HomeMy WebLinkAbout21565 - RESOLUTIONS - 5/3/2006 RESOLUTION NO. 21565
' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CASE 6.486-VAR A
VARIANCE TO THE ALLOWED WALL HEIGHTS LOCATED
AT 2001 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, ZONE R2,
SECTION 13.
WHEREAS, Dr. Reza Mazaheri ("applicant") has, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the Palm
Springs Municipal Code, appealed the Planning Commission decision denying Case No.
6.486-Var, a variance to the allowed wall heights located at 2001 East Tahquitz Canyon
Way, Zone R-2, Section 13; and
WHEREAS, On March 22, 2006, the Planning Commission heard case 6.486 in a public
hearing and passed a resolution denying the application; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, the City
Council is authorized to hear appeals of Planning Commission actions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in connection with the application and appeal, including but not limited to the
staff report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard the appeal at a public hearing on May 3, 2006 in
accordance with applicable laws.
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 94.06.00(B), the City Council finds:
1) Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application 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 currently developed with five foot walls within fifteen feet of
the front property line. The existing masonry wall is legal nonconforming based on
the current Zoning Code and would be permitted to remain. All new construction is
required to conform to the current code.
There are none of the physical characteristics mentioned above which deprive the
subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties. The applicant has stated
that the difficulty in building a fence that complies with the code comes partially from
' the location of the structure on the lot. The structure is set back approximately
twenty-five feet from the front property line and would cut off the courtyard garden.
The location of a structure on the lot is not a characteristic of the lot itself and
Resolution No. 21565
Page 2
cannot be considered in making variance findings. The zone outlines a consistent
regimen for wall heights when a property abuts a major thoroughfare. Staff cannot '
find that there are special circumstances of this lot distinct from other properties
under an identical zone classification or in the vicinity.
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.
All other properties in the vicinity would be required to adhere to the same
standards for new construction therefore, the granting of the variance would
constitute a grant of special privilege for the subject property.
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 subject area is not within a visibility cutback area, therefore the project is
unlikely to be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience or
welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area.
4) The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the city.
The Tahquitz Canyon Corridor requires pedestrian-friendly architecture. The
increase proposed would not push the subject property into a non-pedestrian scale.
Therefore, the granting of the variance would not adversely affect the general plan.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council upholds the Planning Commission Resolution denying Case
No. 6.486-Var.
ADOPTED this 3rd day of May, 2006.
David H. Ready, City Man r
ATTEST:
/ mes Thompson, City Clerk
Resolution No. 21565
Page 3
' CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. 21565 is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on May 3, 2006, by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmember Mills, Councilmember Pougnet, Mayor Pro Tem Foat and
Mayor Oden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember McCulloch
ABSTAIN: None
' 'Hies Thompson, City Clerk
Cam"City of Palm Springs, California
[[[dddd