HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution _4701- Case 6.446RESOLUTION NO.4701
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITYOF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
VARIANCE REQUEST, CASE NO. 6.446, REQUESTING AN
ALLOWANCE FOR AN EIGHT (8) FOOT HIGH BLOCK WALL
ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT 888 VIA VADERA. R-1-C
ZONE, SECTION 10.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received a request for a variance to allow for an eight
(8) foot high block wall along the rear property line; and
WHEREAS, the proposed variance is necessary based on the topography, where there is a four (4)
foot difference between adjoining properties; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to
consider the application for Variance 6.446 was given in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2000, a public hearing on the application for the Variance was held by the
Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report,
and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
The project is catecorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section
15303 (New Small Construction) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 2: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65906, the Planning Commission finds that:
a. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape
topography, location orsurroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would
deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and
under identical zone classiFcations.
The topography is such that the subject property lies four (4) feet below the adjoining
property to the north. Therefore, the bottom four (4) feet of the wall would serve as a
retaining wall, while the top six (6) feet of the wall serves as the side wall to the adjoining
property. With this difference in grade, the average height of the proposed block wall is eight
(8) feet.
b. Any variance granted shag be subject to such conditions as will assure that the
adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject
property is situated.
Because of the difference in grade between the two properties, the higher of the two
properties would not be able to have the allowable six (6) foot wall consistent with the
surrounding neighborhoods. The two properties also have pools which necessitates having
a wall that is at least five (5) feet tall. The adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute
a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated.
c. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,
or materially injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is located.
The height of this wall will not be detri mental to other properties within the vicinity due to the
mature landscaping surrounding the property and the difference in grade between the two
properties.
d. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan for the City.
Granting of this variance will not affect the General Plan forthe City. The Variance request
has been analyzed in relation to the City of Palm Springs General Plan and has been found
to be consistent with the goals, policies and objectives in the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission
approves the variance request to allow an eight (8) foot tall block wall along the rear property line
at 888 Via Vadera subject to those conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which are to be
satisfied prior to issuance of building permits for the project, unless otherwise specified.
ADOPTED this 26 day of July , 2000.
AYES: Mills, Matthews, Caffrey, Jurasky, Shoenberger
NOES:
ABSENT: Raya, Klatchko
ATTEST:
11111
(2mkz'
Planning Commission Chairman
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
Planning mmission Secretary