Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2/5/2003 - STAFF REPORTS (13)
TO: City Council DATE: February 5, 2003 FROM: Acting Director of Building & Safety Director of Planning & Zoning Variance 6.465, 3863 E CALLE SAN ANTONIO—APPEAL RELATED TO SIDE YARD SETBACK RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council give staff direction pertaining to an appeal by Thomas Flanagan of 3863 E Calle San Antonio regarding a carport/workshop built into the setback without permits. Staff will prepare the appropriate resolution for City Council adoption and place it on the February 19,2003 consent calendar. SUMMARY: Should City Council overrule the Planning Commission decision of November 13, 2002, and allow the carport/workshop in the side yard setback,certain modifications as discussed in the following paragraphs would have to be'made to the structure to make it safe for both the property in question and neighboring properties. BACKGROUND: On January 15, 2003, City Council discussed the possibility of a no-build easement on the adjacent property. Staff has determined that a no-build easement would serve no purpose as the property line would not be affected. On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, staff met with Mr Flanagan at his residence to discuss the non-permitted carport/workshop. Staffs primary concern was the actual property location on the east side where the exterior wall is fastened onto the top of the garden wall. Mr Flanagan's civil engineer stated in a letter to the Acting Director of Building & Safety the existing block wall is on his property, which means the carport/workshop may meet building code requirements with additional structural modifications and additions to the existing wall and roof framing. Provisions exist within the building code (section 709.4)that would allow a structure to be constructed at the property line provided the property line wall is constructed using one-hour fire resistive material and extends a minimum of 30"above the roof surface.An exception to this requirement is also in the building code, which states in part that a one-hour fire resistive wall may terminate at the underside of the roof sheathing provided the roof framing and supporting elements supporting such framing shall not be of less than one hourfire resistive construction and the entire building shall be provided with not less than a class "B" roof assembly. � r DC�N DUCKWORTH DOUGLAS R EVANS Acting Director of Building & Safety Director of Planning & Zoning APPROVED City Manager Attachments: y 1. Staff Report dated January 15, 2003, including Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2002 meeting denying variance 2. Letter from Sanborn Civil Engineering dated January 24, 2003 11 # R40 S/a4i TOM AND GLADYS FLANAGAN January 9, 2003 C/N ov Mayor and City Councilmembers City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: From our perspective, a major sticking point for the Commission to grant the variance for the workshop on the east side of our home, was StaTs contention that the block wall would not hold the weight of the roof and therefore must be torn down. Staffs suggestion was if it must be torn down because of structural inadequacy then rebuilding it to a three foot set back should be no problem. Since this structure has stood for forty plus years (and 4 major earthquakes), Gladys and I felt it was safe and, therefore, unfairly characterized by staff. To find the truth we commissioned a respected structural engineer to evaluate the existing wall and structure. The wall was analyzed by a testing company, (report included). Based on this information and his own calculations the structural engineer concluded the wall and structure are sound, (see page 2 of the enclosed report). He did have some minor concern regarding the attachment of the roof of the workshop to the eves of the house and the attachment at the top of the block wall. In his estimation they are an easy fix and Gladys and I are very willing to have them done. It is our hope this new information will assist you in approving the requested 7.5' variance to side yard setback for the workshop. Thank you for your kind consideration and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, lU A � Tom and Gladys Flanagan Enclosures 3863 CALL SAN ANTONIO PALM SPRINGS CAUTORNIA 92264 CARLOS ELIAS 41(9 z Civil Engineer 38825 Charlesworth Dr. Cathedral City, CA 92234 (6W)328-7271 SlfZUCTUh�L CRLCULRTIONS �i 7tvo 3863 OGLE Sy9JkTl77NI0 PALM SPRIn1G51 cq , oDFrr�G M r;lq wnun pREss,= 17, 4+/s,P, l�LIIpLYWb I, 5 SEISMIC BRSE THe4P= '? SC'a. W= 4,5 ,4 w_ 0,175 W ZXlaG� 28,b.C,— 0.9 KOOFP. L, 5.41115, F CdEFF, $TRT1ef=/tKcriON= G,06 UOIC, 6LK, wr, or- FRRMED WALL = — WALL Wr TTucto 2xGeZ8"O,c. _ I 6"IWICK CoNC, 3LK, � X n J Gxroxlz cnu ; P m �v SECTION LOOKING NORTH rz LA'IERAt, LO)tD5 NORT N- Surd OIR,ECTI D N �ns"Id, ROOF 9o(416) 5A + 15(IZ) iTWOriWILL 1818 '# I LS(�}S)QEµIf. �LKWALL + 100(37)UNREINf, CLK,, WAL,- g3Z$ S�ISMIc = II, 193(, 17s)= Iq 5n� CDrtrKoc.s ft,l'�f3 � 12E5t5TkNCE or Wr LL FrG61NST SLIOING° 93L5(,G5) = GOfoO# OKI (4'0lo0>1950. �6 'CNk. 6LK. LdLl(V, SOLIOMICKNFSS= 3,4w, ! fv= l9s% Q(4� = 14,5 /rni /�Vv e)r z5 > K3 Cf I� No. 16839 all 121z�/0Z �%A�C, ISi.it , (�j(3ttf21NG 'STR&f5 9.C, l,l• Lo4D C 5p H SND: CZ 81 S,Q t yo) t 2(2) 123# 24 �W• 23 � 5,0 psa gIZNG. STf2ES5 55 4,5 It + �� \� 2 (GIG) - 13� _ 133 psi 4LLoWI}Bt,6 (tot J L A((k �k r 1331 S,v rt4-rz- COW, r3[ I< _ wffcc rS S�Z✓G7U2AZc� 4gV6 (✓� Foe T G}' yali—r it 4 moet(2nr✓TOL L040S OF T(37i 6%I TrNG OMPA ' S T2VgVU S . 1 p K� �eQ/ Ho, i8839 �,, m `P c 2— ¢ 212Q `fJ2 Piwtoe -I-SIMPSON L'TT19 7EN5*10N -n5s U/ „46 A. BOLTS 4 BEUELEn wAsr 645. PLACE_ TIES $PPROX. 