Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution _4868- Case 6.471 VARRESOLUTION NO. 4868 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE 6.471, AN APPLICATION BY DEENA BRAND FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 22 FEET TO SEVEN FEET AND THE REQUIRED BUILDING SEPARATION FROM 15 FEET TO 12 FEET, LOCATED AT 273 AVENIDA ORTEGA, ZONE R-3, SECTION 23. WHEREAS, Deena Brand, (the "Applicant") filed an application with the City pursuant to section 94.06.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a variance to the required side yard setback from twenty-two feet to seven feet for a new building and reduction in building separation from 15 feet to 12 feet, at 273 Avenida Ortega, Zone R-3, Section23. WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider an application for Variance 6.471 was issued in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on August 13, 2003, the public hearing on the application for Variance 6.471 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on August 13, 2003, a public meeting on the application for Variance 6.471 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: 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 classirication. In reviewing the case, the Commission finds that to deny the applicant's request would deprive her of privileges enjoyed by surrounding properties. A substandard lot area, width and depth provide limitations to the development of the lot as a multiple -family residence. 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 limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. The applicant has provided siting and architectural design solutions that will compliment adjacent residential properties and thereby shall not consistent a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. 3. The granting of the variance will not be materially det►rmental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare orinjurlous 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. City Departmental review and comment as conditions of approval insure public health, safety, convenience and welfare have been addressed. 4. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The General Plan designates Avenida Ortega and Via Entrada as local streets and the subject site and surrounding vicinity for single family residential uses. The project does not conflict with, nor will it adversely affect, the General Plan of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Variance 6.471, subject to the conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit A. ADOPTED this 13°i day of August, 2003. AYES: Shoenberger, Marantz, Grence, Conrad, Wright, Hochanadel NOES: ABSENT: Matthews ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: Ni,.A. "aJA^/) z man of the Planning Cbmmission CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 1(�y 0- " r 1 1, � Secre ary o e Planning Commission Ee (D M U6 BY PL.ANNIN4i CUMMIb4iun �1-?1 'a Initial , � __�,_.__ NPROVED BY CITY I;WKIL we Iv Date— Ifiltial — ivtlon a _ OrAmnee a_ . RpROWPA sWIECT TO ALL K.U0100 COIJ017IONS BY ASI'?ilE 9130*-? EXHIBIT A VARIANCE NO. 6.471 AND CASE NO. 3 2363 DEENA BRAND 273 AVENIDA ORTEGA AUGUST 13, 2003 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Zoning. 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. 1 a. 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 Paim 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 Cases 6.471 and 3 2363. The City 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 judgement or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 2. The subject multiple -family residence shall meet all other applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 3. The variance granted shall be applicable only to the multi -family residence as specified, and shall not be applicable to any other structures or future modifications other than those required by this variance. 4. The Planning Commission or City Council may, after notice and public hearing, revoke this variance for noncompliance with any of the conditions set forth in granting this variance. 5. The time limit for commencement of construction under this variance approval shall be two (2) years from the effective date of approval. . 6. 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. 7. Architectural approval shall be valid for a period of two (2) years. Extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon demonstration of good cause. 8. The appeal periods for Variance and Architectural Approval applications is a 15 calendar days from the date of project approval. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period has concluded. Site plans: 9. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning and Zoning prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. 0 10. 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. Grading: 11. 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. 12. 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. Architectural: 13. 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. 14. Perimeter walls shall be designed, installed and maintained in compliance with the corner cutback requirements as required in Section 9302.00.D. 15. 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. 16. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. 17. An exterior lighting plan in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 93.21.00, Outdoor lighting Standards, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Zoning prior to the issuance of building permits. Manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior lighting on the building, in the landscaping, and in the parking lot shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings, down -lights shall be utilized. A photometric study shall be required for all parking areas, driveways and entries. 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. Parking: 20. Handicapped accessibility shall be indicated on the site plan to include the location of handicapped parking spaces, the main entrance to the proposed structure and the path of travel to the main entrance.. Consideration shall be given to potential difficulties with the handicapped accessibility to the building due to the future grading plans for the property. 21. Compact and handicapped spaces shall be appropriately marked per Section 9306.00C 22. Curbs shall be installed at a minimum of five (5) feet from face of walls, fences, buildings, or other structures. Areas that are not part of the maneuvering area shall have curbs placed at a minimum of two (2) feet from the face of wails, fences or buildings adjoining driveways. Miscellaneous: 23. No sirens, outside paging or any type of signalization will be permitted, except approved alarm systems. 24. No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of the proposed plan. 25. This project shall be subject to Chapters 2.24 and 3.37 of the Municipal Code regarding public art. The project shall either provide public art or payment of an in lieu fee. In the ID case of the in -lieu fee, the fee shall be based upon the total building permit valuation as calculated pursuant to the valuation table in the Uniform Building Code, the feeing being 112% for commercial projects or 114% for residential projects with first $100,000 of total building permit valuation for individual single-family units exempt. Should the public art be located on the project site, said location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning and the Public Arts Commission, and the property owner shall enter into a recorded agreement to maintain the art work and protect the public rights of access and viewing. Ee DATE: August 13, 2003 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Director of Planning and Zoning CASE 6.471 VARIANCE - AN APPLICATION BY DEENA BRAND FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 22 FEET TO SEVEN FEET AND THE REQUIRED BUILDING SEPARATION FROM 15 FEET TO 12 FEET, LOCATED AT 273 AVENIDA ORTEGA, ZONE R-3, SECTION 23. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission approve the variance request to variance to reduce the required side yard setback from twenty-two feet to seven feet and the minimum required building separation from 15 feet to 12 feet for a new building containing two apartment units and eight garages at an existing apartment complex, located at 273 Avenida Ortega, Zone R-3, Section 23, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution. In addition, the applicant has submitted architectural application for Case No. 3.2362. BACKGROUND The subject property has a lot area of 16,345 square feet, which is substandard in area. It is an irregular corner lot, with street frontages on Avenida Ortega and Via Entrada. The parcel also backs to an alley. The site has width of 111 feet adjacent to Avenida Ortega, and a depth of 100 feet on Via Entrada and 168 feet of alley frontage. The alley backs up to a commercial district. The lot is substandard in area, width and depth. The R-3 zone minimum lot standards provide a minimum depth of 150 feet and a minimum width of 130 feet for corner lots siding local or collector streets. The zone required a minimum areas of 20,000 square feet. The site is partially developed with a five unit apartment complex. The applicant proposes to construct a two story apartment building above eight garage spaces. R-3 Requirements Proposed Open space 45% 47 Parking 6 11 Building Height 24' 22' Setbacks Front 25' 25' Side 22' 7' (Variance) Rear (to alley) 5' 5' Building Separation 15' 12' (Variance) ANALYSIS During staffs investigation and analysis of this application, the surrounding multi -family residential area was surveyed to see if there were any other residences with similar site conditions to the situation represented in this application. Staff found that the requested side yard setback and building separation is consistent with existing fully permitted development in the adjacent multi -family neighborhood. The City of Palm Springs Engineering Department has reviewed the project for compliance with departmental standards and have provided no conditions of approval. FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE In accordance with Section 94.06.00.B of the Zoning Ordinance, the following four conditions must be met before the Planning Commission may grant a variance. 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 is substandard in area, width and depth and is also a corner lot. As the proposed building abuts an alley, the face of the proposed garages meet the required 25' setback distance from the opposite side of the alley. The proposed building would match the existing setback to the alley of other adjacent buildings in the vicinity. A number of buildings in the areas have similar side yard setbacks and reduced building ID separation. Therefore, special circumstances are applicable to the subject property that justify variance from 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 that will assure that the request will not constitute a grant of special privilege. Specific architectural design elements have been included in the proposal that will create a visual perspective consistent with the existing original buildings on the site, as well as with other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. These include: The building will be constructed of smooth stucco; The building will have balconies; and The building will have two-piece, mudded clay tile, 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. There are no conditions required by Engineering or Building. 4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The General Plan designates Avenida Ortega and Via Entrada as local streets and the subject site and surrounding vicinity for multiple family residential uses. The project does not conflict with, nor will it adversely affect, the General Plan of the City. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NOTIFICATION The subject property is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303, which states that the new construction of small structures including the addition of up to six multi -family apartment units and Section 15332, which states that projects characterized as in -fill development meeting specific conditions as outlined in Article 19, Categorical Exemptions, Section 15332(a)(b)(c)(d) and (e) of the California Environmental Quality Act shall be categorically exempt from further environmental assessment. All property owners within 400 feet of the subject property have been notified of the public hearing. As of the preparation of this report, staff has received one telephone inquiry from an adjacent property owner requesting further information regarding the project's design. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Resolution 3. Conditions of Approval .L VICIN.ITY'MAP AWNIV A mr • PALMERA Is { r • $Vf O -- 1 lb I11 tT/!1• I LM Tyr #- S AE MIDA MORQGQ 1 ;5 �df r � l ` r „e 82 21 "` 9 QITY OF. PALM SPRINGS 6.471 E5QRIPTION AE2U QNT Deena Band . Ipp�icatian fntvarlance to � sde. lard setback at an apartment,0 fBic lkt , 2178 AvenidaOrbegaF Zone RA 090VOR 28. RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE 6.471, AN APPLICATION BY DEENA BRAND FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 22 FEET TO SEVEN FEET AND THE REQUIRED BUILDING SEPARATION FROM 15 FEET TO 12 FEET, LOCATED AT 273 AVENIDA ORTEGA, ZONE R-3, SECTION 23. WHEREAS, Deena Brand, (the "Applicant') tiled an application with the City pursuant to section 94.06.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a variance to the required side yard setback from twenty-two feet to seven feet for a new building and reduction in building separation from 15 feet to 12 feet, at 273 Avenuiida Ortega, Zone R-3, Sec6on23. WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider an application for Variance 6.471 was issued in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on August 13, 2003, the public hearing on the application for Variance 6.471 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on August 13, 2003, a public meeting on the application for Variance 6.471 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 94.06.00.13, 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. In reviewing the case, the Commission finds that to deny the applicant's request would deprive her of privileges enjoyed by surrounding properties. A substandard lot area, width and depth provide limitations to the development of the lot as a multiple -family residence. 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 limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. The applicant has provided siting and architectural design solutions that will compliment adjacent residential properties and thereby shall not consistent a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. 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. City Departmental review and comment as conditions of approval insure public health, safety, convenience and welfare have been addressed. 4. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The General Plan designates Avenida Ortega and Via Entrada as local streets and the subject site and surrounding vicinity for single family residential uses. The project does not conflict with, nor will it adversely affect, the General Plan of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Variance 6.471, subject to the conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit A. ADOPTED this 13th day of August, 2003. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: Chairman of the Planning Commission CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Secretary of the Planning Commission Ee