Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20353 - RESOLUTIONS - 6/5/2002 RESOLUTION NO. 20353 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, OVERRULING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL AND DENYING CASE 6.458,A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 298 SQUARE FOOT KIOSK WITHIN A FUELING CENTER AND A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 100 FEET BETWEEN THE SITE AND ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL ZONE, LOCATED AT 4733 E. PALM CANYON DRIVE, C-D-N ZONE, SECTION 30. - WHEREAS, Travis Engineering, agent for Vons (the "Applicants") filed an application with the City pursuant to section 94.02.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Variance to allow a 298 square foot kiosk within a self-service fueling center, and a reduction in minimum distance from adjacent residential zones for the property located at 4733 E. Palm Canyon Drive, C-D-N Zone, Section 30; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider an application for Conditional Use Permit 5.0876 and Variance request 6,458 was issued in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2001, August 22, 2001, and September 12, 2001, a public hearing on the application for Conditional Use Permit 5.0876 and Variance request 6.458 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2002, the public hearing on the application for Conditional Use Permit 5.0876 and Variance 6.458 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission 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, all written and oral testimony presented; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2002,the Planning Commission voted, 3-2,to approve Conditional Use Permit 5.0876 and Variance 6.458; and WHEREAS,on March 6,2002.City Councilmember Mills appealed the Planning Commission approval of Variance 6.458; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission decision of the application for Variance 6.458 was issued in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2002, 2002, the public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission decision for Variance 6.458 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, all written and oral testimony presented. Resolutiou 20353 Page 2 THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines for In-fill Development Projects, the City Council finds that this project is categorically exempt from further environmental review. Section 2: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 94.06.00,the City Council finds that: a. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. There are no special circumstances necessitating the variance request for a smaller kiosk and reduction in setbacks from a residential zone. There are no other supermarket and fuel center joint facilities that operate in the City. The automobile service station size of 750 square feet is a standard that is applied to all automobile service stations in the City. The appropriate procedure for consideration of joint supermarkettgas station facilities is a zoning text amendment to address those special circumstances. Previous applications for such functions have been discouraged, therefore, to approve the variance would be inconsistent with the limitations placed on other properties. The small size of the pad suggests that a gas station is not an appropriate development option. The vacant lot to the west is in an R-3 zone(multiple family residential and hotel zone) where multiple family dwellings are a permitted land use. Therefore,the reduction in minimum setbacks from a residential zone cannot be based on the assumption that no residential development will occur on the site in the future. Other ' developments in the City must comply with the minimum setbacks to residential zones. The reduction in the minimum setback to a residential zone would constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties. b. 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 the subject property is situated. The variance request shall constitute a grant of special privilege compared with limitation placed upon other properties, which have pursued the joint market and fuel center function. The request to reduce the minimum setback to a residential zone is incongruous to limitations placed upon other properties who comply with the zoning ordinance. The fact that the land to the west is vacant should not be a guiding factor in considering the variance. Due to the proximity to residential zones and the need to have a smaller kiosk in order for the development, the pad as it exists is not one that is appropriate for a gas station use. c. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The variance request will be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The site is located at the intersection of two major thoroughfares and the gas station would lead to an increased volume of traffic in the area. The increased traffic volume has the potential to be hazardous to future developments to the west of the subject property. Resolution 20353 Page 3 d. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan for the City. The General Plan of the City would be adversely affected as Policies 5.21.7 and 5.21-8 refer to mitigation measures forautomobile service stations- The General Plan policies clearlystate that access to the development shall not be disruptive to the operation of streets and appropriate buffers, including setbacks, shall be placed between residential zones and the automobile service station. While the proposed project complies with all requirements of the C-D-N Zone, it does not comply with two significant regulations in terms of kiosk size and minimum distance from residentially zoned property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby denies Variance request 6.458. ADOPTED this 5th day of .bane 2002. AYES: Members Hodges, Mills, Reller—Spurgin, and Mayor Kleindleust NOES: Member Oden ABSENT: None ABSTENTIONS: None ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA City Clerk Gity Manager J Reviewed and Approved as to Form: