HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution _4809- Case 6.466RESOLUTION NO.4809
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CASE NO. 6.466 TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 33 FEET FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 2288 SOUTHRIDGE DRIVE, ZONE R-1-A, SECTION 25.
WHEREAS, Bruce McKenzie and Keith Markowski, (the "Applicant") filed an application with the City
pursuant to section 94.06.00 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a single family
residence with a height of 33 feet for the property located at 2288 Southridge Drive, Zone R-1-A,
Section 25; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to
consider an application for Variance 6.466 was issued in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2002, the public hearing on the application for Variance 6.466 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 that this project is categorically
exempt from California Environmental Quality Guidelines (CEQA).
Section 2: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 94.06.00.B, the Planning Commission finds that:
Because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would
deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under
identical zone classification.
In reviewing the case, the Planning Commission finds that while the topography in the
Southridge demonstrates extreme grade change, a building height of 33 feet would be out of
scale with surrounding residences. The building pad is already approximately 24 feet above the
curb and the terrain changes dramatically from the central pad to the lower pad. Design review
recommended that the building slope down to a height of 30 feet but the applicant wishes to
construct a single family residence on one level. The building height simulations show the
proposed addition has a mass and scale that is not compatible with the neighbourhood.
2. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment
thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant ofspecial privilege inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated.
Other homes in the Southridge area are subject to the same topography as the subject
property. However, other homes in the vicinity have blended into the topography of the
neighbourhood. Because of the addition is not protected by ridgelines or other topography, the
scale of the structure would not be in harmony with other homes in the neighbourhood.
Therefore, the granting of the variance would be inconsistent with the limitations placed upon
other properties in the vicinity.
3. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,
convenience, orwelfare orinjurious to property and improvements in the same vicinity and zone
in which subject property is situated.
The residence will be constructed to Building Code standards. However, the addition has the
potential to block views to the east and the north. Therefore, the granting of the variance will
have the potential to be detrimental to property and improvements in the same vicinity and zone
in which subject property is situated.
4. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City.
The General Plan policies for hillsides call for structures not breaking ridgelines. The existing
residence is entirely blocked from the view on the east side because of the height of the ridge.
However, the addition to the northern portion of the property would begin to break the ridgeline
by a small portion as it tapers. The exception for building height will not be in compliance with
the General Plan policies for hillside development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission
hereby denies Variance 6.466. 0
ADOPTED this 1 r day of November, 2002.
AYES: Klatchko, Caffery, Marantz, Matthews, Grence, Shoenberger
NOES:
ABSENT: Conrad
ABSTENTIONS:
Al T ST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
c�
Chairman of the Planning Commission Secreta the Planning Commission
LN