12'-o° ,,gpl4RT, 2X6 SMS Lv 3/g"PLYWD, 5NU-rN. ENTIRE WPLL 2t3" 0,C. 5rucco R6*1S6T1REI) HEr}D V,16DGE �}rtcHo2 s C 48 "O.C. W/2"SL�,01160" 6"THICK CONC, PLT, WAS'4625. MUD ANCHOPS 4" f3LK, WALL MIN. IN70 &K. WOLL, I.C.6,0. 1372 SIMPSON /a 34 E+9Cu , ?� # _ RAFTER � •�..-�,•.�, � � �w L No. 16839 b CML s �e��P 3 N � - _ it I ILI I COX 3 �I t 28ft i Pcssr=_.t oursfe!c - j ' � X6 rep J >' F}LL 2X6 7-X6 rL�nr+o"' �T_gr•f t' Li.lc Y 6Ap� O S / C d.v J�€'c T/n�5 � 1:•�4 �;_g;i.nT lra;_' r . �'!}IL EC ty/T If �j LOLK lv l�L-L V E/�ST W!rLL �BLo�K� c<NrcR or- N'k=rahy zxlc 4Facii{ 2-X4 roPpcNrc '2X6P,,.FT_/t �-x�0•k4Ll� i ! itt 4 R co ij� Ij _ 2A8 i 'sI 14 � ;i ' �• `I is p44 �� �� i �' : li i I it ! it is i �i v Iv ti i i R00 /vo eT S o $ O ��v 0 mi. Rio rl„�4 r�•r rtr'^`c' N yi O W � 8331v1`SN (`T Earth Systems Southwest 79-811B Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes,CA 92201 (760)345-1588 (800)924-7015 FAX(760)345-7315 December 17, 2002 File No.: 08969-01 02-12-750 Mr.Tom Flannigan 3863 Calle San Antonio Palm Springs, California 92264 Subject: Masonry Wall—Forensic Testing Project:...,, . .-3863 Calf San Antonio Palm Springs, California On December 16, 2002, a representative of Earth Systems Southwest was requested to assess the internal structure of a concrete masonry wall located at the eastern property line of the above referenced site. During this visit, we visually observed the wall and using a German Industries CM- 52 Pachometer, we were able to identify and locate reinforcing steel in the wall and footing within the limitations of the equipment used. The footing of the subject wall was excavated on both the eastern and western side to expose top, sides and bottom of the footing, which revealed the footing to be 7 inches in depth and 12 inches in width. The reinforcing steel within the footing appeared to be one #4 reinforcing steel bar continuous with #4 reinforcing steel dowels that were located at approximately 48 inches on center for the first 20 feet of the northern end of the wall. The 4" X 6" X 12" CMU wall was also non-destructively tested to locate the reinforcing steel. The wall was tested across both faces and was found to have vertical #4 vertical reinforcing steel bars at approximately 48 inches on center for the first 20 feet of the northern end of the wall, with the remainder of the wall having no vertical steel. No horizontal reinforcing steel was found at any location of the wall. By visual inspection the CMU wall is not fully grouted (see wall detail). The test results summarized in this report represent only the areas tested on the specified dates. No '""pinil� is pressed as to the uniformity of the material or adequacy of the material to perform its intentI fiction. We trust the provided information meets your current needs. If you have any questions or need any additional testing, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST Reviewed by, QPOFESS% Q.p.1G S.yZ Cd2 (7 CE 38234 m Mark Houg ton Craig S. H 6 E(P.03/31/05 b Testing and Inspection Supervisor CE 38234 ��•}l CM1. P��P Distribution: 2/Mr.Tom Flannigan FOF CAttf0 1/RC File 2/BD File Vertical #4 reinforcing @ 4' O.C. , North 20' of wall ----------- --- Cells Not Fully Grouted # 4 reinforcing continuous Existing Grade - -- r- 12 in - 08969-01 Wall Detail 3863 Calle San Antonio Palm Springs, California Earth Systems Not to scale :�•✓ Southwest DATE: January 15, 2003 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning and Zoning CASE 6.465 VARIANCE - AN APPEAL BY THOMAS FLANAGAN OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT SIDE YARD LOCATED AT 3863 EAST CALLE SAN ANTONIO, ZONE R-1-D, SECTION 19. APPEAL The applicant, Thomas Flanagan, is appealing the Planning Commission's November 13, 2002, approval of a side yard setback of 3 feet for use as a covered workshop. The City Council may uphold, override or modify the decision of the Planning Commission. SUMMARY At it's meeting on November 13, 2002, the Planning Commission voted to approve certain variance requests and conditionally approve one variance. The applicant had originally applied to the Planning Commission grant a variance with three elements. Two elements of the variance were approved by the Planning Commission. A request for a variance for a rear yard setback of 7.5 feet for use as a covered and screened patio and the elimination ofcode requirements for covered parking were approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant is not appealing those approvals. A third portion of the Variance application, a request to eliminate the side yard setback along a 37' portion of the east property line, in order to make legal a 9' wide and 37' long carport/workshop constructed without permits on the property line, was not approved. The Planning Commission modified the request and approved a three foot side yard setback. This approval would require the applicant to demolish a portion of the carport/workshop, which was constructed with the support of a property line wall. The applicant is appealing this portion of their original variance application to the City Council. BACKGROUND The subject property has a lot area of 6,375 square feet with a width of 75 feet and depth of 85 feet. Pursuant to the R-1-D property development standards, the lot is substandard in lot area and lot depth. Minimum standards for the R-1-D zone require a 7,500 square feet minimum lot area, and 100' minimum lot depth. The applicant is requesting approval of the variance to legalize existing structures, which were constructed without permit. This variance application was filed in response to a notice of code violation. l In 1946, at the time of the house's original construction, the required rear yard setback for the zone, then R-1, was 10 feet. At some point in the past, prior to the occupancy by the current resident which began in 