HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal Res. 05-62 74431 De Anza APN 625-074-004 - 07/14/2005CITY OF PALM DESERT Resolution No. 05-62
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT 1
REQUEST: Consideration of appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission denying 1
a variance to allow a freestanding patio cover, 12' in height setback 37'
from the rear property line. Subject property is located at 74-431 De Anza Q
Way. (APN 625-074-004)
SUBMITTED BY: Ran Stendell, Assistant Planner
y e OATS � � � y � CT
APPLICANT/ Abbass and Judith Kamouie 7COINTINUEDTO� ' R5 - G�
APPELLANT: 74-431 De Anza Way ❑ PASSED TO 2ND READING
Palm Desert, CA 92260
CASE NO: VAR 05-02
DATE: July 14, 2005
CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Resolution No, 05-62
D. Plans and Exhibits
Recommendation:
That the City Council waive further reading and adopt resolution no. 05-62 denying case
no. VAR 05-02
Executive Summary:
In March 2005 the applicant was notified by the Code Compliance Department that there
are two illegal patio structures in his rear/side yard. The applicant is requesting approval
of a rear yard patio cover 13' x 29', 12' in height setback 37' from the property line. The
second, side yard patio cover is approximately 8' x 30', standing 8'-9' in height. This
structure is at a zero setback from the side property line. Both structures are in violation.
The applicant has applied for a variance for the setback from the rear and side property
lines. Upon reviewing this case the Planning Commission felt the lot was very large and
had plenty of room to have the structures in areas that conformed to the Code,
furthermore the findings for a variance could not be met and the Commission denied
VAR 05-02.
Discussion:
BACKGROUND:
A. Planning Commission:
At its meeting of June 7, 2005 the Planning Commission reviewed the request for
a variance. Judith and Abbass Kamouie addressed the Commission and advised
the commission that Abbass's mother has Alzheimer's and is getting extremely
bad. They have to keep a close eye on her, and the only enjoyment she gets is
going out under these structures and enjoying the shaded areas.
Staff Report
VAR 05-02
Page 2
July 14, 2005
Resolution No. 05-62
Commissioner Finerty asked the applicant if they would be willing to re -locate the
structures to locations consistent with the code. Mr. Kamouie explained that the
structures were erected over existing concrete and if they were to be moved they
would losing much of their landscaping and view of the green they have would be
demolished leaving them a very undesirable rear yard.
Commissioner Jonathan felt that if the side yard structure would be removed that
some kind of compromise could be made relative to the setback for the rear yard
structure.
The Commission concluded that given the generous size of the property, the
applicant had room to re -locate the structures to areas that are consistent with
the code. The Commission also concluded that the current location of the
structures are impacting the neighbor's views and creating potentially noisy
activities very close to the property lines.
The commission by a vote of 4-1 (commissioner Jonathan voted no) adopted
Planning Commission resolution No. 2335, denying Case No. VAR 05-02.
B. Municipal Code Section 25.56.280-C (Detached Accessory Buildings)
Open, non -habitable, gazebo -like structures with a maximum height of 10 feet
shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
building height upon approval of the Architectural Review Commission.
C. Municipal Code Section 25.78.010-A (Variance)
Variances and adjustments from the terms of this title shall be granted only due
to special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this title deprives
such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification. Any variance or adjustment granted shall be
subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized
shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which such property is situated.
D. Property Description:
The property is located on De Anza Way, just west of the Ramona Avenue/De
Anza intersection. The subject property is within an R-1 13,000 zone and totals
17,859 square feet of land. The main house is approximately 3,800 square feet
and the guesthouse is approximately 1,000 square feet. Currently there are 2
non -conforming patio structures within the rear and side yards. Along the rear
yard is a 13' x 29' patio, which is 12' in height setback 37' from the property line.
To the west running along the side yard, the applicant has an 8' x 30' patio
approximately 8'-9' in height. No permits have been found on either non-
conforming shade structures.
Staff Report
VAR 05-02
Page 3
July 14, 2005
III. ANALYSIS:
Resolution No. 05-62
Rear Yard Patio Cover- The detached accessory structure for the rear yard patio
cover would require the setback of the patio to be equal to the height of the
structure, not to exceed 10' in height. In this case the structure is 12' in height
and setback 3'2" from property line.
