The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRes 00-94 Planning Commission 77290 Indiana Ave. VAR 00-01 Ordinance No. 00-94 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal to a decision of the Planning Commission denying a variance to the required front setback from 14 feet to 3 feet for a carport structure in front of the residence at 77-290 Indiana Avenue. III. APPELLANT: David Reyes 77-290 Indiana Avenue Palm Desert, CA 9221 1 IV. CASE NO: VAR 00-01 CITY COUNCIL ,ACTION: APPROVED '¢ DENIED V. DATE: July 13, 2000 RECEIVED.. OTHER VI. CONTENTS: mE ET1:N^ DATE - 1 -00 AYES P:fOES: A. Staff Recommendation ABSENT: \i� �. B. Background (ABSTAIN: C. Analysis VERIFIED BY: Ud- .nn-t D. Conclusion Original on File with City Clec's Office E. Attachments A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council affirm the Planning Commission decision and deny the variance request. B. BACKGROUND: April 20, 1999 the Planning Department approved over the counter a request to install a carport structure in front of the residence at 77-290 Indiana Avenue. The approval noted that it was "per setbacks noted!" 41 feet from curb to existing dwelling. Elsewhere on the site plan the distance between the curb and the edge of the carport is shown to be 26 feet (i.e., 14 feet of setback plus 12 feet of parkway). The confusion on the matter was compounded by the applicant's limited use of English. February 7, 2000 the Building Department granted a permit extension. Subsequently construction began. Ordinance No. 00-94 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. VAR 00-01 JULY 13, 2000 February 8, 2000 Building Department did a footing inspection and did not question the setback. April 4, 2000 a different building inspector while doing a framing inspection questioned the setback of the structure and Planning Department was made aware of the problem. The property owner was contacted and this variance application was filed. The variance request was continued by Planning Commission at its May 2, 2000 meeting to allow the applicant to apply to the Palm Desert Country Club Association. Application was made and the Association considered the matter and met with Mr. Reyes. May 10, 2000 the Association wrote a letter (copy enclosed) indicating it had denied the request due to the precedent it would set for others in the Palm Desert Country Club Association. The matter was back before Planning Commission at its June 6, 2000 meeting. At that time the variance request was denied on a 5-0 vote. Reasons for the denial were: 1 . The plans as presented were denied by the Palm Desert Country Club Association. 2. The plans as presented are not consistent with other homes in the nearby area. 3. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the specific property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or in the nearby area. In the June 6, 2000 discussions several commissioners opined that the city appears to share some responsibility in the extent to which this project went before it was halted and that the city should rectify any financial inequity. C. ANALYSIS: Municipal Code Section 25.56.210 "Projections into yards" states that, "Architectural projections including eaves, awnings, louvers, and similar shading devices . . . may project not more than six feet into a required front yard . . . " The required front yard in this area is 20 feet; therefore, the carport structure has a required 14 foot setback from the property line (14 feet plus 12 foot parkway equals 26 feet from the curb). Municipal Code Section 25.78.070 allows Planning Commission to grant a variance to the setback requirement upon affirmation of the following four findings: 2 Ordinance No. 00-94 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. VAR 00-01 JULY 13, 2000 A. That strict of 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; 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; 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; and 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. Affirming finding "C" would be difficult because others in the area do not have carports or other structures setback three feet from the property line. We have received correspondence signed by people representing five properties in the area who support approval of the variance request although the residents immediately opposite have not been heard from. We have one letter in opposition and the property owners' association has denied the request. (Copies enclosed.) E. CONCLUSION: As Commissioner Finerty noted "it was very important that the Homeowners' Association basically have a lead role since their role was to protect the property values and to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood." The association denied the requested variance. Adoption of the findings to support the variance request was perilous from the beginning. Without the support of the PDCCA, staff cannot recommend approval of the variance request. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: Review and Concur: teve Smi Philip Drell, Director Carlos L. Ortega Planning Manager Dept. of Community Dev. Acting City Manager /tm 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR • A. Case No. PMW 00-07 - WORLD DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust the south lot line of Lot 16 to include the entire sewer easement onto one lot on Silver Canyon Lane. B. Case No. PMW - 00-08 - JACK BANOCZI, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for Lots 63 and 64 of Tract 4018 to add to Lot 63, 38-430 Zanzibar Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. VAR 00-01 - DAVID AND ROSALINA REYES, Applicants (Continued from May 2, 2000) Request for approval of a variance to the required front setback from 14 feet to 3 feet for a carport structure in front of the residence at 77-290 Indiana Avenue, APN 637-243-002. Mr. Drell explained that this item was continued pending a referral to the Palm Desert Country Club Association. They reviewed it and recommended that the variance not be approved. Staff's position was that the required findings could not be met and recommended denial. Commissioner asked Mr. Alvarez to ask Mr. Reyes if he would be interested in having a one-car carport with the side entry driveway instead. Mr. Alvarez noted that he and Commissioner Campbell discussed earlier in the day the possibility of reducing the depth of the carport and trying to create a greater 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 setback and possibly providing a single car with a circular or side entry access. He pointed out that it would still require a variance because in order to meet the required setback of 14 feet, the carport would have to be reduced 11 feet and that would leave only 4 feet of coverage or carport structure. He suggested asking the applicant if he would be willing to do that. Mr. Drell concurred that the variance would not be as severe and would have a little better chance of approval. Chairperson Beaty indicated that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the commission. (Mr. Alvarez interpreted for the applicant.) MR. DAVID REYES, 77-290 Indiana Avenue, said he would basically not prefer to do a side entry with only one car. His intent was to cover two cars as required by the ordinance. He said that his carport was similar to one at 77-310 Wyoming and it had the exact same setback. Mr. Alvarez informed the applicant that staff didn't know if that property location received a permit to build that structure. The applicant said he wanted to make the commission aware of that situation. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION on this item. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move to follow staff's recommendation. She felt it was very important that the Homeowners' Association basically have the lead role since their role was to protect the property values and to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. That was the whole purpose of the CC&R's and she believed they were filling their fiduciary responsibility and she would not want to be in conflict with the wishes of the homeowners in the area. She would move that the variance be denied. Commissioner Campbell also concurred with staff's recommendation of denial, but she thought that Mr. Reyes was in a predicament because everything was approved by the city twice and only the third time was it shown that it was not properly done. Now he would have to tear everything down. He did the construction himself, so he didn't have to pay anyone for labor, but in some way he should be compensated. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification from staff that the applicant followed proper procedure in constructing the structure or if it was possible that he followed proper procedure. Mr. Drell explained that the problem stemmed perhaps from a communication problem when he drew up his plans in terms of describing the distance between the property line and the edge of the carport. The planner that approved the plan was under the impression that there was adequate setback and noted on the plan what the setback should have been from the curb to the carport. Unfortunately the applicant didn't fully understand what was required or what those notations on his approval meant based on the assumption that there was 41 feet between the curb and the building. Commissioner Jonathan said that he would reluctantly concur with comments from his fellow commissioners and he would be in agreement with the staff report and staff conclusion. He said reluctantly for two reasons. He felt there was some miscommunication and he would urge the city to investigate the possibility that there was some responsibility on the city's part for the miscommunication and in that event he hoped they would rectify any financial inequity. The second reason was there was a situation in Palm Desert Country Club where some, and possibly including the structure on Wyoming, had been constructed without due process so there were some inconsistencies out there and he would very much like to seethe Homeowners Association address that issue. They have a situation where development came in under the County so technically the houses didn't meet zoning standards which requires a two-car garage, so there was a situation there that with some planning this wouldn't have to happen again. Commissioner Lopez also concurred. He said that in driving around the neighborhood, there seemed to be a lot of inconsistencies pertaining to structures in front of the house or on the side of homes and he thought it was the responsibility of the homeowners association to become much more actively involved in what was going on in the area. He didn't think it was the Planning Commission's mission to go against what was currently part of the CC&R's relating to the variance and he would support staff's recommendation. Chairperson Beaty said he was in concurrence with the other commissioners and suggested that the commission direct staff and the Homeowners Association to investigate the Wyoming structure. He also requested that Mr. Alvarez relate to Mr. Reyes that everyone would like to have shaded parking this time of year. He said he has a similar problem so he planted two trees, which required some care, but he did receive shade except for about one hour per day. He asked for a motion. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Alvarez explained to the applicant the comments and action by the commission. Mr. Alvarez informed the commission that Mr. Reyes said he understood, but he would like to potentially pursue this matter to see if he could get compensated for some of the costs of the materials and investment he put into the house. Mr. Alvarez said he told Mr. Reyes to contact staff the next day or later in the week. Mr. Drell stated that Mr. Reyes was also entitled to appeal the decision to the City Council. Mr. Alvarez explained the appeal process to the applicant. Mr. Alvarez asked if Mr. Reyes should contact staff or the City Attorney. Mr. Drell explained that Mr. Reyes had to file an appeal to exhaust his entire administrative process. Mr. Alvarez explained those comments to Mr. Reyes. Mr. Reyes indicated that he understood. Chairperson Beaty asked Mr. Alvarez to make an appointment with Mr. Reyes for the next day to more fully explain and walk him through the process. Commissioner Campbell suggested that Mr. Reyes also reconsider changing the variance in some way. Mr. Alvarez asked the applicant to contact him the next day to discuss the process. Mr. Reyes said concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1991 , denying Case No. VAR 00-01 . Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 00-06 - ROBERT RICCIARDI for JOHN OATEY AND MARY OATEY, Applicants (Continued from May 2, 2000) Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan to construct a 7,430 square foot medical office building located at 10 Village Court. Mr. Drell explained that this item was continued because the applicant wasn't present and there were some questions about the architecture. Subsequent to that as a result of going through the Architectural Commission, some carports had to be added to comply with the city's parking lot shading requirement. The applicant's architect had proposed that carports be • constructed in front of the building which would have been on the west elevation. As it turned out, that addition had not been approved by the 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 innovative, the requirement of the association was to build the building just like the ones that were already there. He guessed the issue was if there were details on the existing building which were absent from the proposal. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was a question the commission should be able to put to the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan said he would move to continue the matter to the first meeting in June. Chairperson Beaty reopened the public hearing and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, continuing Case No. PP 00-06 to June 6, 2000, by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. VAR 00-01 - DAVID AND ROSALINA REYES, Applicants Request for approval of a variance to the required front setback from 14 feet to 3 feet for a carport structure in front of the residence at 77-290 Indiana Avenue, APN 637-243-002. Mr. Smith explained that in April of 1 999 approval was given to construct a carport at 77-290 Indiana Avenue. The construction did not begin for some time. In February 2000 the Building Department granted an extension to the building permit that had been pulled. Mr. Smith stated that there was a copy of the approval in the commission's packet, as well as reproductions of photographs of the carport structure. He said that there was some confusion as to how far back the carport needed to be set. It was noted on the plans that there were 41 feet of distance from the curb to the existing dwelling. He said that when looking at the carport on the site, it was obvious that there was never 41 feet there. He said that the Building Department did an initial footing inspection on February 8, 2000 and passed it. On April 4 they were called back to do a framing inspection and that inspector questioned the setback of the structure. Subsequently the applicant filed this variance request. He explained that the required front yard setback in this zone was 20 feet. They were allowed a shading device to encroach up to six feet into the required setback, hence the requirement of 14 feet. As indicated the structure is at about three from the property line. Mr. Smith noted that there is a 12- foot parkway so the distance between the curb and the edge of the carport is 10 • • MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 about 15 feet. Staff circulated notices of this hearing to property owners within 300 feet. The applicant brought staff a petition or statement signed by five of his neighbors supporting the application. Staff received one letter of objection from the property owner at 43-490 Illinois, which was east of this location on the next street, but it was within 300 feet. He also noted that there was a letter from Marilyn Hamlet, the President of the Palm Desert Country Club Association, saying that they never received an application for the construction of the carport nor for any variances. Staff's recommendation was to continue this to allow the applicant to process the request through the homeowners' association. When the applicant got through with that process, then the city would take up the process again. Mr. Smith suggested that the matter be continued to June 6, 2000. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Alvarez stated that the applicant was present and he would be interpreting for him. MR. DAVID REYES, 77-290 Indiana Avenue, addressed the commission. Commissioner Finerty said that when she went to look at the carport, part of the structure was in the grass and the other side of the carport was in the dirt. There was a small portion of asphalt but it was in terrible shape. She asked if there were any plans to install a driveway. Mr. Reyes informed commission that he does have plans to install concrete the whole width of the carport area. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant understood the process with the homeowners' association and what he needs to do. Mr. Reyes said he was not aware of the process, but now he was aware of it and would be making contact with them. Commissioner Campbell asked if the carport would be painted the same color as the house. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 Mr. Reyes said that he had the paint to do both the residence and the carport, but he was waiting for a decision. Chairperson Beaty asked for a clarification. The original approval noted that it was per setbacks noted. He asked if that was given to Mr. Reyes in writing and how he would have known that. He asked if they were noted on Mr. Reyes' plan. Mr. Smith said there was a copy of the plan as it was approved and it noted the 41 feet, the 26 feet and the 15. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the matter. There was no one and the public hearing was left open. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan asked if in the event the homeowners' association approved the carport as is, if staff's recommendation would be to grant an exception from the ordinance. Because if staff was opposed, then the homeowners' association action was superfluous and perhaps the item didn't need to be continued. Mr. Smith said that he indicated in the staff report that they would have difficulty making finding "C;" it wasn't an impossibility, but it would be difficult. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a sufficient possibility that staff would recommend allowing an exception to warrant the continuance and the applicant's expenditure of time and effort to work with the association. Mr. Drell said that the overall policy with these sorts of variances, especially where there were associations, was to tend to try and defer to the opinion of the association. There might be other design issues that could be suggested to make it look more like part of the house and there could be other suggestions to make it stick out less than it does. Given the fact that it exists he felt they should explore every avenue and they should see if the neighborhood could feel if it was acceptable or not. Commissioner Finerty suggested that one of the design aspects that the association might look at was the height of the carport, which was actually higher than the edge of the roof where it meets. So they had the roof coming down and the carport extending about six inches above that so that it clearly looked like it didn't fit, but at 43-480 Illinois there was a carport there that fit in really nicely. The trim was all the same and it blended very well. Mr. Drell felt that given that the carport exists, they should investigate all the possibilities. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 2000 Commissioner Campbell said that right now it stood out like a sore thumb, but once it was painted it could blend in. She felt that with the concrete driveway and improved landscaping, it would help. Mr. Drell said that to a certain extent, especially with carports, the ordinance specifies that they should have two covered spaces. Without taking out a bedroom that couldn't be done. He thought that at some time in the distant past there was probably a one car garage there which was converted to a room. Probably long before the applicant bought the house. In those situations where an applicant was trying to comply with one part of the code which said he was supposed to have two covered spaces, and obviously covered spaces was a desirable thing to have out here in the desert, so that was why they tried to work with people the best they could. Commissioner Lopez said that considering that this has gone through several steps here, he thought it looked like there was some sharing of burden here as it pertained to fault. He asked if the worst case scenario was that this had to come down, if there was any area where the financial burden should be shared. Mr. Drell stated that was a question for the City Attorney and he would probably want to give that answer to the commission in closed session. Mr. Erwin concurred that he would prefer to discuss this issue in closed session if the commission wished to discuss this issue. Chairperson Beaty asked if there were any other comments or a motion. Commissioner Jonathan felt that it made sense to continue the matter to give the applicant the opportunity to work with the association and neighbors. He asked how much time would be appropriate. Mr. Smith said that staff was suggesting a continuance to June 6, 2000. Chairperson Beaty asked if staff knew if there was an association meeting between now and June 6. Mr. Smith didn't know. Commissioner Jonathan suggested the continuance to June 6 and if the applicant needed more time, it could be continued again. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing VAR 00-01 to June 6, 2000 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Alvarez relayed the information to the applicant. The applicant thanked the commission. 