Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 2017-10RESOLUTION NO. 2017-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2685 FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM TWENTY (20) FEET TO EIGHT (8) FEET TO ACCOMMODATE AN EXISTING CASITA UNIT AT 72-700 SOMERA ROAD CASE NO: VAR 16-305 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of December, 2016, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a variance request for the above -noted and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2685 denying the variance request as findings required by Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.72.070 could not be made; and WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code 25.60.080; and WHEREAS, the City Council, of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 9th day of February 2017, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal submitted by John and Debra Trudeau; and WHEREAS, no new information has been presented by the applicant to make findings in support of the requested variance; and WHEREAS, the parcels are located in the Residential Single -Family (R-1) zoning district, which allows for detached single-family homes and various accessory structures, including casitas as permitted uses, subject to the development standards for that zoning district; and WHEREAS, the property owner has a non -permitted casita structure within the front yard setback, eight feet from the front yard property line and 60 percent within the front yard setback for the zoning district; and WHEREAS, said applications have complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2015-75, the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and qualifies as 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, the City Council did make the following findings upholding the Planning Commissions denial of the variance request: Findings of Denial: 1. That 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. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-10 The variance request has failed to demonstrate that the enforcement of City regulations related to the development standards of the Residential Single - Family zoning district creates an unnecessary hardship to the property owner. The request to reduce the front yard setback for two South Palm Desert lots will not alleviate the property owner of any physical hardship inconsistent with other properties in the surrounding area. Nothing at these properties makes it impractical for the property owner to comply with the development standards of the zoning district. 2. 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 properties, when taken together, are approximately 21,600 square feet in area; about twice the size of other lots in the same area. There are no exceptional circumstances or conditions on the properties that prohibit the property owner to comply with the development standards for the zoning district. All properties within the surrounding area are half the size of these properties, and those property owners generally comply with the same development standards. To grant a variance request for these properties would be to grant special privileges to a single property owner that is not enjoyed by other property owners in the same area. All other property owners who wish to construct an accessory building on their property are subject to the same development standards as this property owner. 3. 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 literal interpretation and enforcement of the development standards will not deprive the property owner privileges enjoyed by other owners in the same vicinity and zone. The applicant has two adjoining lots in South Palm Desert; when combined are twice the size than the surrounding properties. There is ample room at the properties to accommodate a casita structure that complies with the development standards for the zoning district. Approval of a variance for this property owner will provide them with special privileges not enjoyed by surrounding owners or owners in similar zoning districts. Approval of such a request will set a precedent that undermines the City's Zoning Ordinance. 4. That 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. The granting of a variance to reduce the front yard setback of an existing casita structure is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or materially injurious to surrounding properties. However, the precedent to approve a setback reduction of this scope could be detrimental to the public welfare, as the structure was constructed without permits, and does not meet setbacks for this zoning district. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-10 As such, the placement of the structure is out of character for this neighborhood and could impact property owner expectations by allowing structures to be placed closer to the street. 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 City Council does hereby deny the applicant's appeal and upholds the Planning Commissions denial of Variance 16-350. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on this 9th day of February 2017, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: JONATHAN, KELLY, and HARNIK NOES: NESTANDE and WEBER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEFG, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNI k, ( , JANJ C. HARNIK, MAYOR s 3