HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes No 2331PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2331
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A VARIANCE TO SECTION
25.18.070.0 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A REDUCTION
IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN ENTRY VESTIBULE FROM 5
FEET TO 0 FEET, MEASURED FROM PORTOLA AVENUE CURB
FACE FOR A HOME CONSTRUCTED IN 1957 AT 45-807 PORTOLA
AVENUE.
CASE NO. VAR 05-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did on the 19th day
of April, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of Suzanne Lopez of the above
stated; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert
Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106" in that
the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 3 (New Construction
or Conversion of Small Structures) categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts
and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said variance:
FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE (ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 25.16.050):
A. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance codified in this title.
• The R-2 zone's 15-foot front yard setback for an entry vestibule cannot be met
because the exiting house has a front yard setback of 5 feet. Therefore, the strict
or literal interpretation and enforcement of would result in the practical difficulty of
the applicant having to live with increased noise from traffic on Portola Avenue,
which is now 14 feet closer than it was in 1980 when the street was widened.
B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do
not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
• The reduction in the home's front yard setback from 19 feet to 5 feet resulted in
increased noise from traffic which is now closer to the home. These extraordinary
and unique conditions do not generally apply to other R-2 zoned properties in the
city.
• The property's 5-foot front yard setback does not meet the 15-foot front yard
setback required by the R-2 zone because the widening of Portola Avenue reduced
the lot depth by 14 feet.
• The existing entry door exemplifies an outdated floor plan design because the front
door leads a guest directly into the home's kitchen instead of leading into the living
room.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2331
C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same vicinity and zone.
• The property was developed in 1957 to County of Riverside development
standards. Other structures on Portola Avenue in the vicinity of the project site also
have front yard setbacks Tess than 15 feet due to widening of the street. Had the
street widening not occurred the proposed entry vestibule could be constructed
without a variance. Therefore, the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the 15-foot setback for an entry vestibule would deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
D. That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
• The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity
because providing a front entry vestibule and 5-foot high wall for noise attenuation
would upgrade the appearance of a property developed in 1957.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, Califomia, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 19th day of April, 2005, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, JONATHAN, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP
NOES: FINERTY
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELSecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
DAVID E. TSCHOPP, Chairpers
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2331
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. VAR 05-01
Department of Community Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the
Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final
approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void
and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and
limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal
statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall submit final
construction drawings of the remodeling of the home, which will include an entry vestibule, front
wall, and garage to the Planning Department for review and approval by the architectural review
commission. Front -yard landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted concurrently with
construction drawings of the proposed remodeling.
5. The long horizontal windows on the sides of the garage shall be replaced by smaller windows
with four -inch recesses.
6. The arch over the entry gate shall be removed.
7. A front -yard landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted for city review and approval.
8. All fencing visible from Portola shall be painted consistent with the color of the garage as
approved by the architectural review commission.
//
3