HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution _4851- Case VAR 6.469RESOLUTION NO.4851
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
VARIANCE 6.469, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 7,055
SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON A 24,900 SQUARE
FOOT LOT WITH: A) A 10 FOOT SETBACK IN REAR
YARD ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL, WHERE THE ZONE
REQUIREMENT IS 20 FEET; B) PARKING WITHIN THE 25
FOOT AREA THAT ABUTS A STREET, WHERE THE
ZONE REQUIREMENT IS NO PARKING ALLOWED
WITHIN THE 25 FOOT AREA ABUTTING A STREET; C) A
19 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK, WHERE THE ZONING
CODE REQUIRES 25 FEET; AND D) TO USE COLORED
CONCRETE IN ALL VEHICLE PARKING AND DRIVEWAY
AREAS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE OPEN SPACE
REQUIREMENT. LOCATED AT 4375 CALLS DE
RICARDO, ZONE P, SECTION 19.
WHEREAS, Ronald, Rebecca and Gene Williams, (the "Applicants") have filed an
application with the City pursuant to Section 9402.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a
Variance (the Project) for a) a 10 foot setback in rear yard abutting residential, where the
zone requirement is 20 feet; b) parking within the 25 foot area that abuts a street, where
the zone allows no parking within the 25 foot area that abuts a street; c) a 19 foot building
setback, where the zoning code requires 25 feet; d) a reduction of parking spaces to 28,
while the code requirement is 35 parking spaces for a 7,055 square foot office building; and
e) to use colored concrete in all vehicle parking and driveway areas in order to achieve the
open space requirement, for property located at 4375 Calle de Ricardo, Zone P, Section
19; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has filed a Variance application with the City and has paid the
required filing fees; 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 June 11, 2003, the public hearing on the application for Variance 6.469 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: This project is categorically exempt from further environmental review
pursuant to Section 15332 (In -Fill Development Projects) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 2: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 94.06.00.6, the Planning
Commission finds that:
1. 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.
The subject property exhibits a nonconformance with required lot depth. The
standard lot depth is 150 feet, while the lot is 83 feet in depth and is also a corner
lot. The building set -back for a P zone under the Zoning ordinance allows no
parking within that 25 foot setback. Therefore, special circumstances are applicable
to the subject property that justify variance to the strict application of the Zoning
Code.
2. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the
adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the imitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which subject property is situated.
City Staff has provided conditions of approval Jhat will assure that the request for
the office building will not constitute a grant of special privilege. The parking
variance is not justified and is not approved, additionally specific architectural
design elements have been included in the proposal that will create a visual
perspective consistent with other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
subject property is situated. These include:
• Lowering the building significantly on the southern side of building, to a
height of12 feet adjacent to the single family homes.
• Proposed building heightwhen measured from adjacent single family homes
is; 12 feet at a distance of ten feet from southern property line, 16 feet high
20 feet from southern property line, and18 feet high 42 feet from southern
property line. The ultimate height of building is 20 feet, which is an
architectural feature on the northern most part of building.
• Adding a 6 foot high decorative block wall to the southern property line.
• Landscaping in front of wall with desert sweet acacia and yellow oleander
trees.
3. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health,
safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the
same vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated.
The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health,
safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the
same vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. The Engineering
Department has included conditions that will benefit travel safety within the existing
neighborhood.
4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City.
Granting of this variance will not affect the General Plan of the 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning
Commission hereby approves Variance 6.469 with the exception of a reduction in required
parking, subject to those conditions set forth in attached Exhibit A, which are to be satisfied
prior to approval of Certificate of Occupancy unless otherwise specified.
ADOPTED this 111' day of June, 2003.
AYES: Klatchko, Shoenberger, Conrad, Marantz, Grence
NOES:
ABSENT: Caffery
ABSTENTIONS: Matthews
ATTEST:
%-1'. 0(. RJZS4
Ch#man of the Plann g Commission
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
Secretary o he Planning Commission