HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/5/2002 - STAFF REPORTS (10) RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, OVERRULING THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVAL AND DENYING CASE 6.458,AVARIANCE 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 distancefrom 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 8,2002,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.
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 supermarket/gas 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 notconstitute 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
requestto 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.
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 for automobile service stations. The General Plan policies clearly state
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 151h day of May, 2002.
AYES: Members Hodges, Mills, Reller-Spurgin and Mayor Kleindienst
NOES: Member Oden
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
City Clerk City Manager
Reviewed and Approved as to Form: �4WEL