1966, a former property owner completed the conversion of the exiting garage into additional living area. A 9' by 37.5' (337.5 square feet) tandem parking carport/workshop was then constructed between the house and the east property line. An 18' by 15' (270 square feet) enclosed patio was also constructed, 2.5' of which project into the rear yard setback. These structures were constructed without benefit of permit. A notice of code violation was mailed to the applicant and filed with the City Attorney earlier this year, which in turn prompted this application. Staff has reviewed the building permit files and found that no building permits exist for this work. The applicant has supplied a letter from a former resident of the house, who resided on the property in 1965, and who in that letter recalled that the enclosed garage, tandem carport and enclosed patio were in existence at the time. A second letter from a former neighbor of the applicant supports this information. The applicant is requesting that the enclosed garage, covered tandem garage and enclosed patio be allowed to remain, subject to the approval of this variance request and subject to conditions of approval by the Building Department which would require the existing structures to be improved to meet current codes. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission approval of a modified Variance was due to a number of factors. The tandem carport/workshop was constructed on the property line wall. The carport location and construction practices raised issues about the structural integrity of the construction as well as other fire and building code issues related to zero lot line construction. The carport structure sits on top of the property line garden wall. Zero lot line construction requires one hour construction methods. In addition, the Planning Commission had concern about remaining consistent with earlier decisions requiring a minimum of 3' side yard setbacks in cases of variances in the R-1 zones. If the City Council were to overrule the Planning Commission and approve the variance allowing a zero setback for the carport, the structure would need to be modified to meet building codes (structure and one hourfire protection). A number of variances have been granted for reductions of both side and rear yards in R-1-C zoned properties, however, the property in question is zoned R-1-D. Variance 6.440, for 1062 E Buena Vista Drive, allowed 3 foot side and rear yards. Variance 6.451, for 1119 E. San Jacinto Way, allowed three foot side yards and Variance 6.429, for 994 Coronet Circle, allowed 5 foot rear yards and 3 foot side yards. Clearly, the City has approved variances to allow reduced side and rear yards in the R-1-C zones. However, city-wide the R-1-D zone is less prevalent, and thus one could surmise that there are fewer opportunities to apply for similar variances. During staff's investigation and analysis of this application, the surrounding single family residential area was surveyed to see if there were any other residences similar to the situation represented in this application. Staff found nine instances of enclosed garages (without permits) on the adjacent block and 17 property line carports or garages within the vicinity of the property in question. For obvious reasons staff was unable to quantify the number projections into rear yard setbacks in the vicinity, but based on the above data, the previous R-1 zone requirement for 10 rear yard setbacks, from viewing historic aerial photographs and from staff's experience, structures encroaching into the required setbacks are common in this neighborhood. However, building permits issued for such improvements do not state the reductions of yards resulting from such improvements, and in some instances these improvements were constructed without benefit of permits. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NOTIFICATION The subject property is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301, which states that the minor alteration of existing private structures involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination will be categorically exempt from an environmental assessment. All property owners within 400 feet of the subject property have been notified of the public hearing. The applicant has provided correspondence in support of granting of this variance. DOU LA% R. EVANS Director of Planning and Zoning City Manager ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Correspondence 3. Application 4. Planning Commission minutes November 13, 2002 5. Conditions of Approval for garage and patio approval 1 ��3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL Case No. 6.465 An appeal by Thomas Flanagan of a Planning Commission decision to require three-foot side yards at an existing single-family residence at 3863 Calle San Antonio, Zone R-1-D, Section 19. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of January 15, 2003. The City Council meeting begins at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an appeal by Thomas Flanagan of a Planning Commission decision in Variance Case No.6.465 to require three-foot side yards at 3863 Calle San Antonio. The property is zoned R-1-D (Single Family Residential zone). Pursuant to Section 21080(b)(9) of the Public Resources Code, the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to, the City Council hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department of Planning & Zoning, (760) 323-8245. A notice of Public Hearing is being sent to all property owners within four hundred (400) feet of the subject property. Patricia A. Sanders City Clerk Publish: The Public Record December 24, 2002 IiAiq VICINITY MAP k SUNNY DUNES "" RD. Q © T; o © p i i — PAEE.E — + �SAy---ANFRNFB r 40y © k © 0 ♦� (7 © Q' r � y I SITEr< yK(D/ O uO L! r /35 @ ` •`ff O f `f 3 I 136 >•, r c ' O < n, c O CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO. 6•465 DESCRIPTION APPLICANT App. for a variance to reduce the required Thomas Flanagan side yard and rear yard setbacks for an existing residence at 3863 Calie San Antonio, Zone R-1-1), Sect. 19 ~ TOM AND GLADYS FLANAGAN ,j'�F�EIV�p rn November 27, 2002 ,.