13 • CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 2, 2000 CASE NO: VAR 00-01 REQUEST: Approval of a variance to the required front setback from 14 feet to 3 feet for a carport structure in front of the residence at 77-290 Indiana Avenue, APN 637-243-002. APPLICANT: David and Rosalina Reyes 77-290 Indiana Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 BACKGROUND: April 20, 1999 the Planning Department approved over the counter a request to install a carport structure in front of the residence at 77-290 Indiana Avenue. The approval noted that it was "per setbacks noted!" 41 feet from curb to existing dwelling. Elsewhere on the site plan the distance between the curb and the edge of the carport is shown to be 26 feet (i.e., 14 feet of setback plus 12 feet of parkway). The confusion on the matter was compounded by the applicant's limited use of English. February 7, 2000 the Building Department granted a permit extension. Subsequently construction began. February 8, 2000 Building Department did a footing inspection and did not question the setback. April 4, 2000 a different building inspector while doing a framing inspection questioned the setback of the structure and Planning Department was made aware of the problem. The property owner was contacted and this variance application was filed. April 17, 2000 notices of this public hearing were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. II. ANALYSIS: Municipal Code Section 25.56.210 "Projections into yards" states that, "Architectural projections including eaves, awnings, louvers, and similar shading devices...may project not more than six feet into a required front yard..." The 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. VAR 00-01 MAY 2, 2000 required front yard in this area is 20 feet; therefore, the carport structure has a required 14 foot setback from the property line (14 feet plus 12 foot parkway equals 26 feet from the curb). Municipal Code Section 25.78.070 allows Planning Commission to grant a variance to the setback requirement upon affirmation of the following four findings: n enforcement of the specified regulation A. That strict of literal interpretation and p g p would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance codified in this title; 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; 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; and 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. Affirming finding "C" would be difficult because others in the area do not have carports or other structures setback three feet from the property line. We have received correspondence signed by people representing five properties in the area who support approval of the variance request although the residents immediately opposite have not been heard from. We have one letter in opposition. (Copies enclosed.) We also have a letter from the Palm Desert Country Club Association indicating they have not approved construction plans nor any variances. Staff have advised Mr. Reyes to apply to the Association for appropriate approvals. III. CONCLUSION: This matter should be continued to allow the applicant to apply and obtain a decision from the Palm Desert Country Club Association. 2 Y / STAFF REPORT CASE NO. VAR 00-01 MAY 2, 2000 . IV. RECOMMENDATION: That Case No. VAR 00-01 be continued to June 6, 2000. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Legal notice B. Correspondence C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Plans and exhibits ,1 Prepared by / L--c._-�L, .- -/ Steve Smith Reviewed and Approved by Ni P it Dre I /tm 3 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 6, 2000 continued from May 2, 2000 CASE NO: VAR 00-01 REQUEST: Approval of a variance to the required front setback from 14 feet to 3 feet for a carport structure in front of the residence at 77-290 Indiana Avenue, APN 637-243-002. APPLICANT: David and Rosalina Reyes 77-290 Indiana Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 BACKGROUND: This matter was continued from May 2, 2000 to allow the applicant to apply to the Palm Desert Country Club Association. Application was made and the Association considered the matter and met with Mr. Reyes. May 10, 2000 the Association wrote a letter (copy enclosed) indicating it had denied the request due to the precedent it would set for others in the Palm Desert Country Club Association. II. DISCUSSION: Adoption of the findings to support the variance request was perilous from the beginning. Without the support of the PDCCA staff cannot recommend approval of the variance request. We have attached a resolution of denial which specifies the reasons for the denial as follows: 1 . The plans as presented were denied by the Palm Desert Country Club Association. 