The URL can be used to link to this page

SBA 1996-394CASE NO: CITY OF LA QUINTA FEE: $100.00 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR SETBACK ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: Submit this form with two copies of a scaled site plan, drawn to adequately depict the nature of the request. A nonrefundable fee of $100 is required when the Application is submitted. Check must be make payable to the "City of La Quinta". If the Applicant is not the owner of..the property, a letter must be submitted by the owner authorizing the Applicant to execute this document, - in his behalf. � a F E B 23 1996 PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR: Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce DATE. Febru1ary-2-3 -'197 E CONTACT PERSON ( IF DIFFERENT) PHONE 619 347-3913 MAILING ADDRESS: 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio CA 92201-4166 (Address) (City) (State) (Zip) - OWNER'S NAME: Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce PHONE 619 347-3913 MAILING ADDRESS: 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio CA 92201-4166 (Address) (City) (State) (Zip) STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Not issued --vacant lot Lot 1 and north half of lot 2, Block_ 275, Santa LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Carme!lita� at Vale, La Quinta dUziit No. 25, as shown by map on file in Book 19, pages 50, 51 in office of County Recorder, Riverside County. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 774-265-031 ADJUSTMENT REQUESTED: A 74 foot building width on Calle Potrero and a 12' setback from the north lot line to the garage. REASON FOR REQUEST: A 74 foot building width facilitates needed living and family activity space laid out as shown -on the site plan. The 12' setback on the arage provides 760 square feet of necessary length for hobbv and my collection. See site plan. JUSTIFICATION: No request for a Setback Adjustment shall be granted unless it is determined that it is consistent with the intend and purpose of this Ordinance; that there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that justify the approval of the adjustment of the setback requirement, and that the adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in -the area of the parcel for which the -adjustment is requested. FORM.013/CS ice' 1�', '�: :/ •. 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 March 7, 1996 -Mf - & Mrs- R. C .. Pierce 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, California 92201-4166 . SUBJECT: Setback Adjustment 96-394 Location: South=t corner of Calle Potrero and Avenida Juarez Legal Description: APN 774-265=031 Dear Mr. & Mrs., Pierce: The Community Development Director has reviewed your request to reduce the front setback from 20' to 18', the rear setback from 10' to 8, and the garage setback on the exterior sideyard from 20' to 12' and denied your application for a setback adjustment. Staff cannot approve the reduced setbacks pursuant to Chapter 9.188 of the City of La Quinta Planning and Zoning Regulations. Staff has determined that the fuidiiigs necessary to grant your setback adjustment can not be made for the following reasons: 1. There are no special circumstances which are applicable to your property since it is larger than most properties m the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography and surrounded by residences which have complied with the applicable requirements. 2. The requested setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and vicinity of the subject property. 3. The lot is adequate in size and shape to design a residence on the property that complies with applicable setback requirements. Itrss.357 MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 The action of the Community Development Director may be appealed to. the Planning Commission within 15 calendar days after the date of mailing of the decision. The appeal must be in writing and accompanied by a filing fee of $25.00. Your appeal should include reasons why you feel the findings necessary to approve your setback adjustment can be justified. Should you need additional information regarding required findings please contact me. Upon receipt of an appeal, your request will be scheduled for a Planning Commission 111VVi11L. Should you have questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 777- 7064. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR r 0 STAN B. SAWA Principal Planner SBS:cw c: Christi di Iorio Itrss.357 1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL [CCP § 1013a(3)] 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 3 ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) 4 I am employed in the County of Riverside, State of California. 5 I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 39700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 312, Rancho Mirage, 6 California 92270. 7 On March 22, 1996, I served the following document described as APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS on the parties 8 in this action: 9 [ ] By placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list; 10 [ ] By telef axing a true copy thereof to the party and 11 telefax number below; JN N 12 [ ] By mailing [ ] the original [ ] a true copy thereof -Jm enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: 13 i w5nj o0ytnz 0 WF m� 14 Planning Commission Y ° W U City of La Quinta 0 tEd 15 78-495 Calle Tampico �mmof 16 La Quinta, CA 92253 �P, U [ ] I am readily .familiar with the firm's practice of m� < .17 collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would befdeposited with U.S. postal service on that 18 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Rancho Mirage, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on 19 motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one .day after 20 date of deposit for mailing affidavit. 21 [ ] By personal delivery. I caused such envelope to be hand delivered to the addresses above. 22 [X ] By personal delivery. I delivered such envelope by hand 23 to the offices of the addressee. 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on 25 March 22, 1996, at Rancho Mirage, alifornia 26 + 27 Rita Sikorski 28 RGS65456 Proof of Service T4 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORN1 r,'92RRR 6 �, 7000 FA(619"TI7-7101 A APPLICATION -FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONSP Appellant's Name Mr. and Mrs.. R. C. Pierce Mailing Address 82-29.1 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 RE:. Case No. Type of Appeal: Date March 21, 1996 Phone: 119 )347-3913 Conditional Use Permit Outdoor Advertising Variance Consistency -with General Plan Change of Zone Environmental Assessment Public Use Permit xx Setback Adjustments Surface Mining & Temporary Use Permit Reclamation Permit Plot Plan Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number of the specific condition which is being protested. See attached. L: Use additional sheets if necessary. Signature MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA 'OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FORM.003/CS 0 Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Basis for Appeal ° My wife and I purchased a 75' x 100' lot to build a home in La Quinta. We purchased a large lot to accomplish full utilization of our plans. A front setback of 10' was acceptable because we needed 60'. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 1 and north one-half of Lot 2, Block 275, Santa Carmelita-at Vale, La Quinta, Unit No. 25, as shown by map on. file in Book 19, pages 50, 51, in the Office of the County Recorder, Riverside County. Assessor's Parcel Number is 774-265-031. The property is a vacant lot and a street address has not been issued at this time. I have attached a copy of my letter dated February 23, 1996, and a copy of my Application for Setback Adjustment. I wish to change the setback from 20' to 18'-on the east side of the property, from 10' to 8' on the west side of the property, and from 20' to 12' on the north side of the property. In the letter dated March 7, 1996 (copy attached) from the Community Development Director, these setbacks are incorrectly stated. The Community Development Director has obviously misunderstood my requests, and we have been denied the variance we desire. 1 I hereby appeal the action of the Community Development Director. I do not believe the Planning Commission can deny these variances when other homeowners in the area have been able to enjoy similar uses. RGS80461 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 February 23, 1996 City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department La Quinta, CA 95523 Dear Sir: My wife and I purchased a lot and a half (75' x 100') to build an ideal home for our later years. A small 50' x 100' lot was inadequate for our needs. A purchase was made of the larger lot to accomplish full utilization of our planned complex. A front setback of 10' was acceptable because we needed 60' (75' depth less 10' in front and 5' in back). Now, after saving our money, and buying what we thought was an ideal lot, we have two problems. 1. We need a variance for a 74' width centered between the east and west setbacks, not including the chimney. 2. We need a variance for a 12' setback to the garage. I rise to the personal privilege to build a home for my living and family activities and my lifetime hobby pursuits. I particularly do not believe you can deny these variances, especially the 12' setback to the garage when the same right and use exists that others are enjoying. I hereby request the city of La Quinta to approve these setbacks with a letter stating acceptance of our request. If you choose to deny our request, please provide a letter stating justifiable and substantive reasons that will stand up in court. Prior to this stage of engagement, the city of La Quinta may prefer an appeal process, and therefore could state the format, forms, and procedure. Very truly yours, BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFE$$IONAL CORPORATION$ LAWYERS ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH' TIMOTHY M. CONNOR MARK A. EASTER DAVID J. HANCOCK SUITE 312 GLEN E. STEPHENS' 1 WILLIAM R. DEWOLFE' VICTOR L. WOLF DANIEL E. OLIVIER DIANE L. FINLEY MICHELLE OUE LLETTE PHILIP M. SAVAGE IV DAVID CABRAL 39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE • DALLAS HOLMES' HOWARO B. GOLDS DAVID P. PHIPPEN. SR. MARC T. RASICH POST OFFICE BOX 166S CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER- RICHARD T. ANDER50N' STEPHEN P. DEITSCH MARC E. EMPEY BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON KEVIN K. RANDOLPH ANA MARIA Z. FREDGREN MARGUERITE S. STRAND RANCHO MIRAGE. CALIFORNIA 92270 JOHN D. WAHLIN' JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER JAMES B. GILPIN KAREN M. LEWIS TELEPHONE (619) S68-2611 MICHAEL D. HARRIS' JOHN E. BROWN' MARTIN A. MUELLER J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MARSHALL 5. RUDOLPH KIM A. BYRENS JEFFREY S. FLASHMAN JEFFREY T. MELCHING TELECOPIER (619) 340-6698 MICHAEL T. RIDDELL- SCOTT C. SMITH CYNTHIA M. GERMANO SCOTT D. HOWIE MEREDITH A. JURY• JACK B. CLARKE. JR. MARY E. GILSTRAP ZACHARY R. WALTON MICHAEL GRANT' BRIAN M. LEWIS' GLENN P. SABINE HAYLEY E. PETERSON FRANCIS J. BAUM- BRADLEY E. NEUFELD DOROTHY I. ANDERSON MICHAEL J. SCHAEFER OF COUNSEL ANNE T. THOMAS- PETER M. BARMACK G. HENRY WELLES SANDRA A. JACOBSON JOHN C. TOBIN D. MARTIN NETHERY' MATT H. MORRIS DINA 0. HARRIS CLARK J. DUELLMAN DONALD F. ZIMMER- GEORGE M. REYES WILLIAM W. FLOYD. JR. JEFFREY V. DUNN STEVEN C. DEBAUN BARBARA R. BARON RICHARD T. EGGER. ROGER K. CRAWFORD JOHN R. PERRY HENRY R. KRAFT' GREGORY L. HARDKE ERIC L. GARNER DEAN R. DERLETH SHAWN L. HAGERTY ' KENDALL H. MACVEY DENNI5 M. COTA HELENE P. DREYER KEITH L. HIGGINS CLARK H. ALSOP P.H.W.F. PEARCE SONIA RUBIO CARVALHO LEE ANN MEYER DAVID J. ERWIN' ROBERT W. HARGREAVES JOHN 0. PINKNEY OFFICES IN MICHAEL J. ANDELSON' DOUGLAS 5. PHILLIPS' C. MICHAEL COWETT BRUCE W. BEACH THEODORE J. GRISWOLD JULIANN ANDERSON RIVERSIDE (BOB) 666-1450 ANTONIA GRAPHOS ARLENE PRATER JEFFREY R. THORPE PALM SPRINGS (619) 325-7264 GREGORY K. WILKINSON WILLIAM D. DAHLING, JR. PATRICIA BYARS CISNEROS ONTARIO (809) 888-8584 WYNNE S.FORTH KIRK W. SMITH JACOUELINE E. BAILEY RAYMOND BEST (1868-1957) GENE TANAKA JASON D. DABAREINER D. ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913-1975) SAN DIEGO (619) 525-1300 BASIL T. CHAPMAN KYLE A. SNOW SUSAN E. DUMOUCHEL EUGENE BEST (1893-1981) VICTORVILLE (819) 245-4127 ' A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION October 15, 1995• U R� E VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL. OCT 6 777-7155 CITY OF L AOUINTA P�NNING UFFAIiTMFNT I Stan Sawa Planning Department City of • La Quinta ''•- 78-495�,Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce Dear Stan: This will confirm that my secretary.spokewith Mr. Pierce on October 14, 1996. Mr. Pierce stated':that�he will not pursue the appeal and wishes that the liatter,be withdrawn from the Council agenda for today. Very truly yours,' DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS of Best Best & Krieger LLP DSP:rgs ccf Mr. R. C. Pierce DSP89661 SENT BY:. 10-15-96 ; 2:16PM ;BEST, BEST,& KRIEGER, 6197777155;# 1/ 2 i BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP RI V ♦(R SIOC A CALOCAWA LWB[D UA"111 1..w.NV 1.GN0IRY.ROI908ONA\ CORrORglOi1. tooRl eae-14bo LAWYERS PALM SPRf0408 30700 009 HOPE DRIVE. SUITE 312 O "l` SAN OICOO POST OPIIG[ 80X 106E t BID) 9Rm•7¢es 161V)liYlS •1900 RANCHO MIRAGE CAIICORNIA 9E270 ONfARIO TELEPHONE 1e16) 586.2611 VIC TORVIItE (ROU) /a60-486a TCLe<OP1eR t6101 340-0066 (6101 046.4127 Date: THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET'IS PAGES. PLEASE DELIVER TO: PAS No, FROM: RE: J &'u r � ATTACHMENT; MESSAGE: FILE NO. • S If any of these pages is not legible or you do not receive all of the pages, please call Rita Sikvrski at (629) S68-2611. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT 15 PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAY. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE 1S NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY OISSENINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.' RGSW 66 La�(�T2'c-� • o� �o FILE COPY s oFr��° AGENDA CATEGORY.: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCILIRDA MEETING DATE: October 15, 1996 CONSENT CALENDAR: . ITEM TITLE: Consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission STUDY SESSION: denial of Setback Adjustment 96-394 for the front, and PUBLIC HEARING: interior and exterior (for garage) side yard of a single family residence in the RC Zone located on .the southwest corner of Calle Potrero and Avenida Juarez. Appellant: Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce W401910TIM1140PI-11111• Deny the appeal .and uphold Planning Commission and Community Development Department Director's denial of a setback adjustment for the front, and interior and exterior (for garage) sideyard setback of the proposed. residence. None. The City Council considered the appeal of the Planning Commission denial on June 4,_ 1996 (Attachment 1). After discussion regarding the merits of the request, the appellant was directed to redesign the site plan, to eliminate at a minimum, the need for the garage setback adjustment (20' to-12'). The request was continued to June 18, 1996. 