Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 05-62 VAR 05-02 - Abbass & Judith Kamouie - 74431 De Anza Way APN 625-074-004CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission denying a variance to allow a freestanding patio cover, 12' in height setback 3'2" from the rear property line. Subject property is located at 74-431 De Anza Way. (APN 625-074-004) SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner APPLICANT/ Abbass and Judith Kamouie APPELLANT:, 74-431 De Anza Way 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 3'2" 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: I. 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 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 3'2" 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: 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 37 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 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: eg� Ryan Stendell Assistant Planner Approval: 040. Y City Mana CM for Develc Services Department Head: -- 'n r Phil Drell Cam — Director of Community Development 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 [ S I R I 73-510 FRED WAR ING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o611 FAX:76o 341-7o98 ..f.WPalm-d'—t .'s 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 Kamouie 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 74431 De Anza Way. (APN 625-074-004) 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. V AIR — D S Name of Appellant bbass E m; !:.�IS,1 Date of Decision.6 1%Q ttL — Phone 7G4 Address<< . �'?Ldv Description of Application or Matter Considered: f 3 a q !off Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessary): LL- CD not-- .._ --- ___. (SignatuuW of Appellant) d FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY , " r , Date Appeal Filed: -�-� d Fee Received: _ ,t-'C Treasurer's Receipt No. t� A Received by: Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: —TV7 A Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk H`rwlasser�WPCata',WPDOCS�FORMS�zopt to ameal wca DATE Sp — Rev 6129102 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_-yours,�� Abbass kamouie 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. If so no additional fee is needed inthat the deposit account they filed with us still has available funds. If the appeal is filed we will apply $197 against it for the appeal. Lune 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 comer 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, fire... 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 ►,oCEivED 20 �LT}( DEYEI,pp9SE�T U£P►,R'iNEt1t CITI OF PALM DESERT . . . . 6 . 0 . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date: { I I y 01 F-IIM 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226O-2578 TEL:76o 346—o6ii FAX: 76o 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org June 8, 2005 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. . AA 0 Philip Drell, cretary Palm Desert anning Commission /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal Cj ftM%W=ftft