HomeMy WebLinkAbout20327 - RESOLUTIONS - 5/15/2002 RESOLUTION NO. 20327
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM ,
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CASE 6.457 TO
ALLOW AN EXISTING SHADE STRUCTURE IN THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PROPERTY AT 253 E.
MESQUITE AVENUE, ZONE R-1-C, SECTION 23.
WHEREAS, Ron Dale, (the"Applicant")filed an application with the City pursuant to section
9406.00 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing shade structure in the southwest
corner of a property at 253 E. Mesquite avenue, Zone R-1-C, Section 23; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs to consider an application for Variance 6.457 was issued in accordance with
applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2002, a public hearing on the application for Variance 6.457
was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2002, the public hearing for Variance 6.457 was continued to
be heard on February 27, 2002; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2002, the public hearing on the application for Variance 6.457
was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2002, an appeal was filed by the applicant appealing the '
Planning Commission denial; and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2002, the public hearing on the application for Variance 6.457 was
held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff
report, and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission finds that this project is
categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Guidelines
(CEQA).
Section 2: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 9406 B, the Planning Commission
finds that:
Resolution 20327
Page 2
' 1, Because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size,
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance would deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties
in the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
The shade structure was constructed in the past several years without permits or
inspections. Prior to construction City staff advised the property owner that the
structure would require a variance and not comply with building code.
Subsequently, over several years the structure was built. Special circumstances do
not exist. The lot is significantly above the standards for R-1-C zoning requirements
in lot area, lot width, and lot depth. Additionally, prior to construction the property
owner was advised the structure would violate zoning and building code
requirements.
2. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the
adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which subject property is situated.
The granting of this variance would constitute a special privilege. There is nothing
unique about the parcel or the structure which would support this request and justify
permitting a shade structure in the required side yard setback of 10 feet, and
required rear yard set back of 15 feet.
' 3. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health,
safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the
same vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated.
The granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to the public health,
safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the
same vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. A structure at the
requested setbacks violates the Zoning Ordinance and Uniform Building Code. The
Zoning Ordinance and Uniform Building Code identifies the absolute minimum
spacing and setbacks that can be obtained while maintaining safety.
4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City.
The granting of the variance would adversely affect the General Plan of the City.
The General Plan policy 6:14:4 states that the City shall "assure that all buildings,
new and old, are safe for people and businesses to occupy." As the shade
structure violates Uniform Building Code due to proximity to the side and rear
property lines, the shade structure cannot be considered safe for people to occupy.
1 YO
Resolution 20327
Page 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the foregoing, the City Council ,
hereby upholds the Planning Commission action to deny Case No. 6.457 and order that the
subject structure be removed within 30 days.
ADOPTED this 15th day of May 2002_
AYES: Members Hodges, Mills, Reller—Spurgiu and Mayor Kleindienst
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Member Oden
ABSENT: None
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA
Ci F� . / Ci Manager
` Review and Approved as to Form:
IY#43