'Prior to the June 18 City Council Meeting, the appellant did submit a revised site plan which was incorporated into the Staff Report far Council review on June 18. At.that time, the appellant requested a continuance (Attachment 2) which was granted to be continued to October 15. The following .is submitted. for your consideration: The revised plan is laid out similar to the previous plan with some modified setbacks. The front setback, on Avenida Juarez, remains at 18 feet, where 20 feet is required under the Zoning Code. The rear setback is 10 feet, in accordance with the Code (previously proposed at eight feet). The interior sideyard, to the south, is now three feet where five feet is required and was originally proposed. -The garage setback, facing Calle Portrero, previously proposed at, 12 feet is now proposed at 15 feet, where 20 feet is required. The residence setback on the exterior sideyard remains at 10 feet as required. ccss.402 t r' In summary the setbacks are as follows: Front (Avenida Interior Exterior Side Juarez) Rear Side (CaIIe Potrero) Original 10' residence Plan 18 81 51 12' garage Revised 10' residence Plan 18 10 .30 15' garage Required 20' 10' residence per the.Zoning Code . .10 5 20' garage The processing of this case began prior to the recent implementation of the current Zoning Code. The setbacks have not changed. The required findings are different with one additional finding added. The case is being continued to be processed under the previous Code. On March 7, 1996, the Community Development Director denied this setback adjustment to reduce the front yard setback from 20-feet to 18-feet, the rear setback from 10-feet to 8-feet, and the garage setback on the exterior sideyard from 20-feet to 12-feet. The setback adjustment was requested to allow construction of a one- story single family residence. The Planning Commission staff report provides additional information (Attachment 3) based on the original plan. The Community Development Director denied the request because the required findings necessary to grant the adjustment could not be made. The findings for denial in accordance with section 9.188.050 of the previous Zoning Code are addressed as follows: ccss.402 There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that justify approval of the adjustment of the setback requirement. 2 2. 3. Response - There are no special circumstances which are applicable to the property since it is larger than most properties in -the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography (corner lot), and surrounded by residences which all have complied with applicable requirements. No setback adjustments have been approved of this extent for new residences within the neighborhood. The adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the vicinity of the parcel. The requested setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks, which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and vicinity of the subject property. The reduction of setbacks would create an incompatible relationship with the surrounding residences which comply with the required setbacks, would create a short (12- foot) driveway whereby parking would block the City right-of-way and reduce the streetscape appeal of the neighborhood. The adjustment is consistent with intent and purposes of the Municipal Code. The lot, is adequate in size and shape to design a residence on the property that complies with applicable setback requirements. The reduction of setbacks, especially at the rear of the lot imposes on the right to privacy of the adjacent residents. The plan proposed provides'a 27-foot by 51-foot yard area adjacent to the southern property line. This yard is considered large and indicates that the lot is sufficient in size -for a residence to be custom designed to meet the required setbacks. The applicant appealed the denial of Director to the Planning Commission. April 23, 1996, - reviewed the appeal. the, Community Development Department The Planning Commission at its meeting of The Planning Commission found there were not sufficient grounds to warrant approval of the appeal. The Commission determined that the lot was sufficient in size and shape to construct a house without need for approval of three setback adjustments. The. Planning Commission on a unanimous vote adopted Minute Motion 96-015 denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Community Development Director (Attachment 4). ccss.ao2 3 OWITUTOM-1 • Mr. & Mrs. Pierce have appealed the decision of the Planning Commission denying their setback adjustments.. As noted in their appeal statement (Attachment 5) the applicants believe that there are sufficient grounds to approve their request. The applicant indicates they will provide additional information at the hearing. Issue 1 - Other setback deviations in the area At the Planning Commission .meeting, the appellant submitted photographs and information regarding ten houses in the Cove area which do not comply with the front yard setback requirements. As a result of research, staff determined that eight of the ten dwelling units were built under Riverside County requirements, prior to City incorporation. Of the remaining two, the first adjustment to reduce the front yard setback was for a residence on a new cul-de-sac constructed west of Avenida Bermudas. The construction of the cul-de-sac bulb by the City, was a part of the Assessment District improvements reducing the front yard setback below that required by Code. The second setback adjustment, reducing the front yard setback from twenty -feet to 16-feet (the garage setback of twenty -feet was not reduced) was granted because of the lot's irregular shape and findings could be made. The lot is a long, and thin, triangular shaped parcel on Avenida Bermudas between Avenida Villa and Calle Chillon. The examples submitted by the applicant do not provide substantiation for approval of his request. The Community Development Department staff met with the appellant and his representatives after the Planning Commission meeting. Staff developed a site plan showing how the property could be developed with a residence that meets the needs of the appellant and complies with required setbacks. The action of the Community Development Department Director and denial of the appeal by the Planning Commission is appropriate because the findings as required by the Zoning Code cannot be* made. The revised plan also does not provide sufficient grounds to support approval of these Setback Adjustments. Should the City Council approve this request, the following findings will need to be substantiated prior to approval: 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the. property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that justify approval of the adjustment of the setback requirement in that ... 4 ccss.4o2 4 2. The adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and. general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the vicinity of the parcel in that ... 3. The adjustment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Municipal Code., in that ... FINDINGS & ALTERNATIVES: Findings to support approval ofthis appeal cannot be made. Alternatives are as follows:. 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission and Community Development Department Director's denial of the setback adjustment. 2. Make findings for the approval of the appeal. ` 3. Continue the request for further review. Jer y Herm n Co�nmunit Development Director Attachments: 1. City Council minutes of June 4, 1996 (Excerpt) 2. City Council minutes of. June 18, 1996 (Excerpt) 3. Planning Commission Staff Report for meeting of April 23, 1996 4. Planning Commission Minutes for meeting of April 23, 1996 (Excerpt) 5. Statement of appeal 6. Revised large site plan exhibit (for City Council only) ccss.402 5 ATTACHMENTS l 0 CC -Lw OTTACHMENT I City Council Minutes June 4, 1996 2. LETTER FROM THE LA QUINTA ARTS ASSOCI N REQUESTING FINANCIAL ASSISTAN Council, concurre n directing. f to agendize this request for the next meeting. 3. LETTER FROM R CHO LA QUIN REQUESTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO .PRESENT A KETING IDEA FOR THE Council concurred on directing staff to agendize request for the next meeting. BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE SETBACK ADJUSTMENT DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER SETBACK ADJUSTMENT NO. 96-394, IN THE SR ZONE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE POTRERO AND AVENIDA JUAREZ. Ms. di lorio, Planning Manager, advised that Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce have appealed the Planning Commission's denial of their request for a setback - adjustment to construct a 2,730 sq. ft. single-family home with a 460 sq. ft. garage on a 7,500-sq. ft. lot on the southwest corner of Calls Potrero and Avenida Juarez. The three setback adjustments requested would reduce the front -yard setback from 20 feet to 18 feet, the rear -yard setback from 10 feet to 8. feet, and the exterior garage sideyard- setback from 20 feet to 12 feet. The request was denied by the Community Development Director on March 7, 1996 and by the Planning Commission on April 23, 1996, based on the size of the lot, the reduction in the length of the driveway which would cause vehicles to extend into the City right-of-way, and the incompatible relationship it would cause with surrounding residences that comply with the required setbacks. The applicant's reasons for requesting the setbacks are included in the staff report. Staff recommended that the Council deny the appeal. In response to Council Member Adolph, Ms. di lorio advised that there is 12 feet between the curb line and the City right-of-way line. Mr. Doug Phillips, 39-700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 312, Rancho Mirage, legal counsel with Best, Best, & Krieger, introduced Mr. Lujan, the applicant's design consultant. 7 City Council Minutes June 4, 1996 Mr. Gabriel Lujan, 43-875 Washington Street, Suite, G, Palm Desert, Design Consultant of New Age Design Concepts, advised that each effort to redesign the home'has resulted in increased square footage and costs. He urged the Council to help find an alternative that would allow the applicants to have their dream home. Council Member Adolph asked if he was aware of the setback requirements prior to designing the home. Mr. Lujan responded yes, but advised that Mr. Pierce's needs would not fit within the setback requirements. Mr. Robert Pierce, 82-291 Sierra Avenue, Indio, the applicant, advised that the dream home he designed will not fit on his 75-foot wide lot because of the City right-of-way requirements which he feels constitutes a burden by City Code that precludes the wise use and advantages of a well -mastered plan. He didn't believe that the setback adjustments would harm the neighborhood and asked the. Council to grant his request so that he would have the benefit of a hobby room and projection/game room for his family's use. Mr. Phillips pointed out that variances are allowed by State law and advised that the City Code (Section 9.42.080) permits single-family residences. to be in substantial compliance with building standards. He felt that 24 feet from the curb to the garage was substantial and was not aware of any neighborhood opposition to the setback -adjustment request. Council Member Sniff was dubious that the setbacks would be damaging to the neighborhood and supported granting the appeal. Council Member Adolph didn't have a problem with granting variances on the rear and front -yard setbacks, but he* would not support a variance on the exterior-sideyard because it would cause vehicles in the driveway to extend into the City right-of-way. Council Member Henderson was concerned that allowance of. a 12-foot long driveway would set a precedent and asked if setback adjustments had been requested for other large homes in the area. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that setback adjustments have been granted for lots having unique shapes and sizes, but not for standard straight lots. 8 0- • City Council Minutes June 4, 1996 W In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Herman confirmed that driveway - length requirements are 25 feet with pivot -type garage doors and 20 feet with roll -up garage doors. Mayor Holt didn't have a problem with the rear and front -yard setbacks, but agreed that the exterior-sideyard,setback was too critical and suggested that the applicant redesign the. home to increase the setback _on that side. Mr. Lujan advised that the home could be set two feet back into the interior- sideyard setback and the projection room could be shortened by two feet and asked if a four -foot setback adjustment could be negotiated. - Mayor Holt suggested continuing this matter to give staff and the applicant an opportunity to work out a solution. Council Member Henderson wasn't sure that the driveway length was negotiable. Council Member Perkins wouldn't support granting any of the setbacks because he felt that the house was designed too large for the lot in hopes that a variance would be granted and he.felt that granting the variance.would. set a dangerous precedent. Council Member Henderson appreciated the applicant's situation, but felt that the zoning standards were set for a purpose. Council Member Sniff pointed out that the Council has some discretion in such matters. He supported continuing the appeal to the next meeting. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the Council's discretion is limited - in that a finding must be made that special circumstances are applicable to this property including such factors as. size, shape, topography; location, or surroundings that justify adjustments to the setback. Council Member Adolph suggested that the applicant reconfigure the master bath and walk-in closet to allow a half -circular driveway. In response to' Council Member Henderson, .Mr. Lujan advised that the air- conditioning unit would be located in the interior sideyard behind Bedroom No. 2. 