PmyWMDmvAusQRXZtg0ot1vMEgRF9EHJlSyw08m4k4qqS205WHV3rT29mMo7jw3ZkeThjKV3L5tXpkyix18IyowSWCm2DjqMnDxYkMeIARAi7rnFIXSxya2nzJ8TGMyZ80deTDxpyXGdij3RqyJNvTngMgWNbLBAdklu3~gnv8~qcNzicvPrQxTvqOUY8aNqjvNZHPXbObGJjVyUQSdUGsv-C295IawFtmhoYY3Mi6Z3KujsI~0NF~TNsHdgMhEcQOfuww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Palm Springs CA","date","2025-04-09T20:29:21.66Z","article","The Palm Springs Planning Commission on April 8 continued a public hearing on a variance request at 725 South Sunrise Way after staff advised denial and engineering staff detailed a separate right‑of‑way dedication triggered by cumulative additions to the house.

Planning staff described the application as a request to allow an addition that would encroach into the street side yard setback on the corner property in the R1C single‑family zone. Staff reported the existing house measures about 1,387 square feet with a 494‑square‑foot garage on a 10,522‑square‑foot lot and said the proposed addition would add roughly 761 square feet (about a 54.8% increase for the current addition). Staff said earlier expansions on the house raise the cumulative increase to about 154%, and that under zoning code section 9,309 a cumulative increase above 40% triggers a dedication of right of way to meet the general plan’s required Sunrise Way width. The staff recommendation was denial on the grounds that the findings for a variance could not be made and to avoid granting a special privilege that could preclude future road widening.

Engineering staff explained how a 10‑foot right‑of‑way dedication would shift the property line west and reduce the subject setback to about 8 feet measured from the ultimate property line. The engineer described encroachment agreements as a tool the city uses to allow existing walls or appurtenances to remain in the public right of way until such time the city needs the property: the agreement allows the structure to stay but can be revoked later, with a typical 90‑day notice period to the owner.

Applicant Jonathan Karfin, an architect representing homeowners Walter Lander and Kit Eng, said the property is the owners’ only full‑time residence and emphasized neighborhood consistency. Karfin presented analysis showing several neighboring corner lots have smaller setbacks if the right of way were ultimately measured as the general plan requires. \"The strict application of the zoning code would deprive the subject property of privilege,\" Karfin said, arguing approval would treat the owners consistent with nearby homes.

Walter Lander, one of the homeowners, told the commission the request concerns \"a family, and it's about a house, and it's about a neighborhood.\" Several neighbors, the applicant said, provided written support.

Commissioners pressed staff and the engineering consultant on the city’s cumulative interpretation and whether earlier additions should be counted toward the 40% threshold. Planning staff said engineering and the engineering department’s counsel had advised applying the cumulative test; the staff and some commissioners said they would seek additional legal review. The commission also discussed administrative flexibility under the code: the planning director can grant an administrative minor modification (AMM) up to 20% setback relief (reducing a 25‑foot setback to 20 feet) but that would not be sufficient for the current plans.

Given the technical legal question over whether additions must be counted cumulatively, Commissioner Murphy moved to continue the item to allow the city attorney and engineering counsel to review the cumulative calculation and for the applicant to consider design reductions. The motion (mover: Commissioner Murphy) was seconded and carried unanimously on roll call.

No final variance decision was made; the matter will return to the commission after the city attorney’s review and any applicant revisions. Commissioners asked staff to clarify the documented building history and to identify whether any prior approvals or administrative interpretations affect the cumulative calculation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting | April 8th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Palm Springs Planning Commission on April 8 continued a public hearing on a requested variance at 725 South Sunrise Way after staff recommended denial and engineering staff said cumulative additions trigger a required right‑of‑way dedication that would reduce the ultimate setback to about 8 feet.","taxTitle","Palm Springs, Riverside County, California","taxId",55405,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6083181,"Planning commission approves Miralon Phase 2 final plan, refers architecture to review committee",2213,5976000,8189000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2935274-9578fd76acb23470544c589b5e09fdfe&start=5976&end=8189","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2935274-9578fd76acb23470544c589b5e09fdfe/thumbnail_5976000.jpg","/articles/6083181/Palm-Springs/Riverside-County/California/Planning-commission-approves-Miralon-Phase-2-final-plan-refers-architecture-to-review-committee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6083181-5e57ada4a46b2e33623ba57bcf389862/orig.mp4?Expires=1771069770&Signature=MV9QeEcA1G1eEbejrFiopJpsxsCUeyvX1keGrSu1igfjAH8lWD~IULfIzsstNvLcHMjldyfb-i3~0JY4-CEHbLhdvepnCpTFpStFJK6DhXwgmVUKaWrEEWXBmwc1z2XfWc761FliFVsQDA48bEGfxDVmfEoEswgWv9c2BC9WLnBPsouLBY843oU6OU~IFYdXDaaFVTSB54152OE2zwLXrWE2-6xTLPZ8llqI4RNDGcM~vJ7dpPSj5Kyoq1HV~WykCU0e4tnMiAsNWlAT6ZhRn5LrcCKjb7ueQ1ZpW4KN-xAAUwoxzpYY3UqAiqErakFpD1jH~wOvERYDMRpIL4B4dA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Palm Springs Planning Commission on April 8 approved final planned‑development plans for Phase 2 of the Miralon subdivision, a 25‑home parcel of the larger Miralon project, and recertified the project’s mitigated negative declaration under CEQA.

The vote followed a staff presentation that found the final plans in substantial conformance with the project’s 2016 preliminary planned‑development (PD) approval, the Miralon design guidelines and the Miralon vision/landscape book, subject to architectural refinements. Planning staff recommended referral to the Planning Commission’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for detailed review.

Commissioners said the outstanding issues center on how closely the house elevations and interior ceiling treatments match the midcentury “desert modern” character the Miralon design guidelines cite (inspired by William Cody, Donald Wexler and Ricardo Legorretta). Planning staff recommended specific ARC conditions — including simplifying massing, reducing applied ornamentation, revising certain window types in favor of clerestory windows, and reviewing fascia and ceiling treatments — to better reflect the design book.

Developer Todd Cunningham, president of Woodbridge Pacific Group, told the commission the builder will address the architectural comments in ARC review and change window products: “We will not use those windows again, ever,” he said, referring to window types used on earlier Miralon homes.

Alongside the referral to ARC, the commission required formation of a joint subcommittee to work through outstanding architectural items before ARC review. The subcommittee will include Commissioner Morrell and two members appointed from ARC. The commission added several conditions to the approval: require a clear path of travel to the gated access across the exclusive‑use common area backing some lots; ask the subcommittee to review sloped ceilings and ceiling height to ensure the overall building form reflects the Miralon urban design guidelines; and include language directing exterior material transitions to occur at logical break points rather than mid‑wall.

Planning staff also recommended two tree species substitutions to improve longevity in windy microclimates and noted that the approved 2016 PD and the 2004 preliminary PD remain the controlling project entitlements for the larger Miralon development.

The motion to approve the final PD, recertify the mitigated negative declaration and refer the matter to ARC with the added subcommittee and conditions carried on a unanimous roll call.

The commission and staff said the added subcommittee is intended to resolve architectural details quickly so ARC can complete its review within the project’s remaining entitlement timelines.","The Palm Springs Planning Commission approved final development plans for 25 single‑family homes in the Miralon subdivision, recertified a mitigated negative declaration and directed a joint subcommittee with the Architectural Review Committee to refine architecture and certain site details.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6083171,"Planning commission upholds denial of McWriter Realty Partners paint‑store permit",150,1726000,1876000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2935274-9578fd76acb23470544c589b5e09fdfe&start=1726&end=1876","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2935274-9578fd76acb23470544c589b5e09fdfe/thumbnail_1726000.jpg","/articles/6083171/Palm-Springs/Riverside-County/California/Planning-commission-upholds-denial-of-McWriter-Realty-Partners-paintstore-permit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6083171-3a356ccc035d71375a57a858a895d3b7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771069770&Signature=extP6LCft7b24aAAGv8MnvCaOR3toUiobOuewkm57TVeoKxLoxd5UAUpuUUPODy9FCE2c1XQkL2jl4Jh~HRsAsA1GmwwzyWrccUnkS265FiFW9CVfAWYB3tnfc58isshoMnpFr14JhGbBZy7ErM3U27Nyo19weli~45Amyy6eEnAuQocEZFu3v~He6VU6EV0Ar7CFpsz~tX1aAIUqGnLSv4BesCqe~Tiz0sl9NOdzzY3v1wopnhYe8Gjr6s7bIj5ILlqniZ~6vAkIRJ8LR~F4llxRu0Jw29m76YPLhX7o7UihWAuGK6eV4SCBZRm9tB8l0ItteIRvR8x5Y1YlQQoTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Palm Springs Planning Commission on April 8 approved a resolution denying a major development permit (case DP2024‑9) sought by McWriter Realty Partners to build a new 4,012‑square‑foot paint store on a 0.38‑acre undeveloped parcel near the southeast corner of North Palm Canyon and East Stevens Road.

The commission voted to approve the resolution of denial after brief discussion. Staff summarized the site and the application before commissioners moved to accept the resolution as revised. The motion passed by roll call with four votes in favor and three opposed.

Roll call recorded yes votes from Vice Chair Layan, Chair Wermack, Commissioner Rotman and Commissioner Morrell; Commissioners Baker, Miller and Murphy voted no. The motion carried.

The denial will proceed to the city council if appealed; planning staff noted the city received an appeal related to the project after the hearing and will forward the record to city council for its consideration.

Commissioners did not elaborate further on the record at the time of the vote; staff indicated the resolution had been corrected administratively to reflect the commission’s prior motion and the correct hearing date before being acted on.","The commission approved a resolution denying a major development permit for a proposed paint store (DP2024‑9) at the southeast corner of North Palm Canyon and East Stevens Road; the motion carried 4‑3.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission continues variance request for 725 South Sunrise Way amid right‑of‑way, cumulative‑addition questions

Planning commission approves Miralon Phase 2 final plan, refers architecture to review committee

Planning commission upholds denial of McWriter Realty Partners paint‑store permit