Side Yard Patio Cover- Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any
required yard except the rear yard. This structure is not permitted under this
section and is not eligible for a variance.
The Variance process requires the City Council to make several findings that
would justify a variance.
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.
Due to the generous size of the property 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.
No other variances have been approved for similar structures in the
vicinity. The applicant is not deprived of any privileges that others enjoy
in the same area.
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 setback
area and may diminish value of adjoining properties by blocking views.
Staff Report
VAR 05-02
Page 4
July 14, 2005
Resolution No. 05-62
All findings required for approval of a variance cannot be met. Without the variance for
setbacks, the proposed structure does not meet the requirements for a detached
accessory structure and should be removed or relocated to the appropriate locations.
Submitted By: Department Head:
i
Ryan Stendell Phil Drell
Assistant Planner Director of Community Development
Approval:
Services
CITY COUNCIL 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 37' FROM PROPERTY LINE. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 74-431 DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. VAR 05-02
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 to consider the request of Abbass and Judith
Kamouis of the above stated; 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.
CITY COUNCIL 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
commission in this case.
2. That Variance 05-02 be denied for the above noted reasons.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council , held on this 14th day of July, 2005, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Rachelle D. Klassen, Secretary
Palm Desert City Council
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
2
CITY 0[ P 0 1 M 0 1 S I R I
73-5IO FRED WARING DRivt
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o611
FAX: 760 341-7098
rn(ow palm -deer, orR
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC NOTICE
CASE NO. VAR 05-02
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider an appeal by Abbass and Judith Kamoule for a decision by the
Planning Commission denying an application for a variance to allow a freestanding patio
cover, 12' in height setback 3'2" from property line. Subject property is located at 74-431
De Anza Way. (APN 625-074-004)
II1 i11 11J
! LESSANORO OR
STATE HWY 111
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, July 14, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers 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 Palm Desert City
Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
RACHELLE KLASSEN, SECRETARY Palm Desert City Council
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
APPLICATION TO APPEAL
DECISION OF TH
(Name of Determining Body)
Case No. VAR — D S
Name of Appellant `-b6,ss-
�
Address %q- U3.1 C"ry A
E
1
plknn -n� n
Date of Decision:
Phone —7z D
(.act kj,,V-n Pes 121-,p C,�,
Description of
Application or Matter Considered:
Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessary):
W �
a arni
nn
—
y`-"OC Q
U 1- p CV w �-
Is.—i=
r o `! (Signatt� of Appellant)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Date Appeal Filed: d LJ' Fee Received:oo, _�
Treasurer's Receipt No. N Received by: _ 1'��
Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: —1—(7.) A
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
11; .... 06, .
H'rkiassemW Paala\WPDOCS\FORMS�appi to appeal w1 DATE 6 — Rev 6129/02
Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California
Re: VAR 05-02
Dear Planning Commission Members:
On or about June 7, 2005, the Planning Commission denied Case NO. VAR 05-
02 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2335. Based upon this
denial, please accept this correspondence as my appeal to the same, which I believe
is within the 15 days that I am allowed to bring said appeal in writing. The findings
for variance are inclusive of certain guidelines which have been forwarded to my
attention. I shall address these in order in which they are set forth in the Notice of
Action by planning Commission of Palm Desert.
With regard to finding No. 1, in fact there is a physical hardship that would be
incurred by myself and my family if the variance is not granted by the city of Palm
Desert. Notwithstanding the fact that I did construct the patio inclusive of a patio
cover without the necessary permits from the City of Palm Desert, the failure of the
City to grant me a variance would cause physical hardship as it relates to the
property. I say this, as the patio was contracted with the utmost care and in good
and workmanlike quality which I believe would pass any scrutiny by the building
inspectors from the City. The main purpose of the construction of the patio was to
provide my elderly mother, who is suffering from Alzheimer's, with a refuge that
she could go to during the day and in the evening other than that were she presently
resides, which is in the residence, for long periods at a time. My mother's only
enjoyment is sitting under the shady area of the patio, which allows her to receive
the necessary fresh air so that she may thrive even though she is subject to this
terrible condition. In addition to this physical hardship, the patio provides great
enhancement to the home which, I have mentioned to the Planning Commission, is
unique for the neighborhood. We have spent numerous amounts of money to
enhance the property and believe that the patio is a natural extension of the same.