9 u 0 City Council Minutes June 4, 1996 MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to continue the appeal Setback Adjustment 96-394 to June 18, 1996. Motion carried with Council Member Perkins voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO. 96-85. Mayor Holt and the Council presented Art Achievement Awards to the following students of La Quinta High School for their artwork displayed at the Civic Center: Erica Abarca Rudy Escarsega Jennifer Moreno Juanita'Arellano Noe Esmeralda Laila Nemoto Roni Baca", Becky Golden -Harrell Jennifer Pierson Erica Beruman Salvador Gomez Albert Ramirez Bill Biller Maria Gonzales Anna Read Estella Cano Raul Hernandez GabriRios Arturo Cecena Edith Herrera Lynea Scholten Jason Dalbey Alisa Lawson Sara Spurgeon Melissa McCormick / Danny Valencia 2. CONSIDERATION 0 THE DRAFT F CAL YEAR 1996/97 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROG M (CIP). Mr. Cosper, Public Works D ector dvised that changes have been made to the draft Capital Improvement ram and Five -Year Forecast as directed by Council . on April 30, 1996. a of the changes are as follows: • $300,000 of infrast ture funds was transferred from the Fritz Burns Pool Project to the Hi way 111\Fundhave roject to free funds from the Redevelopment roject Area raffic signal improvements at Highway 111 the entrance tuinta • $51.8,589 in ommunity Projece been designated for Citywide park impro ments • an annu payment for the Cof costs for the Washington Street/I erstate 10 Interchangadded as a project He advip6d that approximately $14,746,000 in imp vements are identified in the CI over the next five years and approval of the Cl will include only those improvements for FY 1996/97 which totals $5,464,51 The list of deferred projects total approximately $16,000,000 making the tot for the entire CIP approximately $30,846,000. Staff recommended that the draft CIP be approved and a public hearing scheduled for June 18, 1996. 10 cc IRM. *TTACHMENT 2 City C ncil Minutes June 18, 1996 3. LE R FROM DWIGHT FINE REGARDING DARK SKY ORDINANCE. Cou cil ected staff to respond. 4. LE ER FROM R. AND MRS. WOLLM REGARDING DARK SKY ORDINANCE. Council directed stb�f to respond. r 5. LET ER FROM -MR. AND MRS. DAVID HANNAN REGARDING INFIAASTRUCTURE IN THE VILLAGE. Council directed staff to respond. BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF SETBACK ADJUSTMENT 96-394 FOR THE FRONT, REAR, AND EXTERIOR SIDE YARD (FOR GARAGE) OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE SR ZONE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE POTRERO AND AVENIDA JUAREZ. APPELLANT: MR. & MRS. R. C. PIERCE. Mr. R.. C. Pierce, 82-291 Sierra Avenue, Indio, the appellant, asked for a continuance to October 15, 1996.' Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that a waiver of rights as it relates to the . permit stream would have to be signed to which the applicant agreed. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to continue consideration of the appeal of.Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce (Setback Adjustment 96- 394) to October 15, 1996 pending receipt of written .waiver of rights as it relates to the permit stream. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 96-88. 2. NSIDERATION OF LA QUINTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REQUEST FOR F NG FOR FY 1996/97 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.64,000. Ir. Weiss, A stant City. Manager, advised that the Chamber of Commerce as requested fdhding of $164,000 for contract services for Fiscal Year 996/97. If approve one-half would be funded by the Redevelopment DATE: CASE NO.: •CC ATTACaHMIEN*3 •LJ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. REPORT APRIL 23, 1996 SETBACK ADJUSTMENT 96-394 REQUEST: APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DENIAL OF SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM TWENTY -FEET TO EIGHTEEN -FEET, REAR YARD SETBACK FROM TEN -FEET TO EIGHT -FEET, AND GARAGE SETBACK ON EXTERIOR SIDE YARD FROM TWENTY -FEET TO TWELVE -FEET FOR NEW RESIDENCE. APPLICANT AND APPELLANT: MR. & MRS. R. C. PIERCE LOCATION: SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CALLS POTRERO AND AVENIDA JUAREZ (ATTACHMENT 1) . ZONING: S-R (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTED BY THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SECTION 15305 (CLASS 5a) AND SECTION 15303 (CLASS 38).- THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS DEEMED NECESSARY. SURROUNDING ' ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES SOUTH: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES EAST: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WEST: S-R/VACANT SINGLE FAMILY LOTS BACKGROUND: The subject property is a vacant single family lot in the Cove with 75-feet of frontage on Avenue Juarez and 100-feet of frontage on Calle Potrero. The lot size is just under 7,500 square feet due to the. corner radius, and was created by a merger of three lots into two lots. The property to the south, which shares a common property line, has a single family residence and wood fence on the property line: Along the west, or rear property line, is a utility pole with wires which run in a north/south pcxs.201 12 • i - direction. The curbs and gutters have been installed along the two street frontages as part of the Assessment District improvements. The lot is one block from the top of the Cove and relatively flat. The appellant is proposing to construct a one-story single family residence of approximately 2,730 square feet plus 400 square feet for a two -car garage. The residence will consist of three bedrooms, two baths, a living room, dining room, nook, hobby room, and great room. The entry door into the house, has been placed on the north (exterior side yard) side of the house. The front of the lot faces Avenida Juarez, because it is the narrower dimension, and is required to have a 20-foot front yard setback. The appellant is requesting an eighteen -foot setback. Calle Potrero is the exterior side yard and requires a ten -foot setback for the building and a twenty -foot setback for the garage. The appellant is requesting a twelve -foot garage setback. The interior side yard, along the south property line requires a five-foot setback and along the west property line a ten -foot setback is required. The appellant is requesting eight -feet. The site requirements (Attachment 2) are illustrated in the Manual on Architectural Standards as adopted by Planning Commission per Section 9.42.080 Building Design Standards. The appellant is requesting the Planning Commission reverse the Community Development Director's decision to deny reducing the front setback from twenty -feet to eighteen -feet, the rear setback from ten -feet to eight -feet, . and the garage setback on the exterior side yard. from twenty -feet to twelve -feet (Attachment 3). On March 22, 1996, the appellant appealed (Attachment 4) the decision of the Community Development Department. The Community Development Director on March 7, 1996, denied the request and because the required findings necessary to grant the adjustment could not be made. The findings for denial are as follows: 1. There are no special circumstances which are applicable to your property since it is larger than most properties in the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography, and surrounded by residences which have complied with applicable requirements. No setback adjustments have been approved of this extent for new residences within the neighborhood. pm.Zo t 13 • C] 2. The requested setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks, which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and vicinity of the subject property. The reduction of setbacks would create an incompatible relationship with the surrounding residences which comply with the setbacks; would create a. short (12-foot) driveway whereby parking would block the City right-of-way and reduce the streetscape appeal of the neighborhood. ' 3. The lot is adequate in size and shape to design a residence on the property that complies with applicable setback requirements. The reduction of setbacks, especially at the rear of the lot imposes on the right to privacy of the adjacent residents. The plan proposed provides a 27-foot by 51-foot yard area adjacent to the southern property line. This yard .is considered large and indicates that the lot is sufficient in size for a residence to be custom designed to meet the required setbacks. By Minute Motion 96 , deny appeal of appellant, and uphold decision of the Community Development Director, -based on the findings as noted. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Excerpt from Building Design Standards. 3. Proposed site plan (Large plans for Planning Commission only). 4. Appeal from Mr.& Mrs. Pierce received March 22,_ 1996 (including basis for appeal; letter dated February 23, 1996; application; letter dated March 7, 1996, from Community Development Director denying setback adjustment; and proof of service by mail). Prepared by: STAN B. SAWA, Principal Planner Submitted by: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager, pcw.201 1 4 SITL I CASE MAP CASE Nm � NORTH dS6A a�-3q4 SCALE: - �I�%�G� NTS . 15 1 q T� fit' a � s l pra}acwiy lnd- a► - �TT'� �N 16 SITE REQUIREMENTS r CORNER LOT SIDEYARD: 5 FT. MINIMUM . REARYARD : 10 FT, MINIMUM I GARAGE SETBACK: 20 Ft CONCRETE PAD I I I I I� I I I AREAS TO BE i SAP I. r FRormARD : 20 FT: MINIMJM LOCATE DRIVEL AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION. .ASPHALT CONNECTING PAVEMENT W 2"x4" HEADERS CURBLINE I DEYARD :. 10 FT. MINIMUM LI 17 78 495 CALLS TAMPICO - LA GUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Appellant-s Name Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce Mailing Address 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 RE: Case No. Type of Appeal: _Conditional Use Permit _Variance Change of Zone _Public Use Permit _Surface Mining & Reclamation Permit Date March 21, 1996 Phone: 119 1347-3913 .Outdoor Advertising . _Consistency with.General Pla Environmental Assessment xx Setback Adjustments Temporary Use Permit Plot Plan Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number of.the specific condition which is beinc protested. _ See attached. Use additional sheets if necessary. Signature "LING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 150d - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FORM.003/CS 18 • • Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce APPLICATION FOR.APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Basis for Appeal My wife and I purchased a 75' x 100' lot to build a home in La Quinta. We purchased a large lot to accomplish full utilization of our plans. A front setback of 10' was acceptable because we needed 60'. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 1 and north one-half of Lot 2, Block 275, Santa Carmelita at Vale, La Quinta, Unit No. 25, as shown by'map on file in Book 19, pages 50, 51, in the Office of the County Recorder, Riverside County. Assessor's Parcel Number is 774-265-031. The property is a vacant lot and a street address has not been issued at this time. I have attached a copy of my letter dated February 23, 1996, and a copy of my Application for Setback Adjustment. I wish to change the setback from 20' to 18' on the east side of the property, from 10' to 8' on the west side of the property, and from 20' to 12' on the north side of the property. In the letter dated March 7, 1996 (copy attached) from the Community Development.Director, these setbacks are incorrectly stated. The Community Development Director has obviously misunderstood my requests, and we have been denied the variance.we desire. I hereby appeal the action of the Community Development Director. I do not believe the Planning Commission can deny these variances when other homeowners in the area have been able to enjoy similar uses. RGS80461 19 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 February 23, 1996 City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department La.Quinta, CA 95523 .Dear Sir: My wife and I purchased a'lot and a half (75' k 1001) to build an ideal home for our later years.' A small 50' x 100' lot was inadequate for our needs. A purchase was made of the larger lot to accomplish full utilization of our planned complex. A front setback of 10' was acceptable because we needed 60' (75.' depth less 10' in front and 5' in back). Now, after saving our money, and buying, what we thought was an ideal lot, we have two problems. 1. We need a variance for a 74' width centered between the east and west setbacks, not including the chimney. 2. We need a variance for a 12' setback to the garage. I rise to the personal privilege to builda home for my living and family activities and my lifetime hobby pursuits. I particularly do hot believe you can deny these variances, especially the 12' setback to the garage when the same right and use exists.that others are enjoying.. I hereby request the city of La Quinta to approve these setbacks with a letter stating acceptance of our request. If you choose, to deny our request, please provide a letter stating justifiable and substantive reasons that will stand up in court. Prior to this stage of engagement, the city of La Quinta may prefer an appeal process, and therefore could state the format;. forms, and procedure. Very truly yours, R. C. Pierce l 20 • CASE :10: CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR SETBACK ADJUSTMENT FEE: $100.00 APPLICANT: Submit this form with two copies of a scaled site plan, drawn to adequately depict the nature of the request. A nonrefundable fee of $100 is required when the Application is submitted. Check must be make payable to the "City of La Quinta". If the Applicant is not the owner of the property, a letter must be submitted by the owner authorizing the Applicant to execute this document in his behalf. r****x*,r,.****.*,r,►*,r,r,r***,r******,.:,r*,r,r*+r***:,r**,►*,►**,r*,r,..********,.�t:,r,r,r�t,r** PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR: Mr. and Mrs. Q_ C_ Pjwrma DATE February 23. 1996 CONTACT PERSON ( IF DIFFERENT) • � PHONE 619 347-3913 MAILING ADDRESS: 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio _ CA 92201-4 ss) OWNER'S NAME: Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce MAILING ADDRESS: 82- ss ty ty tate PHONE 619 347-3913 It I L. Loy State) (Zip) STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Not issued --vacant lot Lot 1 and north half of lot 2. Block 275, Santa LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:Carmelita.at Vale. La ouinta, Unit 4o. 25. as shown by map on file in Book 19, pages 50, 51 in office of County Recorder, Riverside County. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 774-265-031 ADJUSTMENT REQUEft=: A 74 foot building width on Calle Potrero and a 12' setback from the north lot line to the garage REASON FOR REQUEST: A 74 foot building width facilitates needed living and family activity sipace laid out as shown on the site olan The 12' setback on the eara¢e provides 760 square feet of necessary length for hobbv and my collection See site plan. r,r,r,r,r*,r*,r,r,►:►***w*wu•,r*s**s,r*,r*►:,►,r:w::,r**,►t**:,r*,r*s**,r*,r*�e,r:*,e,e*t*s,rss�t*: JUSTIFICATION: No request for a Setback Adjustment shall be granted unless it is determined that it is consistent with the intend and purpose - of this Ordinance; that there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings .that justify the approval of the adjustment of the setback requirement, and that the adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the area of the parcel for which the adjustment is requested. FORM.013/CS 21 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 March 7, 1996 Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce 82-291,Sierra Avenue Indio, California 92201-4166 SUBJECT:. Setback Adjustment 96-394 Location: Southeast corner of Calle Potrero.and Avenida Juarez Legal Description: APN 774-265-031 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pierce: The Community Development Director has reviewed your request to reduce the front setback from 20' to 18', the rear setback from 10' to 8', and the garage setback on the exterior sideyard from 20' to 12' and denied your application for a setback adjustment. Staff cannot approve the reduced setbacks pursuant to Chapter 9.188 of the City of La _ Quinta Planning and Zoning Regulations. Staff has detennined that the findings necessary to Iwit your setback adjustment can not be made for the following reasons: l . There are no special circumstances which are applicable to your property since it is larger than most properties in the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography and surrounded by residences which have complied with the applicable requirements. 2. The requested setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and vicinity of the subject property. 3. The lot is adequate in size and shape to design a residence on the property that complies with applicable setback requirements. icrss.357 MAILING ADDRESS . P.Q. BOX 1504 LA QUINTA. CAUFORNIA 92253 i. 22 The action of the Community Development Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 15 calendar days after the date of mailing of the decision. The appeal must be in writing and accompanied by a filing fee of $25.00. Your appeal should include reasons why you feel the findings necessary to. approve your setback adjustment can be justified. Should you need additional information regarding required findings please contact me. Upon receipt of an appeal, your request will be scheduled for a Planning Commission Should you have questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 777- 7064. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR STAN B. SAWA Principal Planner SBS:cw. c: Christi di Iorio Itrss.357 0 23 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it a o 12 J ^ ^ J" a z W .,,< 13 n = 0 W N 0 0 �Ycn 14 r 16 p 45 u u 15 a W 0 a 0602 e16 ►- 8 g N a u m^ a 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL [CCP 5-1013a(3)] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) I am employed in the County of Riverside, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within `action; my business address is 39700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 312, Rancho.Mirage, California 92270. On March 22,, 1996, I served the following document described as APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS on the parties in this action: [ ] By placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list; [ ] By telef axing a true copy thereof to the party and .telefax number below; [ ] By mailing [ ] the original [ ] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Planning Commission. City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 [ ] I am.readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it. would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon. fully prepaid at Rancho Mirage, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing affidavit. [ ] By personal delivery. 'I caused such envelope to be hand delivered to the addresses above. [g ] By personal delivery. I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed or March 22, 1996, at Rancho Mirage, aliforniaF Rita Sikorski RGS65456 -1- 2 4 Proof of Service ATTACHMENT 4 Planning Commission Meeting April23, 1996 apply, but commercial equestrian facilities or uses may -be subject to more trictive requirements through the CUP process. As this applies to lighting i sound amplification issues, any lighting proposal must comply to the �tdoor Lighting Control requirements as applicable in the current Code or later than 9:00 P.M. The CUP process could modify these regulations. In Etion, staff talked about the pasture fencing, and informed Mrs. Kanlian it there is no setback required for pasture fencing. If the fencing does not tend to the property line in order to allow a reasonable area to maintain the )perry line and that. fencing, staff is recommending an area of 10-feet. 'A ction was also added for open area fencing that is not addressed in other ;as of the ordinance, but this would not be -required until a modification or ;ensifying of the use in accordance with the nonconformity section was. to the property. .20. r. Larry Lawrence asked- if the Zoning Ordinance update c ntinued to May 14th. Staff stated yes. Mr. Lawren. that in regards t previously approved plans Section 9 -Nonconformities does dress this and he went on to cl a wording. 21. Lmardn further dis � it was moved and seconded by Commissioners ows to continue to the next regular meeting of the Planning mission at May 14, 1996. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS Setback Adjustment 9&394; a request of Mr. & Mrs. R. C: Pierce to appeal the Community Development Director's denial of setback adjustments for the front yard, rear yard, and garage setback on the exterior side yard for a new residence located southwest of the intersection of Calle Potrero and Avenida Juarez. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community. Development Department. 2. Commissioner Anderson asked staff to clarify which street frontage is considered by the City to be the front of the house when it is located on a corner. Principal Planner Stan Sawa clarified that the front is determined by which frontage is the narrower. of the two. Discussion followed. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that this is referenced in the Architectural Design Manual. PC4-23 25 Planning Commission.Meeting April23, 1996 3. Mr. Doug Phillips, lawyer for the appellants, stated one of the most important concerns to the applicant is the placements of the garage. He went on to state the reasons they thought justified their applying for and receiving a variance: A) Special Circumstances:'1) the lot is 7,500 square feet and not very large; 2) its shape is 75-feet wide and 100-feet long, very narrow; and 3) located on the corner with a radius causing less buildable area. B) Depravation to the Prom Owner: Mr. Phillips stated there are ten locations located nearby where there are setback deviations for garages that had been approved by the County or the City. Discussion followed regarding the examples supplied by the applicant. C) What exits now is a vacant lot with debris, what the City will get is a new home built by local developer. The applicants need the same consideration and flexibility as they believe has been afforded to other property owners in the same vicinity. 4. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that staff would clarify the ten houses setbacks referred to by the appellant. Two setback adjustments were due to street vacation and irregular shape triangular lots. 5. Commissioner Anderson stated most of the examples of the sites were homes constructed before City incorporation and the City had no control over what was constructed Therefore, a lot of homes were built with minimum zoning restrictions. For homes built after incorporation, one is located on a new cul- de-sac created by the City, which created the deviation. A 7,500 square foot lot is not difficult to build or design a home on. In reviewing the proposed house plan, some changes could be made to allow the house to exist on the lot. The problem appears to be that the plans were drawn before the lot was selected and this is not grounds to grant a variance. 6. Commissioner Barrows stated she did not believe that the conditions stated by the applicant warranted the setback adjustment. The lot configuration does not warrant a variance. 7. Commissioner Butler stated he concurred with Commissioners Anderson and Barrows in that the house is too large for the property. The applicant should reconfigure the house to bring it into compliance with the setback requirements. 8. Commissioner Gardner stated the house does take up a great deal of the lot and detracts from the property. If this variance were approved it would create a problem of others asking for variances. PC4-23 26. Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 1996 `t 9. Commissioner Newkirk stated he concurred with what had been said. It would set a precedent for future problems. 10. Commissioner Tyler asked Mr. Phillips to clarify why the appellant's appeal letter stated that the determination of the setbacks, stated in the City's letter was mis-read. Mr. Phillips stated that based on the basis of the applicant's position, a variance would be proper. They have no problem with staff interpretation, however La Quinta did inherit the small lots from the County with houses already built. This is why so many of the setbacks for the older homes were granted. Now, the applicant has a vacant lot and is asking .the City to apply.the same standards and give flexibility to this property owner. 11. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood the point, but should one of these homes be destroyed, he would'have to build in accordance with the new Code requirements. In this instance the City has existing nonconforming uses but, they are not the grounds to grant a variance Mr. Phillips asked if there was anything else this owner could do to solve this problem. Is there a suggestion by the Commissioners to solve this problem. 12. Commissioner Anderson stated it was a matter of reconfiguring the house; reconfigure the circulation plan of the house. Commissioner Anderson stated he could not specifically make a suggestion, but would relay some ideas to staff. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 96-015, denying the appeal of the appellant, and upholding the decision of the Community Development Director. Unanimously approved. B. V etermination of eneral Plan Consistency findings with proposed street vacations for portions of ANpida Cortez, Avenida Herrera, Avenida Juarez, Avenida Madero, Avenida z, Avenida Mendoza, Avenida Montezuma, Avenida Velasco, Avenida Villa, Calle CNIlon, Calle Portero, Calle Temecula, and Eisenhower Drive. 1. Senio gineer Steve Speer presented the information contained in the staff report, opy of which is on file in the Community. Development Department. 2. Commissioner Buwfr asked staff if the property owners adjacent to the area were informed of action. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they are notified and went on t explained the process by which the Public Works Department is requiredNtoollow for a street vacation. 2 7 PC4-23 J *'TACHMENT S. ,Appeal of Setback Adjustment 96-394 Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Basis for Appeal Special circumstances are applicable to my property which support my request for relief from the setback requirements. V would be deprived of privileges enjoyed.by other property owners in the vicinity, under identical zoning classification, if the zoning ordinance is strictly applied. I will present` photographs and setback information as to the other properties at the hearing on my appeal. I agree that any variance granted shall be subject to conditions that will assure that the adjustment is not a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which my property is located. See Government Code Section 65906. Thank you for your consideration. RGS82210 28 04/4-c1'1956 13: =6 61977-77=_5 CITY 7F LA •QU T4 PAGE U w I uftiCv has _ CALLS TAMPiCQ J �� LA a4lNTA, . CAUFORNlA 9�ZS� . 4149) A VIIT - - p�NIN's �PpiiTl�EN APpellant's flame Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce sailing Address 82-291 Sierra Avenue Date May 1, 1996 Indio, CA 92201 619 347-3913 Phone: RE: Case No. 96-394 Type of Appeal: `Conditional Use Permit _Variance Change of Zone Public Use permit —surface Mining i Reclamation Permit —_Outdoor.Advertisinq � -Consistency with General plan Environmental.Assessmont Setback Adjustments ..:_Temporary Use Permit `_plot Plan Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number protested* of the specific eondition.which is being See attached. Use additional sheets if necessary. • 9 qn ure r'ORK. 003/C8 . MWUNO AGOM= P.Q sOX 1 MA - LA OWNTA, CALJFCPXIA 29 t3Y LoMM,t.IN �7Y �7SY.. p'E DiA ZONING REGULATIONS § 65906 son ch ed with conducting a public hearing thereon, notice of hear- ing shall given by notice through the United States mails, with postage p aid using addresses from the last equalized assessment roll, or alte tively, from such other records of the assessor or the tax collector contain more recent addresses in the opinion of said body, or by bo \ee on in • a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with854 and posting said notice in conspicuous c places close to affected. Procedure for mailing or post- ing of said noticgoverned by the provisions of the' local or- dinance. (Added by Stats.1, p. 43b0, f6.) Cm RafereaeasBridges or major t, ordinances '%requiring payment of fee to defray mate, notice ps on. see 188484. V�e7 itefer�sea Zoaiae and Planning 4+3W, 484, 584. W.S. Zoning and Land Planning if 93. . 95.187 to 189, 204. 208. 25L 65906. vwisam from zoning ordinaaoes Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent withthe limitations upon oth- er properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situ- ated A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly autho- rized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property. The Provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits. (Added by Stata.1966, c. 1980, p. 4350. 16. Amended by Stats.1970, c. 660, p.1284,11; Stats.1974. c. 607. p. 1450, I. L; 1Bstarkd Note The 1970 amendment added the third The 1974 amendment added the last son - Paragraph. tome in the third paragraph relating to conditional us permits. ' Foetus See women California Code Forms. Government. 105 30 WAIVER OF TIME LIMITS FOR RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Per the decision of the City Council at their meeting of.June 18, 1996, a request for a continuance of Setback Adjustment 96-394 to October 15, 1996, was approved based upon the agreement to, and signing of, a "Waiver of Time Limits for -Responsible Agency" by Mr. Robert C. Pierce, applicant for the Setback Adjustment 96-034. Based on Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws, Section 65952.1: (a) Time Limits for Map Appfoval/Disapproval, "Any public agency which is a responsible agency for a development project that has been approved by the lead agency shall approve or disapprove the development project within whichever of the following periods of time is longer: (1) Within 180 days from the date on which the lead agency has approved the project. (2) Within 180 days of the date on which the completed application for the development .project has been received and accepted as complete by the responsible agency. (b) At the time a decision by a lead agency to disapprove a development project becomes final, application for that project which are filed with responsible agencies shall be deemed withdrawn." In consideration of being granted a continuance, Robert C. Pierce does hereby waive his rights to have the City approve, or disapprove his application for a Setback Adjustment within the required 180 days specified in the Code Section stated above. Signed Date ROBERT C. PIERCE Form.028 0 City Council Minutes 3 June 18, 1996 3. LETTER FROM DWIGHT FINE REGARDING DARK SKY ORDINANCE. -19 5 Council directed staff to respond. LETTER FROM MR. AND MRS.'WOLLM REGARDING DARK SKY ORDINANCE. Council directed staff to respond. 