�LE51- Ms. Patricia A. Sanders, City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92263 Subject: Variance Case No. 6.465 Dear Ms. Sanders: Enclosed please find our check in the amount of$290.00 to cover the filling fee for an appeal to the City Council. This appeal is made pursuant to Chapter 2.05 et seq. of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. My wife and I are appealing that portion of the decision of the Planning Commission,which requires that we remove the current garage/workshop structure on our side yard. This issue was addressed as Conditionals of Approval 6A& 6B, as contained in Exhibit A of the November 13, 2002 staff report. This appeal is made on the grounds that all of the findings allowing for a variance were satisfied and that, considering all of the circumstance, the structure should be allowed to remain. Sincerely, -re ; Thomas Flanagan enclosure 3863 CAII SAN ANTONIO, PALM SPRINGS, CALIPORNIA 92264 / IA16 T01 AND GLADYS FLANAG " August 9,2002 Mr.Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner D City of Palm Springs 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way AUG 2 2 M Palm Springs,California 92264 PLANNING DIVISION Subject: Variances for existing structures 3863 E.Calle San Antonio 680-133-007 Dear Mr.Meyerhoff: Enclosed please find our completed Variance Application and fees, as well as the required materials. We are requesting approval of variances to the setback requirements for two existing covered patios. One patio cover is a workshop,area on the cast side of our house and one is a screened in patio by our pool on the south side. They are both of wood construction with hot-poured roofs. When we moved into this house in February 1966 these two patios covers were already in place. The one on the east side of the house was being used as a carport. The one in the south side was a covered patio_ Over the last 36 years we have"dolled-up"these covers,however they remain the same structurally today as when we purchased the property in 1966. It is clear, from the enclosed letters, one from a former neighbor and one from a former resident, that the foot print of the house has not changed. New remodeling in the front of our house, (walls, gates and drives),has raised the question of whether or not these structures had been permitted when they were originally built. As we plan to make this our home for the rest of our lives, we are quite concerned that these structures are properly permitted. Apparently the first step is approval of the variances. We feel the best argument for approval of the requested variances is the fact that they have been in existence for at least 37 years with no one complaining. We simply can not see how our property is a detriment to either our neighbors or the city. We have always tried to keep our place in good repair and appearance,(please see photos). For the reasons stated above we respectfully request approval of our necessary variances. Thank you for your kind consideration and corporation in this matter. Sincerely, Thomas �/U���j� P G � an Gladys Flanagan Enclosures I� 17 3863 CALLE SAN ANTONIO PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92264 TOM AND GLADYS FLANAGAN RECEIVED Mr. Alex Meyerhof� Principal Planner City of Palm Springs OCT 2 2002 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs , California 92264 PLANNING DIVISION Subject: Variance Number 6—465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: Enclosed please find 15 letters of support for the above referenced variance. As you can see every property owner adjacent to our home is in favor of approval of the requested variance. We would greatly appreciate it if you would make the planning commission aware of our neighbors support. If there are any further questions please call so we may discuss them fully. Thank you for your kind consideration and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, lO V' Thomas and Gladys Flanagan Enclosures 3863 E. CALLE SAN ANTONIO, PALM SPRINGS, CALIFO NIA 92264 vS[,S;h4ri- PATRICK PATENCIQ D fgCE W ' D AUG z z 2002 August 8, 2002 P.1 -ANHNIING DIVISION Palm Springs Planning Department P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Dear Sir: was a resident of 3863 Calle San Antonio during the spring and summer of 1965. My sister, Beverly Patencio Diaz, owned the house. At the time I lived there the house had a carport on the left side and a large awing covering a patio in the back. It also had a large game room with sliding glass door across the front. This room had a small bathroom in one comer. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, (l M919 68071 Grand View Avenue Cathedral City, California 992234 Elizabeth Owens rE August 5,2002 tJf l AUG 2 2 2002 Pt_ANsM DIVISION Alex Meyerhoff City of Palm Springs P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, California 92263 Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: From 1963 until 1999 I lived at 3880 Calle San Antonio. I was across the street from Tom and Gladys Flanagan at 3863. At the time they moved into 3863, in 1966, I distinctly remember that the two-car garage was converted into a family room. There was a covered carport on the east side of the house that went to the fence, and there was also a covered patio in the back, off the dinning room. The house was in bad repair when they moved in. Tom and Gladys put it right within the first year. They were always good neighbors and kept their place better than most anyone in the area. Yours truly, 39 Safari Park Drive Palm Springs California 9226 U- O RECEIVED OCT 2 2002 Mr. Alex Meyerhoff,Principal Planner PLANNING D IVIS ION City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92264 Subject: Variance Number: 6 -465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application. Sincerely, Jaime and Maria Zatarain 561 S. Desert View Drive Palm Springs, California 92264 l ��I RECEIV11cu Mr.Alex Meyerho fG Principal Planner OCT 2 Z'r,? City of Palm Springs 3200E. Tahquitz Canyon Way DI AhINIIVG DIVISION Palm Springs, California 92264 Subject: Variance Number: 6 -465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application. Sincerely, Ruth Sale 3820 E. Calle San Antonio Palm Springs, California 92264 � 1 bn RECEIVED Mr,Alex MeyerhoM Principal Planner OCT 2 '? City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way PLANNING MVISItsN Palm Springs, California 92264 Subject: Variance Number: 6 -465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhofi I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application. Sincerely, . Robert and Juha Phi rook 829 Arroyo Vista Drive Palm Springs , California 92264 RECEIVED OCT 2 2002 PLANNING DIVISION Mr.Alex Meyerhoff,Principal Planner City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92264 Subject: Variance Number: 6 -465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear W. Meyerhoff I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application. S'�y, AWn and 7aneth Agb yani 3813 E. Calle San Antonio Palm Springs, California 92264 I RECEIVED Mr. Alex MeyerhofG Principal Planner OCT 2 2002 City of Palm Springs PLAN 3200 E. Tahquit�Canyon Way PLANNING DIVISION Palm Springs, California 92264 N Subject: Variance Number: 6-465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application Sincerely, Patricia Hawkinson 3894 E. Calle San Raphael Palm Springs, California 92264 I RECEIVED OCT 2 2002 Mr, Alex Meyerhofi Principal Planner City of Palm Springs PLANNING DIVISION 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92264 Subject: Variance Number: 6 - 465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application Sjw/rely, Aoann Sendejas '1 3980 E. Calle San Antonio Palm Springs, California 92264 I I RECEIVED Mr. Alex MeyerhoM Principal Planner City of Palm Springs OCT 2 2002 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92264 PLANNING DIVISION Subject: Variance Number: 6 -465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application. Sincerely, i Donna Hart 3784 E. Calle San Raphael Pahn Springs, California 92264 J RECEIVED OCT 2 2002 Mr,Alex Meycrhof Principal Planner City of Palm springs PLANNING DIVISION 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92264 Subject: Variance Number: 6-465 3863 E, Calle San Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application. Sincerely, (}ene and n Susan B rd 3884 E. Calle San Raphael Palm Springs, California 92264 Wft 11 RECEIVED OCT 2 2002 Mr. Alex Meyerhoff,Principal Planner PLA City of Palm Springs PLANNING DIVISION 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92264 Subject: Variance Number: 6 -465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application. S' cerely ✓����d� 4ack and it Ilgore 3740 E. Calle San Ant 'o Palm Springs, California 92264 II Mr.Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner RECEIVED City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way OCT 2 2002 Palm Springs, California 92264 PLANNING DIVISION Subject: Variance Number: 6-465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application. Sincerely, Magdalena Morlina 3920 E. Calle San Antonio Palm Springs, California 92264 �30 RECEIVED OCT 2 2002 Mr.Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner PLANNING DIVISION City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92264 Subject: 'Variance Number: 6 :465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear Mr.Meyerhoff: I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application. Sincere/ � Thomas and Cynthia Flanagan,Jr. 3883 E. Calle San Antonio Palm Springs, California 92264 3C RECEIVED OCT 2 2002 Mr,Alex MeyerhoX Principal Planner - PLANNING DIVISION City of Palm Springs N 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92264 Subject: Variance Number: 6- 465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhof I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Conunission that I am requesting approval of this application. Sincerely, los& Sharon Abrille 3860 E. Calle San Antonio Palm Springs, California 92264 RECEIVED OCT , 2 2002 Mr. Alex MeyerhoM Principal Planner PLANNING DIVIS IO N .City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92264 Subject: Variance Number: 6 - 465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application: Sincerely, tkrlreWilliamson 33 E. Calle S'an Antonio Patin Springs, California 92264 1 IA-33 RECEIVED OCT . 