2. The plans as presented are not consistent with other homes in the nearby area. 3. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the specific property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or in the nearby area. III. RECOMMENDATION: That Case No. VAR 00-01 not be approved. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIC O. 1991 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK FROM 14 FEET TO 3 FEET FOR A CARPORT STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AT 77-290 INDIANA AVENUE. CASE NO. VAR 00-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 2nd day of May, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to June 6, 2000, to consider the request by David and Rosalina Reyes for the above noted variance request; 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 denial of said variance: 1 . The plans as . presented were denied by the Palm Desert Country Club Association. 2. The plans as presented are not consistent with other homes in the nearby area. 3. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the specific property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or in the nearby area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That VAR 00-01 is hereby denied. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of June, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, JONATHAN, LOPEZ, BEATY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE /c -,f ,2 . PAUL R. BEATY, Chairper on - ATTE T: ..-- ke'l),____Qt PHILIP DRE , Secretary Palm Desert Tanning Commission .••.••••...• ....••.•••• • T 3/91 •�• ir:.! 11 = CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA _ ,: i c) c ' t �,�� " APPLICATION TO APPEAL c z 73 :�940 .� `,�j�`�f rn •••..?? aie, /2 , m w n •••• rn - < •' DECISION OF THE 2(Aif'Y)(I ( dl, C�2�m M I sc i O ) ,, (Name of Co ttee/Commission)o 3 rn -,, F_, v -n o 5 rE Case No. VA-(Z 60— I Meeting Date: . ) C Name of Appellant yA\J L D 12.-r Address 71 290 JI D(A-KJA A uie_,, Phone: (7Vo) 3 ' ./5.3o Description of Application: ✓o 4/ I (: / 7' c-4• .„41,3, 1,2,i/e 1- 7 - 7,71-K (--1 ,_zi- t---e d )--rn /)1 Cy)--e/di Reaso for eal: '' ' CI �' L'e-e`l P / Signature of Appellant Date(-1 1? FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Appeal Filed: t 3 C'C--) Fee Received: ;- fk.._ Treasurer's Receipt #: Received by /v Public Hearing Set For: ek ,r, Action taken by the City Council: Date: Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk 77-800 CALIFORNIA DRIVE PALM DESERT,CALIF.92211-8008 TELEPHONE(760)345.2331 . •�• • a • • _• RECEIVED APR 2 0 2000 PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB ASSOCIATION C -� ' �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT April 20, 2000 City of Palm Desert, Community Development Department 73-510 Fred Waring DR. Palm Desert, CA., 92260 Attn: Phil Drell RE: ZA R00-01 Dear Mr. Drell, The Board of Directors of Palm Desert Country Club Association did not approve plans for the construction of a carport at 77-290 Indiana nor did they give Mr. Reyes approval for any variances against the code regarding the construction of same. Respectfully, Mar ily nn Hamlet President atr_HD 4CL. -Ar‘ 1 CxJ� 77- ..??) -. h C-)f-t 77- 3 10 cci Ft . Xteide' 0/ ac _s 7it/e. qstt :I71 (v--3e)( 1 vc. 772O k PI .....zL,..rt.14S I O 1-4 (-104-la" - - / CITY OF PALM DESERT i t'r+` 3r,EETY V DEPARTM NT OF 4 ; • a . SAFETY 1 APPR. _. - i7 r 0-() ..,...,-0 �.r.p Aid? d)---- - ,�jI31F w E µL T AP..."......1..._ _ ‘.-7_4. 157 r OVAL COMES NULL.? VOID IF INSPE T- ,,,c OF ISS WITH1/t/° TIE N I• JOT ' 'ORDER WITHIN Inn RAYS OF ISSU- I,� AGCORDA►aCE as A C&. :L •RY.SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE W 'OVER PLANS. THIS APPROVAL BHAI.1_NOT&'. �f,c Al SHALL N� BE CONSTRUED TD BE A PERMIT FOR: AN APPROVAL, , i. ,.1. IS kr• APT -me. OF; ANY VIOLATION OF ANY CF THE PROVISIONS .. -. (HIS FOR. SW Ln 0E A pEpM Ep LprtS OF STATE&CITY ORDINANCES OP LAWS. THIS SIT fTF1 APPf'1E° OF APPROVED PLANS MUST BE KEPT ON'rIE JOB �Y �nONOF A"'(cog THIS ��,,, ET Jf lIL COMPLETED. II 1 UFID..."• ON T}{E JOB lJr�n are^^ BE KEPI . A-rrAc.r To E Y. , 1c- 1 S-1 T i1 • r fir -'‹ - - ! r. - 4111.. GLY-Ae-Ni t)) ' 13 ).. (P.-‘5 -111" f, , 1 THT-5'1'ft- , ,, 1 , '; , ,,, ,, 6._ ,,, , , ,_, . I rfAE: i :7 -- e-il;e.. ,Lhoe,..