0 LETTER FROM MR. AND MRS INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE VILLAGE. Council directed staff to respond. BUSINESS SESSION DAVID HANNAN REGARDING 1. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF SETBACK ADJUSTMENT 96-394 FOR THE FRONT, REAR, AND EXTERIOR SIDE YARD (FOR GARAGE) OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE SR ZONE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE POTRERO AND AVENIDA JUAREZ. APPELLANT: MR. & MRS. R. C. PIERCE. Mr. R. C. Pierce, 82-291 Sierra Avenue,. Indio, the, appellant, asked for a continuance to October 15, 1996. Mr. Genovese, City Manager, advised that a waiver of rights 'as it relates to the permit -stream would have to be signed to which the applicant agreed. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to continue consideration of the appeal of Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce (Setback Adjustment 96- 394) to October 15, 1996pending receipt of written waiver of rights as it relates to the permit stream. Motion carried unanimously. 'MINUTE ORDER NO. 96-88. 2. CONSIDERATION OF LA QUINTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR FY 1996/97 IN THE AMOUNT OF $164,000. Mr. Weiss, Assistant City Manager, advised that the Chamber of Commerce has. requested funding of $164,000 for contract services for Fiscal Year 1996/97. If approved, one-half would be funded by the Redevelopment 0 is City Council Minutes 4 June 18, 1996 Agency and one-half by the City. Two limited negotiation meetings were held with the -Chamber in respect to the agreement, with staff receiving the proposed funding request at the second meeting. The budgeted amount for the Chamber's contract in FY 1996/97 is $147,500 which is consistent with last year's funding. He reviewed the alternatives available to Council which were to approve the requested funding of $164,000 and authorize staff to prepare an agreement for Council's consideration on July 2, 1996, authorize preparation of an agreement with an alternative funding level, or request additional information from the Chamber and/or City staff. Mr. Jack Klein, 49-100 Tango Court, President of La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, advised that they hope to achieve the Chamber and City's common goal of showcasing this community to the current residents and businesses as well as visitors and prospective businesses. He reviewed the following scope of services included in the contract: six Mainstreet Marketplace events, 2,500 annual service hours at their Visitors' Information Center, 10 issues of the newsletter, special events such as a golf tournament, 1 OK Run, Business Expo, Toys for Tots, Wish List for Schools, Youth Education Motivation Program, and economic development which includes a Business Development Task Force and Business Development & Retention Committee. They also publish an annual Directory & Buyers Guide and bi-yearly City map. The number of visitor - information inquiries handled by the Chamber have increased dramatically since the opening of their new office and they expect to receive nearly 28,000 inquiries during the next year. La Quinta leads the valley in population growth and housing construction and its taxable retail sales have increased. He advised that the Chamber is able to provide $256,106 in services at a cost of $164,000 to the City due to the large amount of volunteer help they receive, pointing out that it would cost the City $381,082 to provide the same services on its own. In -response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Klein advised that the services outlined in the contract cost the Chamber $256,000- to produce, but they can provide those services to the City .for $164,000. Their budget for this year is over $306,000 which does not include the cost value of volunteer help. Council Member Perkins pointed out that many organizations use volunteer help and the City's provision of $164,000 to the Chamber represents more than 50% of -the Chamber's annual budget of $306,000. Mr. Jack Sobelman, 52-815 Avenida Martinez, questioned the benefit and necessity of such an expensive newsletter. and said he would like to know how many new businesses the Chamber has brought into the community. He felt that the Chamber could do a lot for the City, but wasn't sure that the City COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: • FILE COPY 4 i AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION June 18, 1996- CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: STUDY SESSION: Consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission denial of _Setback Adjustment 96-394 for the front, PUBLIC HEARING; rear, and exterior side yard (for garage) of a single family residence in the SR Zone located on the southwest corner of Calle Potrero and. Avenida Juarez. Appellant: Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce Volellu_► Tcm By Minute Motion, deny appeal .and uphold Planning Commission and Community Development Department Director denial of setback adjustment for ,font, rear, and exterior sideyard (for garage) and setback of the proposed- residence. None. The City Council considered the appeal of the Planning Commission denial on June 4, 1996: After discussion regarding the merits of the request, the appellant was directed to redesign the site plan, to eliminate at a minimum, the need for the garage setback adjustment (20' to 12'). The request was continued to this meeting. The minutes of the meeting are available in the City Council agenda packet: The appellant has submitted a revised plan which is laid out similar to the previous plan. with some modified setbacks. The front setback, on Avenida Juarez; remains at 18 feet, where 20 feet is required under the Zoning Code. The rear setback is 10 feet, in accordance with the Code (previously proposed at eight feet). The interior sideyard, to the south, • is now three feet where five feet is required. The garage setback, on Calle Portrero, previously proposed at 12 feet is now proposed at 15 feet, where 20 feet is required. The residence setback on the exterior sideyard remains at 10 feet as required. ccss.4o2 In summary the setbacks are as follows: Front (Avenida Interior Exterior Side Juarez) Rear Side (CaIIe Potrero) Original 18' ' 8 5' 10' residence Plan 12' garage Revised 18, 10, 3' 10' residence Plan 15, garage Required 20' 10' residence per the Zoning Code 10 5 20' garage On March 7, 1996, the Community Development Director denied this setback adjustment to reduce the front yard setback from 20-feet to 18-feet, the rear setback from 10-feet to 8-feet, and the garage setback on the exterior sideyard from 20-feet to 12-feet. The setback adjustment was requested to construct a one-story single family residence. The Planning Commission staff report provides additional information (Attachment 1). The Community Development Director denied the request because the required findings necessary to grant the adjustment could not be made. The required findings in accordance with section 9.188.050 of the Zoning Code are addressed as follows: There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that justify approval of the adjustment of the setback requirement. There are no special circumstances which are applicable to the property since it is larger than most properties in the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography (corner lot), and surrounded by residences which all have complied with applicable requirements. No setback adjustments have been approved of this extent for new residences within the neighborhood. ccss.ao2 IR ROME �•. 2! The adjustment will not be detrimental to .the health, safety, and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the vicinity of the parcel. The requested .setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks, which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and vicinity of the subject property. The reduction of setbacks would create an incompatible relationship with the surrounding residences which comply,with the required setbacks, would create a short 0 2- foot) driveway whereby parking would block the City right-of-way and reduce the streetscape appeal of theneighborhood. The adjustment is consistent with intent and purposes of the Municipal Code. The lot is adequate in size and shape to design a residence on the property that complies with applicable setback requirements. The reduction of setbacks, especially at the' rear of the lot imposes on the right to privacy of the adjacent residents. The plan proposed provides a 27-foot by 51-foot yard area adjacent. to the southern property line. This yard is considered large and indicates that the lot is sufficient in size for a residence to be custom designed to meet the required setbacks. The ' applicant appealed the denial of the Community Development Department Director to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission at its meeting of April 23, 1996, reviewed the appeal. The Planning Commission found there were not sufficient grounds to warrant approval of the appeal. The Commission determined that the lot was sufficient in size and shape to construct a house without. need for approval of three setback adjustments. The Planning Commission on a unanimous vote adopted Minute Motion 96-015 denying the appeal and upholding the .decision of the Community Development Director (Attachment 2). Mr: & Mrs. Pierce have appealed the decision of the Planning- Commission, denying their setback. adjustments. As noted in their appeal statement (Attachment 3) the ccss.ao2 applicants believe that there are sufficient grounds to approve their request. The applicant indicates they will provide additional information at the hearing. Issue 1 - Other setback deviations in the area At the Planning Commission meeting, the appellant submitted photographs and information regarding ten houses in the Cove area which do not comply with the front yard setback requirements. As a result of research, staff determined that eight of the ten dwelling units were built under Riverside: County requirements, prior to City incorporation. Of the remaining two, the first adjustment to reduce the front yard setback was for a residence on a new cul-de-sac constructed west of Avenida Bermudas. The construction of the cul-de-sac bulb, by the City was a part of the Assessment District improvements reducing the front yard setback below that required by Code. The second setback adjustment, reducing the front yard setback from twenty -feet to 16-feet (the garage setback of twenty -feet was not reduced) was granted because of the lot's irregular shape and findings could be made. The lot is long, and thin, triangular shaped parcel on Avenida Bermudas between Avenida Villa and Calle Chillon. The examples submitted by the applicant do not provide substantiation for approval of his request. The Community Development Department staff met with the appellant and his representatives after the Planning Commission meeting. Staff developed a site plan showing how the property could be developed with a residence that meets the needs of the appellant and complies with required setbacks. The action of the Community Development Department Director and denial of the appeal by the Planning Commission is appropriate because the findings' as required by the Zoning Code cannot be made. The revised plan also does not provide sufficient grounds to support approval of these Setback Adjustments. Should the City Council approve this request, the following findings will need to be substantiated prior to approval: 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings- that justify approval of the adjustment of the setback requirement in that ... 2. The adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the vicinity of the parcel in that ... ccss.ao2 3-11 3. The adjustment is consistent with, the intent and purpose of the Municipal Code in that ... FINDINGS & ALTERNATIVES: Findings to support approval of this appeal cannot be made. Alternatives are as follows. 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Plarining Commission and Community Development Department Director's denial of the setback adjustment. 2. Make findings for the approval of the appeal. 3. Continue the request for further review. eery Tier muniti Development, Director Attachments: 1 Planning Commission Staff Report for meeting of April 23, 1996 2. Planning Commission Minutes for meeting, of April 23, 1996 3. Statement of appeal 4. Revised. large site plan exhibit (for City Council only) ccss.4.02 V -- • - Cc -TT I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 23, 1996 CASE NO.: SETBACK ADJUSTMENT 96-394 REQUEST: APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DENIAL OF SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS TO .REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM TWENTY -FEET TO EIGHTEEN -FEET, REAR YARD SETBACK FROM TEN -FEET TO EIGHT -FEET, AND GARAGE SETBACK ON EXTERIOR SIDE YARD FROM TWENTY -FEET TO TWELVE -FEET FOR NEW RESIDENCE. APPLICANT AND APPELLANT: MR. & MRS. R. C. PIERCE LOCATION: SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CALLE POTRERO AND AVENIDA JUAREZ (ATTACHMENT 1) ZONING: S-R (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTED BY THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SECTION 15305 (CLASS 5a) AND. SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3a). THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS DEEMED NECESSARY. SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES SOUTH: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES EAST: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WEST: BACKGROUND: S-R/VACANT SINGLE FAMILY LOTS The subject property is a vacant single family lot in the Cove with 75-feet of frontage on Avenue Juarez and 100-feet of frontage on Calle Potrero. The lot size is just under 7,500 square feet due to the corner. radius, and was created by a merger of three lots into two lots. The property to the south, which shares a common property line, has a single family residence and wood fence .on the property line. Along the west, or rear property line, is a utility pole with wires which run in a north/south pca.2oi direction. The curbs and gutters have been installed along the two street frontages as part of the Assessment District improvements. The lot is one block from the top of the Cove and relatively flat. The appellant is proposing to construct a one-story single family residence of approximately 2,730 square feet plus 400 square feet for a two -car garage. The residence will consist of three bedrooms, two baths, a living room, dining room, nook, hobby room, and great room. The entry door into the house, has been placed on the north (exterior side yard) side of the house. The front of the lot faces Avenida Juarez, because it is the narrower dimension, and is required to have a 20-foot front yard setback. The appellant is requesting an eighteen -foot setback. Calle Potrero is the exterior side yard and requires a ten -foot setback for the building and a twenty -foot setback for the garage. The appellant is requesting a twelve -foot garage setback. The interior side yard, along the south property line requires a five-foot setback and along the west property line a ten=foot setback is required. The appellant is requesting eight -feet. The site requirements (Attachment 2) are illustrated in the Manual on Architectural Standards as adopted by Planning Commission per Section 9.42.080 Building D_ esian Standards. The appellant is requesting the Planning Commission reverse the Community Development Director's decision to deny reducing the front setback from twenty -feet to eighteen -feet, the rear setback from ten -feet to eight -feet, and the garage setback on the exterior side yard from twenty -feet to twelve -feet (Attachment 3). On March 22, 1996, the appellant appealed (Attachment 4) the decision of the Community Development Department. • The Community Development Director on March 7, 1996, denied the request and because the required findings necessary to grant the adjustment could not be made. The findings for denial are as follows: 1. There are no special circumstances which are applicable to your property since it is larger than most properties in the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography, and surrounded by residences which have complied with applicable requirements. No setback adjustments have been approved of this extent for new residences within the neighborhood. pcss.201 2. The requested setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks, which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and vicinity of the subject property. The reduction of setbacks would create an incompatible relationship with the surrounding residences which comply with the setbacks, would create a short (12-foot) driveway whereby parking' would block the City right-of-way and reduce_ the streetscape appeal of the neighborhood. 