2 2002 Mr. AlexMeyerhof Principal Planner PLANNING DIVISION City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquita Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92264 Subject: Variance Number: 6 -465 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application. Sincerely, Saul Zatarain 3983 E. Calle San Antonio P41m Springs, California 92264 3 RECEIVED OCT 2 2002 Mr.Alex Meyerho$ Principal Planner [KANIVIl � City of Pahn Springs DIVISION 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92264 Subject: Variance Number:6- 465 3863 E. Calle San.Antonio Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: I am writing in support of the above referenced variance. Please inform the Planning Commission that I am requesting approval of this application. Sincerely, , 0SC#12 N Cga OV Oscar Martin and Silvia Lizarraga 3880 E. Calle San Antonio Palm Springs, California 92264 I/ � D„^ 2002 Office Use Only DATE SUBMITTED DIVISION CASEN0.6.465 _ PLANNER CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Department of Planning & Building Variance TO WE APPLICANT: Your cooperation in completing this application and supplying the information requested will . expedite City review of your application pursuant to local procedure. Applications submitted will not be considered complete until all submittal requirements are met. Please submit this auplication and subsequent material to the Department of Planning &Building_ PROJECT ADDRESS: _3863 Ca 1e San Antonio " APPLICANT'S NAME: Thomas Flanagan Check One: Owner ❑ Lessee ❑ Authorized Agent OWNER'S NAME (Please Print): Thomas ,Flanagan Mailing Address: 3863 E. Calle San Antonio Palm Springs, CA 92262 Telephone Number: _(760 )327-2298 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION-, 1, (we) the undersigned, applicant(s) for the property described below, hereby request that you grant a Variance to allow the use described as follows: A. Grant a 7. 5 'variance to side yard set back requirements for an existing covered workshop area. B. Grant a 2 .51vaxiance to rear yard set back requirement for an existing covered patio. Variance 11436 PROJECT SITE INI+ORMATION Property Name (if any): our home Assessor's Parcel Number: 680 - 133 007 Zone: R1D Land Use: Single Family Residence Section/Township/Range: 19 / 4s / 5E Is this project on fee landR or Indian trust land F]? (Check One) f Variance Revised 11/981/437 1 .., The Zoning Ordinance requires that the following four (4) conditions be established and considered by the Planning Commission before a Variance can be granted. Please respond to each of them by indicating how they are applicable to the property in question. 1. The special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, and 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 classification. The requested variances, on subject snhatandard lot , arse for existing patio covers that were constructed prior to 1965. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the applicant of the same privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity because there are many other properties in the vicinity with identical zone classification that have setback encroachments of this nature and vintage. 2. Any Variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as to 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 grantincr of this variance will not constitute 5L 66ial privilege because there are many other properties in the v '` , and same zone that have setback encroachments of the sametn'a`tur and vintage -as these existing patio covers . 3. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public 11 health, safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to the property and improvements in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental" to the public health, safty, convenience, or welfare or injurious to the property and improvements in the same vicinity and zone because these encroachments have been in place for in excess of thirty- seven years without any detrimental consequence. 4. The granting of such Variance will not adversely affect the General Plan for the City. The granting of these variances will not adversely affect the General Plan because these encroachments have existed in excess of thirty-seven years. Therefore the approval of these variances will not establish a precedence beyond the scope of these re- quests_ lI A�38 . i 1 77IE FOLLOWING FORMS MUST BE FILLED OUT WITH A STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOTARY PUBLIC PRESENT. SELECT THE FORM WHICH BEST FI7S THE TYPE OF AUTHORIZA770N. OWNER AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss I (WE), Thomas and Gladys Flanagan BEING DULY SWORN, DEPOSE AND SAY THAT I, (WE) AM (ARE) THE OWNER OR OWNERS HEREIN NAMED AND THAT THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREIN SUBMITTED ARE IN ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Name Thomas and Gladys Flanagan Phone 'zro 327-22R8 (Please Print) Mailing Address 3863 E. Calle San Antonio City Palm �Springs / State Caa�ll i forni a 92264 ✓ a Signature(s) //�'lf� �U/s-- Subscribed and swoon to before me this day of -A—00. S44-1fLLE ( A. �Io SotJ Notary Public in the State of `�LI f=0/e N I A with Principal office in the County ofIJ �S ICE —�•SFNIulrY6CIG60t1 d `-Camtthdall llWfl�1�` � �ic�oryili'rAC-CQllmil' WO�tm,e�le� d P �I 3g►� Variance - - CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2002 Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 ROLL CALL Present Present FY 02-03 This Meeting to Date Excused Absences Philip Klatchko, Chair X 8 1 Jon Caffery, Vice Chair X 7 2 Mark Matthews X 9 0 Jon Shoenberger X 9 0 Jerry Grence X 9 0 Dianne Marantz X 8 1 Tracy Conrad 8 1 STAFF PRESENT: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning &Zoning Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Dave Barakian, City Engineer Carol Templeton, Engineering Assistant Jing Yeo, Associate Planner Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. The November 13, 2002 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning &Zoning counter by 4:00 p.m., November 01, 2002. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. qo Page 4 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case 6.465—Application by Thomas Flanagan for a Variance to allow an existing 7.5 foot rearyard to permit a enclosed patio,the elimination of the garage, and waive code requirements for covered parking and the reduction of a portion of the east side yard setback to permit an existing covered tandem parking garage located at 3863 East Calle San Antonio, Zone R-1-D, Section 19. Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to a conflict of interest. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner,reported that staff found nine instances in the surrounding single family residential area which have enclosed garages and 17 property line carports or garages. He reported that the number of rear yard setbacks was not determined by staff but that historic aerial photographs show structures encroaching into the required setbacks in this neighborhood. He reported that, in most instances, improvements into the setback areas have been constructed without permits. He reported that the subject lot area is 6,375 square feet and is substandard in area and depth. He clarified that the subject application has been filed in response to a Notice of Violation. He reviewed exhibits for the Planning Commission. Director clarified that'a garden wall is being utilized as structural support for a shed roof and cracks ^ in that wall exist,that a zero-lot line is a violation of the Zoning Ordinance, and it is also a violation q ) of the California Building Code (which prohibits combustible materials being used for construction at lot lines). Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr.Tom Flanigan, applicant,addressed the Planning Commission to request approval of a 2.5 foot rear yard setback and a 7.5 foot side yard setback. He stated that he has owned the property since 1966 and that, until her recent death, his mother lived next door. He stated that his children now live next door. He stated that the patio covers were in place when he purchased the home and he never questioned the legality of the structures as there are several others in his neighborhood. He reported that he installed a pool in 1978 and had several inspections done by the City at that time and there was no mention of the setback issues then. He stated that his wife would like the increased security that the requested variance would provide and that he has recently spent $30,000 remodeling to improve his property. He thanked the Planning Department staff for their assistance after he received the Notice of Violation noting that staff met onsite with him several times. He stated that having to rebuild the workshop to a three-foot setback would destroy the true utility of the workshop and make it a six-foot by 37-foot cupboard and would cost, according to his contractor, more than $10,000. He stated that the contractor also said that repairing the existing substandard block wall would be one-fourth that cost. He submitted photographs to the Planning Commission (on file in the Planning & Zoning Department). He stated that no one in his neighborhood ever complained about his home or lot and that he has 15 letters signed by 23 people supporting his application. He stated that he agrees with the Conditions of Approval with the exception of Condition No. 6. He requested that the Planning Commission approve his application. P � �� Page 5 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Marantz asked staff to clarify the requirements of Condition No. 6. Director reported that the California Building Code requires three-foot setbacks and one-hour fire walls on property-line structures, in addition to conformance with all other code-related issues. Commissioner Matthews asked staff to review a recent application to the Planning Commission for a property-line pool-house and also to review the City's process for Notices of Violation. Director confirmed that the application to which Commissioner Matthews referred was denied by the Planning Commission and a three-foot setback was required. He reported that, if the Planning Commission requires reconstruction of the building and the applicant does not comply, the case will be sent to the City Attorney for initiation of the legal process to compel the property owner to move the building. He reported that, if administrative remedies are not successful, the Court will uphold the City's requirements. He clarified that the applicant could appeal to the City Council if not satisfied with the Planning Commission decision. He stated that the applicant for the recently denied property-line pool-house appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council and stated that he would not move the pool-house; however, Director reported, the structure has since been demolished. He further reported that the Planning Commission could impose time/place/manner conditions on all issues with this application and stressed the importance of the fact that the City must use diligence in enforcing all codes and safety requirements. Commissioner Marantz stated that she has driven through the neighborhood several times and has noted many code violations and asked staff to comment. Director agreed that there are many unpermitted additions in the subject neighborhood which need to be addressed. He stated that there is one Community Preservation Officer assigned to a large area (one-fourth of the City) which includes this neighborhood and that Notices of Violation are primarily complaint-driven —that new property owners frequently call the City to confirm whether, or not a neighbor's property conforms to City codes. He reviewed the challenges of City building inspectors being called to inspect only one area of a home and not having access to all areas which may or may not include code violations. He confirmed that the property owner is responsible for code violations and that it would be a buyer/seller issue if the violations existed at the time of sale. He clarified that structures are considered"temporary" and can not be considered as grounds for a variance. Commissioner Caffery commented that this type of Planning Commission decision is extremely difficult