HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution _6179-Case 6.520- VARRESOLUTION NO. 6179
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA DENYING VARIANCE
APPLICATION, CASE 6.520, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 5 FEET FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGE AT AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1180
PASEO EL MIRADOR, (SECTION 11)
WHEREAS, Matthew Peterson, ("Applicant") has filed an application with the City
pursuant to Section 94.06.00 (variance) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) for a
variance to reduce the side yard setbacks from 10 feet to 5 feet for the construction of a
proposed attached two car garage at an existing single family residence located at 1191
Paseo El Mirador, Zone R-1-C, Section 11; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs to consider Variance Case 6.520 was given in accordance with applicable law;
and
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2011, a public hearing on Variance Case 6.520 was held by
the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed variance is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 (Minor
Alterations to Land Use Limitations) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).; 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: The Planning Commission finds that this Variance request is Categorically
Exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15305 (Minor Alterations to
Land Use Limitations) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 2: Pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 94.06.00 (Variance) of the
Zoning Code, the Planning Commission may grant variances only upon making
affirmative findings for all four (4) variance findings outlined in State Law. The Planning
Commission finds as follows:
1. Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application
Planning Commission Resolut on No. 6179
Case 6.520—VAR
February 9, 201 '1
Page 2 of 3
of the Zoning Code would deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
The subject property is a legal conforming lot. Its size and shape are conforming to the
minimum requirements of the zone. There are no unique topographical features on the
site or surrounding it. Therefore there are no special circumstances that exist on the
subject property that deprive the property privileges granted to other properties in the
vicinity and under the identical zone classification.
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 subject parcel is located in a zone of similar lots of similar size and with similar
single family structures built at approximately the same time period as the subject
parcel. Building permits on record at the City show the original home was permitted
with an attached two car garage. Previous owners converted the garage to livable
space without a building permit. Allowing reduced setbacks from ten feet to five feet for
the construction of a new 2-car garage on this parcel would grant a special privilege of
smaller side yard setbacks not enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the R-1-
C zone.
3. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the pubic health,
safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the
same vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated.
The requested variance reduces the west side yard setback by 50%, from ten feet to
five feet. The design submitted proposes roof overhangs that project into the (reduced)
side yard setback by 2.5 feet, further reducing the overall clear setback to 2.5 feet. In
addition, the garage is proposed at roughly 12 feet in height. A tall hedge exists
between this and the adjoining parcel thereby reducing access for emergency services
to the rear of the property.
4. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the
city.
The proposed variance would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6179
Case 6.520—VAR
February 9, 2011
Page 3 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning
Commission hereby denies Case 6.520 VAR.
ADOPTED this 9tn day of February 2011.
AYES: 3, Donenfeld, Conrad and Chair Caffery
NOES: 2, Munger and Klatchko
ABSENT: 1, Hudson
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
Aing, P
Director of Plan(j Services
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
Ew
N
m