3. The lot is adequate insize and shape to design -a residence on the property. that complies with applicable setback .requirements. The reduction of setbacks; especially at the rear of the lot imposes on the right t6 privacy of. the adjacent. residents. `The plan proposed provides a 27-foot by 51-foot yard area adjacent to the southern property line. This yard is 'considered large and indicates that the lot is sufficient in size for a residence to be .custom designed to meet the . required :setbacks. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 96- deny appeal of appellant, and uphold decision of the Community Development Director, based on the findings as noted. Attachments: 1... Location Map 2. Excerpt from Building Design Standards. 3. Proposed site plan (Large plans for Planning Commission only). 4: Appeal from Mr.& Mrs. Pierce received March 22, 1996 (including basis, for appeal; letter dated February 23, 1996; application; letter dated March 7, 1996, from Community Development Director denying setback adjustment;.and proof. of service by mail). Prepared by: STAN B. SAWA, Principal Planner Submitted by: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager. pcss.201 cActf � — remrcwA J.tl H O M / AM w J A ,226/ Is O � �• '• O� IIO rr rr.•� ®4 bIQ 1r wlf.rr 04 C a a Io p p , / t ® /90 ®I y /!t i p fy aJor 26 At AI ®7 ®.7 t I =O 4G /7O S of /'V Of Z (OD 0 /l A/ ® is 80 � NtJ !O �a A. I , jar* 40 4 aJJr2 /I 0 1rJl - - a Is ® z see so- ® 0 � 0 K ! N0 • me om /! ® N®. ®N � s• r t/ ® GALL! a N 00 ' , rfeAr! CASE MAP aswa SO _ .o© ®! r I!0 ©t 6 0 7 NO I7O ®I /! 0 ® ! ISO ®/O 102%ITL NORTH CASE No. SCALE: v NTS • ITE REQUIREMENTS 0 CORNER LOT SIDEYARD: 5 FT. GARAGE SETBACK: 20 MINIMUM MINI REARYARD : 10 FT, y MINIMA I cOP� I I I FRONTYARD: 20 4. i. MINIMA_ I i ( I I I I AREAS TO BE I I I. LOCATE DRIVEWAI AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION. .ASPHALT CONNECTING PAVEMENT W/ 2"x4" HEADERS CURBLINE SIDEYARD:. 10 FT. MINIMUM LIN 4 star yard IR `-. •�z �c1i� SLIA►1! t� Z . Nw o1G�C„ IN,dI. . ��► q(r- Sat 4- N �' 4 uc�ctcv' 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — 'LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Appellant's Name Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce Date March 21, 1996 Mailing Address 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 �19 )347-3913 Phone. RE: Case No. Type of Appeal: Conditional Use Permit _Variance Change of Zone Public Use Permit _Surface Mining & Reclamation Permit _Outdoor Advertising _Consistency with General Plan Environmental Assessment xx Setback Adjustments Temporary Use Permit Plot Plan Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number of the specific condition which is being protested. See attached. Use additional sheets if necessary. Sicindture MAIUNG ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CAUFORNIA 92253 FORM.003/CS Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Basis for Appeal My wife and I purchased a 75' x 100' lot to build a home in La Quinta. We purchased a large lot to accomplish full utilization of our plans. A front setback of 10' was acceptable because we needed 60'. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 1 and north one-half of Lot 2, Block 275, Santa Carmelita at Vale, La Quinta, Unit No. 25, as shown by map on file in Book 19, pages 50, 51, in the Office of the County Recorder, Riverside County. Assessor's Parcel Number is 774-265-031. The property is a vacant lot and a street address has not been issued at this time. I have attached a copy of my letter dated February 23, 1996, and a copy of my Application for Setback Adjustment. I wish to change the setback from 20' to 18' on the east side of the property, from 10' to 8' on the west side of the property, and from 20' to 12' on the north side of the property. In the letter dated March 7, 1996 (copy attached) from the Community Development Director, these setbacks are incorrectly stated. The Community Development Director has obviously misunderstood my requests, and we have been denied the variance.we desire. I hereby appeal the action of the Community Development Director. I do not believe the Planning Commission can deny these variances when other homeowners in the area have been able to enjoy similar uses. RGS80461 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 February 23, 1996 City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department La Quinta, CA 95523 Dear Sir: My wife and'I.purchased a lot and a half (75' x 100') to build an ideal home for our later years. A small 50' x 100' lot was inadequate for our needs. A purchase was made of the larger lot to accomplish full utilization of -our planned complex. A front setback of 10' was acceptable because we needed 60' (75' depth less 10' in front and 5' in back). Now, after saving our money, and buying, what we thought was an ideal lot, we have two problems. 1. We need a variance for a 74' width centered between the,east and west setbacks, not including the chimney. 2. We need a variance for a 12' setback to the garage. I rise to the personal privilege to build a•home for -.my living and -family activities and my lifetime hobby pursuits. I particularly do not believe you can.deny these variances, especially the 12' setback to the garage when the same right and use exists that others are enjoying.. I hereby request the city of La Quinta to approve these setbacks with a letter stating acceptance of our request.. If you choose to deny our request, please provide a letter.stating justifiable and substantive reasons that will stand up in court. Prior to this stage of engagement, the city of La Quinta may prefer an appeal process, and therefore could state the format, forms, and procedure. Very -truly yours, R. C. Pierce CASE NO: CITY OF LA QUINTA FEE: $100.00 PLANNING.& DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR SETBACK ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: Submit this form with two copies of a scaled site plan., drawn to adequately depict the nature of the request. A nonrefundable fee of $100 is required when the Application is submitted. Check must be make payable to the "City of La Quinta". If the Applicant is not the owner of the property, a letter must be submitted by the owner authorizing the Applicant to execute this document in his behalf. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR: _Mr. and Mra_ R_ C_ PiprrP DATE February 23, 1996 CONTACT PERSON (IF DIFFERENT) - MAILING ADDRESS: 82-291 Sierra Avenue Inc (Address) (City PHONE 619 347-3913 -41 State) (Zip) OWNER'S NAME: Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce PHONE 619 347-3913 MAILING ADDRESS: 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio CA 92201-4166 (Address) (City) (State) (Zip) STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Not issued --vacant lot Lot 1 and north half of lot 2, Block 275, Santa LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:Carmelita.at Vale. La ouinta, Unit No. 25, as shown by map on file in Book 19, pages 50, 51 in office of County Recorder, Riverside County. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 774-265-031 ADJUSTMENT REQUESTED: A 74 foot building width on Calle Potrero and a 12' setback from the north lot line to the garaao REASON FOR REQUEST; A 74 foot building width facilitates needed living and family activity space laid out as shown on the site plan The 12' setback on the garage Provides 760 square feet of necessary length for hobbv and my collection *e***:,t**1***w****** JUSTIFICATION: No request for a Setback Adjustment shall be granted unless it is determined that it is consistent with the intend and purpose of this Ordinance; that there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings .that justify the approval of the adjustment of the. setback requirement, and that the adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the area of the parcel for. which the adjustment is requested. FORM.013/CS _ 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA' 92253 - (619)_ 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 March 7, 1996 Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, California 922014166 SUBJECT: Setback Adjustment 96-394 Location: Southeast corner of Calle Potrero;and Avenida Juarez Legal Description: APN 774-265-031 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pierce: The, Community Development Director has reviewed your request to reduce the front setback from 20' to 18', the rear setback from 10' to 8', and the garage setback on the exterior sideyard from 20' to 12' and denied your application for a setback adjustment. Staff cannot approve the reduced setbacks pursuant to.Chapter 9.188 of the City of La Quinta * Planning and Zoning Regulations. Staff leas determined that the findings necessary to grant your setback adjustment can not be made for the following reasons: l . There are no special circumstances which are applicable to.your property since it is larger than most properties in the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography and surrounded by residences which have complied with the applicable requirements. 2. The requested setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the comml.mity and. vicinity of the subject property.. 3. The lot is adequate.in size and shape to design a residence on the property that complies with applicable setback requirements. Itrss.3 57 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX. 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 i. TTie action of the Community Development Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 15 calendar days after the date,of mailing of the decision. The appeal must be in writing and accompanied by a filing fee of $25.00. Your.appeal should include reasons why you feel the findings necessary to approve your setback adjustment can be justified. Should you need additional information regarding required findings please contact me. Upon receipt of an appeal, your request will be scheduled for a Planning Commission 11lV V♦slab, Should you have questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 777- 7064. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR STAN B. SAWA Principal Planner SBS:cw c: Christi di Iorio Itrss.357 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 a n J n w 12 J� 13 W 2 n = CVnna W,;.0 _o; 14 uYA01 r `o°tio�ri 15 H=ov Imo 2 16 . �0 _ y u m^ < '17 s 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL [CCP 5 1013a(3)J STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) Z am employed in the County of -Riverside, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 39700 Bob Hope Drive, .Suite 312, Rancho Mirage, California 92270. On March 22, 1996, I served the following document described as APPLICATION FOR APPEAL.OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS on the parties in this action: [ ] By placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list; [ ] -By telefaxing a true copy thereof to the .party and telefax number below; [ ] By mailing [ ] the original [ ] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Planning Commission. City of La Quinta 78-495 alle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 [ ] I am.readily familiar with the firmIspractice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing.. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Rancho Mirage, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that.on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing affidavit. [ ] By personal delivery. I caused such envelope to be hand - delivered to the -addresses above. [g ] By personal delivery. I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices.of the addressee. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on March 22, 1996,.at Rancho Mirage, aliforniaF Rita Sikorski RGS65456 -1- Proof of Service Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 1996 apply, but commercial equestrian facilities or uses may be subject to more trictive requirements through the CUP process. As this applies to lighting i sound amplification issues, any lighting proposal must comply to the tdoor Lighting Control requirements as applicable in'the current Code or later than 9:00 P.M. The CUP process could modify these regulations. In iition; staff talked about the pasture fencing, and informed Mrs. Kanlian a there is no setback required for pasture fencing. If the fencing does not .end to the property line in order to allow a reasonable area to maintain the )perry line and that fencing, staff is recommending an area of 10-feet. A ction was also added for open area fencing that is not addressed in other ,as of the ordinance, but this would not be required until a modification or ensifying of the use in accordance with the nonconformity section was tde to the property. 