HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: Variance Application Page 3 RE 47 D
City of Palm Desert
Planning Commission ALL 2 8 2008
73-510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 %OMMUNI eTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Planning Commission City of Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Regarding:
Variance Application: 46-020 Burroweed Lane,Palm Desert, Ca. 92260{Mr. Toia}
*PAGE-3- Variance Application:
2- Cost to Modify
A - May 8, 2008 -Letter sent by Mr. Toia's Attorney,Robert Stewart page 2:,
Paragraph 4 States: The Toia's are committed to the costs associated with
The pursuit of this matter to their succsulful conclusion.
2-Negative impact to our property value
A- Mr. Toia has failed to comply with Title 8,Chapter 8.70 & 8.70.150 of the
Code,by failing to maintain the structure in reasonable consistency and
Compatibility with the maintenance standards of adjacent properties so as
Not to interfere with reasonable enjoyment of such properties to depreciate
Their aesthetic or property value.
B- The negative impact of" my property"value was never considered
3-Extraordinary Circumstance
A- The aesthetic and view of structure from my bathroom slider window
depreciates my property value.
B- The noise from work shop { high voltage power tools} is very loud in
bathroom
4-Deprive privileges enjoyed
A- There are two sets of homes a total of 4 homes on my side of the street
that are attached at the garage wall, one of which is my home and seven
sets of homes across the street attached at the living room.
B- They all have Privileges Enjoyed : Legal Set Back Enforced; for
having one side of our homes attached to a common wall and not to have
the Legal Code Set back Enforced to the other side of our homes is:
*PAGE—3—of Variance Application- {continued}
1- Safety-an Extreme Fire Hazarded
2-Aesthetics & Privacy,Depreciates Property Value
5-Detrimental to Public Safety to Properties in the Vicinity
A- My home is the ONLY PROPERTY in the Vicinity effected by the
Non Permitted Structure, in which the Legal Code Set Back procedures
were not complied with.
B- I share a common garage wall with my neighbor to the North,by Not
Having the Legal Code Set Back Enforced:
1-Safety: {Work Shop) high voltage power tools
2- Extreme Fire Hazarded
3-Bedroom on North side of my home is next to
Non Permitted Structure
4-Noise from {Work Shop)
C- After article published in Desert Sun News Paper 2-26-08, exposing,the
Toia's did not have a permit to build structure, 90%of neighbors said,
"They would have never signed anything, and would rather stay out of the
dispute,as it did not affect their property. {Note Dates): on letters and
petition {1-10-08} - {1-11-08}
6- Proposed use of site
A- Mr. Toia does not disclose {WORK SHOP } in which, it is part of the
same Non Permitted structure As {Golf Cart Barn}
Conclusion
My home is the ONLY PROPERTY in the neighborhood affected by Legal Code Law
Set Back Enforcement,the Privileges Enjoyed would Deprive My Property of many
Legal Codes,the other neighbors in the same Vicinity and Identical Zoning
Classification have the Privileges of Enjoying.
The Non Permitted Structure, Aesthetically also the Privacy of my home are
Extremely Affected and Depreciates my Property Value.
That fact that I share a common garage wall on the North side of my home with my
neighbor DEPRIVES my home of EXTREME SAFETY PRIVILEGES.
City of Palm Desert
Variance Application
• One (1) set of Assessor's Parcel Map(s)illustrating the subject property and the surrounding property within
300 feet.Draw boundary of subject property and 300 foot radius in red.
Complete Supporting Data questions is Section IV
V. SUPPORTING DATA:
1. A variance from Section(s) of the City's Municipal Code to permit a:
2. • What particular difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance wouldld SLresultlif the v7 were not a,EsNr 4 Tl� /5
eV 2 Mi41.. OL1'D AM 15St1 El) 2A 1 IA-L
-1s VI Logrike441-1E-4°
OS we t iD 14-41e NMA71 W IMQkc-T To 4tl . PRO IERTY VALig.
y
3. • What exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions property that does not apply genera o
other properties in the same zone? cipflpen�f4NYyU
)' 0 r l Y C10 u g.w Si-IF.
EST �? MA—Ny LY�`f 2
4. • To what extent would the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation deprive
i N E y Dbk 0m1 J .ers�f lthzer rtieti4lx aril aaaS? iiiiiiiew
ts5siptiiiiiip,Acti- 1-,/,,ewle-,Y,Zii. LviSLOE Al NS1Pa- 5
5. • To what extent would the granting of this adjustment be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,
�o,material' i 'u�ys to r a erti pcie ents i e vicini? P ,�,ti I N
I , ?? ry
, Y f' 111
T 5 4A1 I f ' f S l - ? N�l2 , f�
ELL AS.L iP o ac t PPOrC i Fi M jfij ,Q5.(SEZ, nc.k. c t 'mem c H
6. ' Proposed use of the site (project for which the form is died; descnbe the tdtai undertaking, not just the
current
0 LF c. -applition a2-7al i 5 t):
7. Gross Project Site Area:
8. Net Project Site Area:
9. Existing use of the project site:
10. Existing use on adjacent properties: (Example: North, Shopping Center; South, Single Family Dwellings;
East, Vacant. etc.)
3
a
.00 L
y Z c.
L z 6
ea O Co04
L
o �C�
a
N =• i A G.
� 3 a 4 A
yam" c
Ts
z a
3
A Q o c L
E O O a, 6
C—C
-a E—, - :°
L
;1 x a > ° 0
fstt y �, 14
0 lo O o m
° x a, > L > 4
a ' - o E
�
C.,
o > CJ
W a, > _
� L = C. =
►: GEC r4•, f:Iy, C L = CI
vs C4 C z 0. F,
I I
�r N M
d'
*sr � . _
k ,
y { sue.
•
F
)4 ty5 M i ;