--, 0_ "5 r II i's A-; -00', --)1.... '; ll L. /Z pLyW� h,� rD! LE • itil-T. -: d)•0,. .„;), . . . . .. r --- ......,_ . l � I. _ ., 1,141-_),_) . ,. , • 1 ' p--- . ) ....____..-i 17 i I 1 I I! I • t, 1 ii i I' ' 1 1 I I I 1 I 0 i • 1. 1 I./ : 1 ; ! . . I i i Ici I I I I i , I. , 1 1. • i I • t I It _ ._ : I 1 • ! 1 I : I i I I 1 II I II 1 I I 1! 1 1 I I I I 1 1 , 1 i i I . g/ ->< --6 / i< -&/ • S. 9 cw--z6'od ••-11 j st, 1 ,r 1.11 3< 1 , -II I \ , , \ ...... , . . - -- ; NI 1 x . _ • . .. Cl ----- 6 / I. fi D rY d : -- vvri-767-0 --- — /- / .3-gdzia 1.,x .// 11 .. ,e ..;._. .... . . 02(hz pra :. • grlg7ViP is -,`+fin . 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 . TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. VAR 00-01 . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by DAVID AND ROSALINA REYES for approval of a variance to the required front yard setback from 14 feet to 3 feet for a carport structure in front of the residence at 77-290 Indiana Avenue, APN 637-243-002. \($15 4of \\\\\.\'') Mil ci . 1F mn • = L ao m _ i oM 17:7-3 PliFIJE 1 gal m., ar S .xre I I n'e /� a . „, iri EL , . y ' I wN.A AVB as ..___, . 43714 IIa1 MN1I.R I a, F / I "c,-\- E , ,. , ...„ , _ L._. , , , ,,,, i „, z>.".-. �.� t,„ � K„, A,,,.-- -.:- ,i., __________ SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary April 17, 2000 Palm Desert Planning Commission ` -z3l00 RECEIVED Arfr-,_ �-t /A/ C-.o M At i JS% o _ Or/ 0 2 J APR 2 5 2000 �,,,, 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �t'�-y'1 �-C J�z / Z Z G C> CITY OF PALM DESERT Ci s- ,4745 V44-06-o/ g-?4/ d / -r/ls 4 p/ PS _„ �O T-/Lt 4 7` 77- 2 90 / mad, .✓A /}U-` /04-4,f.7 % / 1 s• /L-<:( ee,4 3a /fso � i� �tJv✓L� U.v a v�T /17`f+ vc_ 4 /Y T1 u L -6- �-� �7- .1 2 17/ .472 s / 7'74. / f -lZ -c .,¢ �i A/G--c- (-193 7 i /✓Q/--f , ID-ea 1 , /4 a( T—G� T , L (j. 45e l/AIsle --oo _ of -- 2_ #aS / S c_ /A✓ C 4 7- /f 4 2 / ems T- / 4 tit 4 / l d T -7-a 4--,✓ 7/ it) i s v ,v C. . l. T,cam. 4 ,=-r Ge,--e_ -� ✓T" �a /Z_ ?ice /2 /�/?a 72-( .z r htA 5 / .✓ 7- (if 4/Z- 7-0 4 S �- U 2 z-L Gli,-„( 3J0 5,)i�l3l0 �11I6 �` s c9 Az' �7 2�� 1.,p0-z yual � � a3AI3O3a j--)--c7 1_,7_17,c) 7 frg ‘,/ L69L-im D` rcr`urea _* �''1 .any srouTlll 06bE6 sfl1ID'H uaasof 4 / S r/ �,f/")/9 , -� z� -7 /7 v� s��,_ 'fi � .M o2s� �� ?- LI J s r S/-) n 74� .'�-�iLv 7—?s1 /y/ o y / -7--67i � rd °77� -e „iv t„„ r ig -E - Z h//-t// S'1 174_ /'( 5-7--5- 0 / 2/ r�l J ✓1/ � -74//i ci0_2/09 v Q7 7-77w.7,I �✓`' l' 7 Lj r S 72 5-- ( 1 62o 2_C ry V (jJ 7 ��j �-p/$ ,—//—,L 0_ ,L )� v�/ f ........ CITY OF PALM DESERT V Y ^ ; 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE • �� I 1PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 **• t TEL: 760 i46-061 1 y✓, �aq j-. FAX: 76o 340-0574 cicyhall@�ix.netcom.com OFFICE OF THE MAYOR July 6, 2000 Mr. Joseph H. Gillis 43490 Illinois Avenue Palm Desert, California 92211-7537 Dear Mr. Gillis: Thank you for your letter dated July 3, 2000, regarding Case #VAR-00-01. This item is on the City Council agenda for July 13, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. My colleagues on the City Council and staff will receive a copy of your letter. You are certainly welcome to attend the meeting. Thank you again for taking the time to contact my office. Issues affecting our constituents and visitors are of great interest to all the members of the Palm Desert City Council. Sincerely, BUFO A. CRITES MAYOR BAC:wjm cc: City Council �=RRIRIID ON RI(1((ID PAPER • t t. 'tti' 4 1 1i F , 9 ,l.., t1. 4'�` fie; Y; III 3 } ; ..7 0 ,- ,,,,, , Y A r r r #may jj • i 6 4 li 'fail 1 ' - s r . . o ---.' lip- ,",....,,..."4, ,"• ',"-:". ":"‘$.. .'2,4'•"s..'"' "•• '4' , . , „.. - . ,. , '',. . , .... ,4•;:- — S ' PI tt. = lit\ 14 _aro ,... , . . , .• . • , . •_ , ._ - ' .„ , ,, . '••'k.'•.'"I' ,r..... '•iiT'''' ' '''P''..',..:\...• ''';',/•,000 4.`);•.•.:, , . , , ., ¢•4 41•; •'';'•-''i -:• , t.... it'" -.'•.,4 . . . ',.",, • . • ,. . . " A.t • . , ...A. ...,,, .,„ 1. t •,. :' ,'' !(L.:'',. 11- .., ..-,y.4• ,' ..''1 • $". . I . • .. • '07., : •''. - -- . ..., .i. -. 1 ‘ • ,‘ , - . f..+" a. . t..„ •_ . ket ' ,.-t •••• ... . ,.._ ., .. , , ,r---- 1 . ,.,„„,,. ,„,„,, / . ,•, • . 'At-it:-: I ,. it ... -•---..- %,' . ., I,,, . ,. . .,-, , 1.• . --""(- •is' ' ''.‘.' ' .4 • ' . • i • . , '-•-•,,V 'i ',..", ," ,,, " i . , 4 ' ' ;',;:.,' ,•• 4,2:.' .' ''. ''- '' • (• ''''''. -".:1, :' ''--k'. '• ' • • ' , ' '- '' -4 • . r Ii ON ft) ifr ,4t!)-- .7 ,*4:... ,s; :44„ , , ' .,, tot• - 1 d !.-� s4!.• a tom .►" xr e r r a A �y�, j _:+. .. 9 c