Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 05-062RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: City Clerk's Office City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT - NO FEE - 6103 OF THE GOVT. CODE M S A R DOC 2 0 0 5— 0 8 3 5 8 1 1 10/11/2005 08:00A Fee:NC Page 1 of 3 Recorded in Official Records County of Riverside Larry W. Ward Assessor, County Clerk & Recorder uIII U PAGE wail SIZE RESOLUTION NO. 05-62 CASE N O . VAR 05-02 (Title of Document) IIO III null AIVI III IIAI IIII INI DA PCOR COPY LONG NOCOR REFUND Property Owners: Abbass and Judith Kamouie Denying a Variance to Allow a Freestanding Patio Cover 13' x 29', 12' in Height Setback 3'2" from Property Line. The Subject Property is Located at 74-431 De Anza Way. SMF NCHG MISC EXAM RESOLUTION NO. 05-62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FREESTANDING PATIO COVER 13' X 29', 12' IN HEIGHT SETBACK 3'2" FROM PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 74-431 DE ANZA WAY. CASE NO. VAR 05-02 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. 2335, denied for reasons the above -noted Variance request; and WHEREAS, the property owner, Abbass and Judith Kamouie, did file this timely appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of July, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing, which was subsequently continued to the meetings of August 25, 2005, and September 8, 2005, to consider the appeal of Abbass and Judith Kamouie; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106" in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 3 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify denial 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. There is no difficulty or physical hardship related to the property in question. B. 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 property is not of a highly irregular shape, and is very large compared to the minimum lot size for the zone. There are no extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this property. C. That strict or literal interpretations 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. All other properties in the same area/zone all have the same restrictions for patio/detached accessory buildings. The applicant is not deprived of any privileges that others enjoy in the same area. RESOLUTION NO. 05-62 D. That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. The patio cover is injurious to adjoining properties, as they are now looking directly at a structure that has been built in a required rear yard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That the appeal to the Planning Commission denial of case Variance 05-02 be denied for the reasons set forth above, but that certain considerations unique to this case be applied: a) In consideration of the medical condition of his mother also residing at this address, the Appellant is granted a temporary variance, subject to his acquiring permits for the nonconforming structures, with the understanding that they may be temporarily retained in their current condition, except for lowering the tallest by two feet; b) said temporary variance to be reviewed by the Director of Community Development at least every six months from this point forward; c) at such time as the mother no longer resides in the household, Appellant shall immediately remove the nonconforming structures and bring the property into compliance with City Code for such appurtenances; d) this resolution to be recorded against the title of the subject property. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 8th day of September, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, FERGUSON, KELLY, SPIEGEL, and CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: ELLE D. LASSEN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 2 JIM FEMAYOR PRO-TEMPORE EACH DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED. IS CERTIFIED TO BE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE AND ON RECORD IN MY OFFIC )i' SSEN, City Clerk if RESOLUTION NO. 05-62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FREESTANDING PATIO COVER 13' X 29', 12' IN HEIGHT SETBACK 3'2" FROM PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 74-431 DE ANZA WAY. CASE NO. VAR 05-02 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. 2335, denied for reasons the above -noted Variance request; and WHEREAS, the property owner, Abbass and Judith Kamouie, did file this timely appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of July, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing, which was subsequently continued to the meetings of August 25, 2005, and September 8, 2005, to consider the appeal of Abbass and Judith Kamouie; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106" in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 3 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify denial 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. There is no difficulty or physical hardship related to the property in question. B. 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 property is not of a highly irregular shape, and is very large compared to the minimum lot size for the zone. There are no extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this property. C. That strict or literal interpretations 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. All other properties in the same area/zone all have the same restrictions for patio/detached accessory buildings. The applicant is not deprived of any privileges that others enjoy in the same area. RESOLUTION NO. 05-62 D. That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. The patio cover is injurious to adjoining properties, as they are now looking directly at a structure that has been built in a required rear yard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That the appeal to the Planning Commission denial of case Variance 05-02 be denied for the reasons set forth above, but that certain considerations unique to this case be applied: a) In consideration of the medical condition of his mother also residing at this address, the Appellant is granted a temporary variance, subject to his acquiring permits for the nonconforming structures, with the understanding that they may be temporarily retained in their current condition, except for lowering the tallest by two feet; b) said temporary variance to be reviewed by the Director of Community Development at least every six months from this point forward; c) at such time as the mother no longer resides in the household, Appellant shall immediately remove the nonconforming structures and bring the property into compliance with City Code for such appurtenances; d) this resolution to be recorded against the title of the subject property. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 8th day of September, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, FERGUSON, KELLY, SPIEGEL, and CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: R • C ELLE D. KLASSE , CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA I JIM FE MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE 2