With regard to Finding No. 2, again I reiterate that there are exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property which does not apply to
generally other properties in the same area. While there may be other people the
neighborhood who have certain physical medical maladies, my mothers present
condition certainly rises to one which is exception and extraordinary under the
circumstances. The size of the property also lends itself to the placing of the in the
area which it presently occupies. As a matter of fact, numerous adjacent have
commented on how the patio looks and how it enhances both the property and the
neighborhood. There have been no objections to the patio from any person or party
that I have spoken to in the recent times.
With regard to Finding No. 3, while we do agree that other properties in the
area are subject to the same restrictions, the purpose of the variances set forth by
the City of Palm Desert was to allow people like myself to enhance their property. I
believe that this same variance is afforded to all parties in the area and would not
object to anyone placing a patio on their property thereby enhancing the property
in both sight and value.
Lastly, with regard to Finding No. 4, the Planning Commission found that
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. Again, I disagree with this
finding. Every neighbor that I have spoken with has had nothing but good things to
say about the patio cover. Furthermore, by the manner in which the patio cover was
constructed it appears that it was part of the original structure when built. It cannot
be said based upon the aesthetic look that the patio cover has cause any damage to
any of the property owners; rather, it has probably enhanced the value of their
property.
Based upon all the foregoing, I respectfully request that an appeal hearing be
heard, at which time I can set forth my position to the Board.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me
Thank you
Very truly_y4urs�`
Abbass kamouie �' �' / '� ` ° J
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Smith, Steve
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:28 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Possible Appeal VAR 05-02
RK:The Kamouie variance request was denied by PC 6/7/05.We understand that they may wish to file an appeal.lf so no
additional fee is needed inthat the deposit account they filed with us still has available funds.lf the appeal is filed we will
apply $197 against it for the appeal.
June 5, 2005
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Palm Desert Planning Commission,
This letter is in response to case number CUP05-04, VAR05-02, the Kamouie residence. We believe
to patio cover is unsightly, due to its height and close proximity to the property line. There is another
unapproved structure in the south west corner of the property, which is closer than the patio cover to
the property line, and was not mentioned in the public notice. Due to the lack of permits for these
structures our primary concern is safety: structural integrity, fine... We also find the structure's
lighting overpowering in our yard, due to the height and close proximity of these structures to our
home.
We would like to be anonymous in this matter. Mr. Kamouie has been to our home several times
requesting a signature of acceptance of his patio cover. In conclusion, we believe these unsightly and
large structures are not acceptable in our Palm Desert neighborhood. Please decline Mr. Kamouie's
application for a variance. Thank you for taking the time to understand our position.
Concerned Palm Desert Resident
,CEIVED
JUN 0 fi �
CITY 01?oIjj£tIT TgENT
DESERT
. 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . .
Date:
June 8, 2005
I I y 0[ F,11[M
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL:76o 346—o6ii
FAX:76o 341-7098
info@paim-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Abbass and Judith Kamouie
74-431 De Anza Way
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: VAR 05-02
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken
the following action at its regular meeting of June 7, 2005:
PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED CASE NO. VAR 05-02 BY ADOPTION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2335. MOTION CARRIED 4-1
(COMMISSIONER JONATHAN VOTED NO).
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
Philip Drell, cretary
Palm Desert anning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73 -5 10 FRED WARING DR
PALM DESERT CA 92260 V�•l v�
RE:ABBASS KAMOUIE AND JUDITH KAMOUIE
74-431 DE ANZA WAY rOMCITI )F PN"M pESf.RT
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
CASE #VAR 05-02
Dear planning commission members:
I Abbasss Kamouie on July 11, received the letter for the meeting to be held on
July 14, 2005.
I am requesting to be re -schedule if it is possible, due to the fact that my family and I
planned to travel to the state of Louisiana months before and it happens to be on the
same day of the hearing.
My Wife will be back on August 29, 2005, but I will be here, if you could re -schedule
for the hearing to be held on august 25`h, 2005 or for September 5`h, 2005 when my wife
will be able to attend.
I apologized for any inconvenience this may cause you, and I appreciated the effort.
Cordially,
Abbass Kamouie