as each commissioner sympathizes for the homeowner; however,findings must be met to approve a variance to City codes and decisions must be consistent with past practice. Commissioner Matthews invited the applicant to the podium. j Mr.Flanigan addressed the Planning Commission to state that,if he thought his garage conversion was a problem to the neighborhood, he would tear it down but he does not. He stated that he Page 6 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2002 would like the Planning Commission to act on his application today and, though he would prefer to have a zero-lot line approved, he would accept the decision of the Planning Commission even if it means living with the three-foot setback in order to avoid drafting long legal documents or engaging City staff further. Commissioner Matthews stated that it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to require compliance with the zoning codes. M/S/C(Matthews/Marantz 5-0, 1 abstention, I absent)to approve subject to Conditions of Approval and revising Condition No. 7 to allow the applicant up to six months to apply for permits, one year to obtain permits, and two years to remove all unpermitted structures. The Planning Commission was adjourned for a break at 2:45 p.m. and was called back to order at 2:55 p.m. Case 5.0926 — PD 278 — TPM 30843 — Application by Regal Homes, Inc. for a Planned Development District and Tentative Parcel Map to divide 30,055 square feet of land into four single family residential lots,related architectural approvals,and associated on-and off-site improvements for property located at 3101 North Indian Canyon Drive, R-G-A(6) Zone, Section 3. Jing Yeo,Associate Planner, reported that the four proposed lots will be for one-story homes (with attached two-car garages) 2,168 square feet in size with a maximum height of 15.5 feet. Project parking includes eight covered parking spaces and eight open parking spaces. She reported that each unit will include a pool and that a perimeter wall is proposed for noise reduction purposes. She reported that access to the property will be from a gated entry on San Carlos Road and that the pre-application was reviewed three times by the Design Review Committee and the application now reflects the minor issues recommended by that Committee, which supports the project. She reviewed the exhibits for the Planning Commission. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Juan Carlos Ochoa, project architect, addressed the Planning Commission to clarify that the noise study recommended a sound wall six feet in height but that the proposed wall includes indentations and other aesthetic accents to make it more appropriate for the project design and neighborhood. He reviewed architectural plans for the Planning Commission. Ms. Charlene Claybourne addressed the Planning Commission to state that she is a realtor and lives in the subject neighborhood and has concerns regarding the density in the area, noting potential traffic issues at Indian Canyon Drive. She stated that she is concerned with the density at Racquet Club Road and Indian Canyon Drive should a senior housing project be approved at that corner, when added to the existing number of care facilities in the area. She stated that there are many other lots for sale right now that would not require subdivision for this type of project. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. //Aqlo EXHIBIT A Variance No. 6.465 Thomas Flanagan 3863 E. Calle San Antonio January 15, 2003 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Zoning. 1. The subject addition shall meet all other applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 2. The setback variance granted shall be applicable only to the existing structures as specified, and shall not be applicable to any other structures or future modifications other than those required by this variance. 3. The Planning Commission or City Council may, after notice and public hearing, revoke this variance for noncompliance with any of the conditions set forth in granting this variance. 4. That the rear yard setback of 7.5 feet is granted. 5. That the elimination of the required garage and required parking requirements is approved. 6. That the existing structure located on the east property line is approved subject to the following: A. That the structure shall be modified whereby a three foot setback is provided to all portions of the structure including but not limited to columns, walls and/or roof structure. B. That all existing improvements located on the property line wall shall be removed. 7. That building permits for the enclosed patio and garage conversion are required. In the event permits and all required inspections are not applied for within six months of the approval date of this variance and all improvements and inspections completed within two years of the approval date, this variance shall become null and void and all un-permitted structures shall be removed (workshop and patio structure) or restored to the originally permitted condition (garage) within six months of the approval date. 8. The applicant shall have two years to complete Condition#6. _Il �yy IM SAIM � �) CIVIL ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE LAND SURVEYING January 24,2003 City of Palm Springs Don Duckworth 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 This Letter is to state that Sanborn A/E, Inc. has performed a Survey of the East Line of the West 75 feet of Lot 16 Vista Del Cielo No.2 MB 20/94-95 APN 680-133-007. We have determined that the Block Wall is in fact located on said Property. f n L. Sanborn Q ,.#• , _, N� s, PLS 4146 0 yG Z O I� 1227 S. Gene Autry Trail*Suite C*Palm Springs, California 92264 * (760) 325-9426 *Fax(760) 325-5130 Sanbomae2000@AOL.Com