20. r. Larry Lawrence asked if the Zoning Ordinance update 1(o ntinued to May 14th. Staff stated yes. Mr. Lawren that in regards previously approved plans Section 9 . Nonconformities does dress this and he went on to cl a wording. 21. further dis n, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners ardn ows to continue to the next regular meeting of the Planning mmission at May 14, 1996. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Setback Adjustment 96-394; a request of Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce to appeal the Community Development Director's denial of setback adjustments for the front yard, rear yard, and garage setback on the exterior side yard for a new residence located southwest of the intersection of Calle Potrero and Avenida Juarez. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the, staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development.. Department. 2. Commissioner Anderson asked staff to clarify which street frontage is considered by the City to be the front of the house when it is located on a comer. Principal Planner Stan Sawa clarified that the front is determined by which frontage is the narrower of the two. Discussion followed.' Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that this is referenced in the Architectural Design Manual. PC4-23 9 • Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 1996 3. Mr. Doug Phillips, lawyer for the appellants, stated one of the most important concerns to the applicant is the placementn of the garage. He went on to state the reasons they thought justified their applying for and receiving a variance: A) Special Circumstances: 1) the lot is 7,500 square feet and not very large; 2) its shape is 75-feet wide and 100-feet long, very narrow; and 3) located on the comer with a radius causing less buildable area. B) Depravation to the Pro eM Owner: Mr. Phillips stated there are ten locations located nearby where there are setback deviations for garages that had been approved by the County or the City. Discussion followed regarding the examples supplied by the applicant. C) What exits now is a vacant lot with debris, what the City will get is a new home built by local developer. The applicants need the same consideration and flexibility as they believe has been afforded to other property owners in the same vicinity. 4. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that staff would clarify the ten houses setbacks referred to by the appellant. Two setback adjustments were due to street vacation and irregular shape triangular lots. Commissioner Anderson stated most of the examples of the sites were homes constructed before City incorporation and the City had no control over what was constructed. Therefore, a lot of homes were built with minimum zoning restrictions. For homes built after incorporation, one is located on a new cul- de-sac created by the City, which created the deviation. A 7,500 square foot lot is not difficult to build or design a home on. In reviewing the proposed house plan, some changes could be made to allow the house to exist on the lot. The problem appears to be that the plans were drawn before the lot was selected and this is not grounds to grant a variance. 6. Commissioner Barrows stated she did not believe that the conditions stated by the applicant warranted the setback adjustment. The lot configuration does not warrant a variance. 7. Commissioner Butler stated he concurred with Commissioners Anderson and Barrows in that the house is too large for the property. The applicant should reconfigure the house to bring it into compliance with the setback requirements. 8. Commissioner Gardner stated the house does take up a great deal of the lot and detracts from the property. If this variance were approved it would create a problem of others asking for variances. PC4-23 10 • • Planning Commission Meeting, April23, 1996 9. Commissioner Newkirk stated he concurred with what had been said. It. would set a precedent for future problems. 10. Commissioner Tyler asked Mr. Phillips to clarify why the appellant's appeal letter stated that the determination of the setbacks, stated in the City's letter was mis-read. Mr. Phillips stated that based on the basis of the applicant's position, a variance would be proper. They have no problem with staffs interpretation, however La Quinta did inherit the small lots from the County with houses already built. This is why so many of the setbacks for the older homes were granted. Now, the applicant has a vacant lot and is asking the City to apply the same standards and give flexibility to this property owner. 11. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood the point, but should one of these homes be destroyed, he would have to build in accordance with the new Code requirements. In this instance the City has existing nonconforming uses .but, they are not the grounds to grant a variance Mr. Phillips asked if there was anything else this owner could do to solve this problem. Is there a suggestion by the Commissioners to solve this problem. 12. Commissioner Anderson stated it was a matter of reconfiguring the house; reconfigure the circulation plan of the house. Commissioner Anderson stated he could not specifically make a suggestion, but would relay some ideas to staff. 13. There being no -further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 96-01 S, denying the appeal of the appellant, and upholding the decision of the Community Development Director. Unanimously approved. B. Vacation 6- etermination of. lan Consistency findings with proposed street vacations for portions of IeKneral Cortez, Avenida Herrera, Avenida Juarez, Avenida Madero, Avenida Avenida Mendoza, Avenida Montezuma, Avenida Velasco, Avenida Villa, Ion, Calle Portero, Calle Temecula, and Eisenhower Drive. 1. Seniodgineer Steve Speer presented the information contained in the staff report, amscopy. of which is on file in the Community . Development 2. Commissioner Bu r asked staff if the property owners adjacent to the area were informed of ffiaction.. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they are notified and went on t explained the process by which the Public Works Department is required to ollow for. a street vacation. PC4-23 11 • *TACHMENT-3 Appeal o.f Setback Adjustment 96-394 Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Basis for Appeal Special circumstances are applicable to my property which support my request.'for relief from the setback requirements. I would be deprived of privileges enjoyed. by other property owners in the vicinity, under identical zoning classification, if the zoning ordinance is strictly applied. . Twill present photographs and setback., information as to the other properties at the hearing on my appeal.. I agree that any variance, granted shall be subject to conditions that will assure that the adjustment is not a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which my property is located. See Government Code Section 65906. Thank you for your consideration.-.. RGS82210 af4CLOb$D 4� ey comomim r Y 90 Q9f2X-:M G� toy. Polof. Div. ZONING REGULATIONS § 65906 son cha ed with conducting a public hearing thereon, notice of hear- ing shall given by notice through the United States mails, with postage p aid using addresses from the last equalized assessment roll, or alte tively, from such other records of the assessor or the tax collector contain more recent addresses in the opinion of said body, or by bo ublication in - a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with on 65854 and posting said notice in conspicuous C places, close to the operty affected. Procedure for mailing or post- ing of said notices s be governed by the provisions of the local or- r dinance. (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1 0, p. 4S50, § 6.) Cross References Bridges or major thoroughfares. 1 ordinances requiring payment of fee to defray costs, notice pursuant to this on, are 189484. Library References Zoning and Planning 4 -M, 484, 584. C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning if 93, 95,187 to 10. 2W, M. 252. 65906. Variances from zoning onunwees Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the Property, including . ing size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance 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 oth- er properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situ- ated. A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly autho- rized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits. (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1880. p. 4350, § 6. Amended by Stats.1970, c. 660, p.1284, § 1; State.1974, c. 607, p. 1450, §. I.; Hlatorieal Note The 1970 amendment added the third The 1974 amendment added the last sen- paragraph• tence in the third paragraph relating to conditional we permits. Forms See West's California Code Forms, Government. 105 04/24/1996 13:38 K97777155 CITY OF LA WINTA PAGE 02 `' CALLS TAIIPICQ — LA . OUINTA,CIFORNIA 92253 19) Mq� g t996 n* ------ --- - - .;Appellant's Nanlle Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce Date May 1, 1996 Mailing Address 82-291 Sierra Avenue. Indio, CA 92201 phone: 1619 347-3913 RE: Case No. 96-394 Type of Appeal: Conditional Use permit _Variance __Change of Zone _public Use permit surface Mining i Reelaaation permit utdoor Advertising onsistency with general Plan Environmental Assessment �8etback Adjustments _Temporary Use .Permit _plot Plan Please state basis for appeal -and include any 9'Wort ive evidence. If" applicable, indicate the.number of the specific condition which is being Q Use additional sheets if necessary, MIAIUND AWRESS . - P.O. 80X . i W4 - LA FORX- 003/C8 a11NTA, CAUfCRNIA MW FIL E C ceitv, 4apy � ; . .78-495 CALLE .TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 June 7, 1996 Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, California 92201 SUBJECT: SETBACK ADJUSTMENT 96-394 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pierce: This is to inform you that the City Council at their, meeting of June 4, 1996, continued your request the meeting of June 18, 1996. The continuation is to allow time for a redesign of your requested Setback Adjustment. *In order to maintain the scheduled June 18th meeting, it is necessary for you to submit a revised plan no later than June I11h, at noon. Please submit ten (folded to 8-1/2" x 11 ") to the Community Development Department. Should you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me at 619-777-7064. Very truly yours, JERRY BERMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR STAN B. SAWA Principal Planner SBS:cw c: Doug Phillips, Best, Best & Krieger Itrss.417 MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504. - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 �( T • City Council Minutes 2 June 4, 1996 2. LETTER FROM THE LA QUINTA ARTS ASSOCI N REQUESTING FINANCIAL ASSISTAN. Council concurre n directing f to agendize this request for the next meeting. 3. LETTER FROM R CHO LA QUIINYA,,REQUESTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A KETING IDEA FOR THE Y. Council concurred on directing staff to agendize. request for the next meeting. 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE SETBACK ADJUSTMENT DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER SETBACK ADJUSTMENT NO. 96-394, IN THE SR ZONE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE POTRERO AND AVENIDA JUAREZ. Ms. di lorio, Planning Manager, advised that Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce have appealed the Planning Commission's denial of their request for a setback - adjustment to construct a 2,730 sq. ft. single-family home with a 460 sq. ft. garage on a 7,500-sq. ft. lot on the southwest corner of Calls Potrero and Avenida Juarez. The three setback adjustments requested would reduce the front -yard setback from 20 feet to 18 feet, the rear -yard setback from 10 feet to. 8. feet, and the exterior garage sideyard- setback from 20 feet to 12 feet. The request was denied by the Community Development Director on March 7, 1996 and. by the Planning Commission on April 23, 1996, based on the size of the lot, the reduction in the length of the driveway which would cause vehicles to extend into the City right-of-way, and the incompatible relationship it would cause with surrounding residences that comply with the required setbacks. The applicant's reasons for requesting the setbacks are included in the staff report. Staff recommended that the Council deny the appeal. In response to Council Member Adolph, Ms. di lorio advised that there is 12 feet between the curb line and the City right-of-way line. Mr. Doug Phillips, 39-700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 312, Rancho Mirage, legal counsel with Best, Best, & Krieger, introduced Mr. Lujan, the applicant's design consultant. City Council Minutes 3 June 4, 1996 Mr. Gabriel Lujan, 43-875 Washington Street; Suite, G, Palm Desert, Design Consultant of New Age Design Concepts, advised that each effort to redesign the home`has resulted in increased square footage and costs. He urged the Council to help find an alternative that would allow the applicants to have their dream home. Council Member Adolph asked if he was aware of the setback requirements prior to designing the home. Mr. Lujan responded yes,' but advised that Mr. Pierce's needs would not fit within the setback requirements. Mr. Robert Pierce, 82-291 Sierra Avenue, Indio, the applicant, advised that the dream home he designed will not fit on his 75-foot wide lot because of the City. right-of-way requirements which he feels constitutes a burden by City Code that precludes the wise use and advantages of a well -mastered plan. He didn't believe that the setback adjustments would harm the neighborhood and asked the. Council to grant his request so that he would have the benefit of a hobby room and projection/game room for his family's use. Mr. Phillips pointed out that variances are allowed by State law and advised that the City Code (Section 9.42.080) permits single-family residences. to be in substantial compliance with building standards. He felt that 24 feet from the curb to the, garage was substantial and was not aware of any neighborhood opposition to the setback -adjustment request. Council Member Sniff was dubious that the. setbacks would be damaging to the neighborhood and supported granting the appeal. Council Member Adolph didn't have a problem with granting variances on the rear and front -yard setbacks, but he' would not support a variance on the exterior-sideyard because it would cause vehicles in the driveway to extend into the City right-of-way. Council Member Henderson was concerned that allowance of. a 12-foot long driveway would set a precedent and asked if setback adjustments had been requested for other large homes in the area. Mr. Herman, Community Development Director, advised that setback adjustments have been granted for lots having unique shapes and sizes, but not for standard straight lots. City Council Minutes 4 June 4, 1996 In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Herman confirmed that driveway - length .requirements are 25 feet with pivot -type garage doors and 20 feet with roll -up garage doors. Mayor Holt didn't have a problem with the rear and front -yard setbacks, but agreed that the exterior-sideyard setback was too critical and suggested that the applicant redesign the home to increase the setback on that side. Mr. Lujan advised that the home could be set two feet back into the interior- sideyard setback and the projection room could be shortened by two feet and asked if a four -foot setback adjustment could be negotiated. Mayor Holt suggested continuing this matter to give staff and the applicant an opportunity to work out a solution., Council Member Henderson wasn't sure that the driveway length was negotiable. Council Member Perkins wouldn't support granting any of the setbacks because he felt that the house was designed too large for the lot in hopes that a variance would be granted and he felt that granting the variance would set a dangerous precedent. Council Member Henderson appreciated the applicant's situation, but felt that the zoning standards were set for a purpose. Council Member Sniff pointed out that the Council has some discretion in such matters. He supported continuing the appeal to the next meeting. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the Council's discretion is limited in that a finding must be made that special circumstances are applicable to this property including such factors as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that justify adjustments to the setback. Council Member Adolph suggested that the applicant reconfigure the master bath and walk-in closet to allow a half -circular driveway. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Lujan advised that the air- conditioning unit would be located in the interior sideyard behind Bedroom No. 2. City Council Minutes 5 June 4, 1996 MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to continue the appeal Setback Adjustment 96-394 to June 18; 1996. Motion carried with Council Member Perkins voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO. 96-85. Mayor Holt and the Council presented Art Achievement Awards to the following students of La Quinta High School for their artwork displayed at the Civic. Center: Erica Abarca Juanita rellano Roni Baca Erica Beruman� Bill Biller Estella Cano Arturo Cecena Jason Dalbey Rudy Escarsega Noe Esmeralda Becky Golden -Harrell Salvador Gomez Maria Gonzales Raul Hernandez Edith Herrera Alisa Lawson Melissa McCormick Jennifer Moreno Laila Nemoto Jennifer Pierson Albert Ramirez Anna. Reid Gabrtol'Rios Lynea Scholten `Sara Spurgeon Danny Valencia 2. CONSIDERATION OA, THE DRAFT F CAL YEAR 1996/97 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROG M (CIP). Mr. Cosper, Public Works D ector dvised that changes have been made to the draft Capital Improvement ram and Five -Year Forecast as directed by Council on April 30, 1996. a of the changes are as follows: • $300.,000 of infrastr ture funds was transferred from the Fritz Burns Pool Project to the Hi way 111 Bening Project to free funds from the Redevelopment roject Area No. 2 for traffic signal improvements at Highway 111 the entrance to Pla La Quin • $51.8,589 in ommunity Project Fund have been designated for Citywide park impro ments • an annu payment for the City's shar of costs for the Washington Street/I terstate 10 Interchange Project wa added as a project He advi d that approximately $14,746,000 in imp vements are identified in the CI ver the next five years and approval of the CI wilt include only those improvements for FY 1996/97 which totals $5,464,51 The list of deferred projects total approximately $16,000,000 making the tot I for the entire CIP approximately $30,846,000. Staff recommended that t e draft CIP be approved and a public hearing scheduled for June 18, 1996. i • 4 FILE 11" AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCILIRDA MEETING DATE: June 4, 1996 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: STUDY SESSION: Consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING: denial of Setback Adjustment 96-394 for the front, rear, and exterior side yard (for garage) of a single family residence in the SR Zone located on the southwest corner of Calle Potrero and Avenida Juarez. Appellant: Mr. & Mrs.. R. C. Pierce By Minute Motion, deny appeal, upholding Planning, Commission and Community Development Department Director denial of setback adjustment for front, rear, and exterior sideyard (for garage) of residence. None. On March 7, 1996, the Community Development Director denied this setback adjustment to reduce the front yard setback from 20-feet to 18-feet, the rear setback from 10-feet to 8-feet, and the garage setback on the exterior sideyard from 20-feet to 12-feet. The setback adjustment was requested to construct a one-story single family residence of approximately 2,730 square.feet plus 400 square feet for a two - car garage. The Planning Commission staff report provides additional information (Attachment 1). The Community Development Director denied the request because the required findings necessary to grant the adjustment could not be made. The required findings in accordance with section 9.188.050 of the Zoning Code were addressed as follows: U509�iTO N • There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that justify approval of the adjustment of the setback requirement. ccss.ao2 There are no special circumstances which are applicable to the property since it is larger than most properties in the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography (corner lot), and surrounded by residences which all have complied with applicable requirements. No setback adjustments have been approved of this extent for new residences within the neighborhood. a R 1 . The adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the vicinity of the parcel. The requested setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks, which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and vicinity of the subject property. The reduction of setbacks would create an incompatible relationship with the surrounding residences which comply with the required setbacks, would create a short (12- foot) driveway whereby parking would block the City right-of-way and reduce the streetscape appeal of the neighborhood. �•fi The adjustment is consistent with intent and purposes of the Municipal Code. The lot is adequate in -size and shape to design a residence on the property that complies with applicable setback requirements. The reduction of setbacks, especially at the rear of the lot imposes on the right to privacy of the adjacent residents. The plan proposed provides a 27-foot by 51-foot yard area adjacent to the southern property line. This yard is considered large and indicates that the lot is sufficient in size for a residence to be custom designed to meet' the required setbacks. The applicant appealed the denial of the Community Development Department Director to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission at its meeting of April 23, 1996, reviewed the appeal. I The Planning Commission found there were not sufficient grounds to warrant approval of the appeal. The Commission determined that the lot was sufficient in size and shape to construct a house without need for approval of three setback adjustments. ccss.402 The Planning Commission on a unanimous vote .adopted Minute Motion 96-015 denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Community Development Director (Attachment 2). Mr. & Mrs. Pierce have appealed the decision of the Planning Commission denying their setback adjustments. As noted in their appeal statement (Attachment 3), the applicants believe that there are sufficient grounds to approve their request. The applicant indicates they will provide additional information at the hearing. Issue 1 - Other setback deviations in the area At the Planning Commission meeting, the appellant submitted photographs and information regarding ten houses in the Cove area which do not comply with the front yard setback requirements. As a result of research, staff determined that eight of the ten dwelling units were built under Riverside County requirements, prior to City incorporation. A front yard deficiency was for a residence on a new cul-de-sac constructed west of Avenida Bermudas. The construction of the .cul-de-sac bulb, by the City was a part of the Assessment District improvements reducing the front yard setback below that required by Code. A setback adjustment, reducing the front yard setback from twenty -.feet to 16-feet (the garage setback of twenty -feet was not reduced) was granted because of the' lot's irregular shape and findings could be made. The lot is long, and thin, triangular shaped parcel on Avenida Bermudas between Avenida Villa and Calle Chillon. The examples submitted by the applicant do not provide substantiation for approval of his request. The Community Development Department staff met with the appellant and his representatives after the Planning Commission meeting. Staff developeda site plan showing how the property could be developed with a residence that meets the needs of the .appellant and complies with required setbacks. The action of the Community Development Department Director and denial of the appeal by the Planning Commission is appropriate. There are not sufficient grounds to support .approval of these Setback Adjustments: By Minute Motion, deny appeal, upholding Planning Commission and Community Development Department denial of setback adjustment for front, rear, and garage on exterior side yard (for garage) of residence. ccss.402 1 Herknan munity Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report for meeting of April 23, 1996 2. Planning Commission Minutes for meeting of April 23, 1996 3. Statement of appeal 4. Large site plan exhibit (for City Council only) ccss.ao2 E. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 23, 1996 CASE NO.: SETBACK ADJUSTMENT 96-394 REQUEST: APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DENIAL OF SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM TWENTY -FEET TO EIGHTEEN -FEET, REAR YARD SETBACK FROM TEN -FEET TO. EIGHT -FEET, AND GARAGE SETBACK ON EXTERIOR SIDE YARD FROM TWENTY -FEET TO TWELVE -FEET FOR NEW RESIDENCE. APPLICANT AND APPELLANT: MR. & MRS. R. C. PIERCE LOCATION: SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CALLE POTRERO AND AVENIDA JUAREZ (ATTACHMENT 1) ZONING: S-R (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTED BY THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SECTION 15305 (CLASS 5a) AND SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3a). THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS DEEMED NECESSARY. SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES SOUTH: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES EAST: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WEST: S-R/VACANT SINGLE FAMILY LOTS The subject property is a vacant single family lot in the Cove with 75-feet of frontage on Avenue Juarez and 100-feet of frontage on Calle Potrero. The lot size is just under 1,500 square feet due to the corner radius, and was created by a merger of three lots into two lots. The property to the south, which shares a common property line, has 'a single family residence and wood fence on the property line. Along the west, or rear. property line; is a utility pole with wires which run in a north/south pcss.201 • •. direction. The curbs and gutters have been installed along the two street frontages as part of the Assessment District improvements. The lot is one block from the top of the Cove and relatively flat. The appellant is proposing to construct a one-story single family residence of approximately 2,730 square feet plus 400 square feet for a two -car garage. The residence will consist of three bedrooms, two baths, a living room, dining room, nook, hobby room, and great room. The entry door into the house, has been placed on the north (exterior side yard) side of the house. The front of the lot faces Avenida Juarez, because it is the narrower dimension, and is required to have a 20-foot front yard setback. The appellant is requesting an eighteen -foot setback. Calle Potrero is the exterior side yard and requires a ten -foot setback for the building and a twenty -foot setback for the garage. The appellant is requesting a twelve -foot garage setback. The interior side yard, along the south property line requires a five-foot setback and along the west property line a ten -:foot setback is required. The appellant is requesting eight -feet. The site requirements (Attachment 2) are illustrated in the Manual on Architectural Standards as adopted by Planning Commission per Section 9.42.080 Building Design Standards. The appellant is requesting the Planning Commission reverse the Community. - Development Director's decision to deny reducing the front setback from twenty -feet to eighteen -feet, the rear setback from ten -feet to eight -feet, and the garage setback on the exterior side yard from twenty -feet to twelve -feet (Attachment 3). On March 22, 1996, the appellant appealed (Attachment 4) the decision of the Community Development Department. - The Community Development Director on March 7, 1996, denied the request and because the required findings necessary to grant the adjustment could not be made. The findings for denial are as follows: 1. There are no special circumstances which are applicable'to your property since it is larger than most properties in the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography, and surrounded by residences which have complied with applicable requirements. No setback adjustments have been approved of this extent for new residences within the neighborhood. pcss.2o 1 ". 2. The requested setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks, which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and vicinity of the subject property., The reduction of setbacks would create an incompatible relationship with the surrounding . 'residences which comply with the setbacks, would create a short 0 2-foot) driveway whereby parking would block the City right-of-way and reduce the streetscape appeal of the neighborhood. 3. The lot is adequate in size and shape to design a residence on the property that complies with applicable setback _requirements. - The reduction of setbacks, especially at the rear of the lot imposes on the right to privacy of the adjacent residents. The plan proposed provides a 27-foot by 51-foot yard area adjacent to the southern property line. This yard is considered large and indicates that the lot is sufficient in size for a residence to be custom designed to meet the required setbacks. By Minute Motion 96- , deny appeal of appellant, and uphold decision of the Community Development Director, based on the findings as noted. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Excerpt from Building Design Standards. 3. Proposed site plan (Large plans for Planning Commission only). 4. Appeal from Mr.& Mrs. Pierce received March 22, 1996 (including basis for appeal; letter dated February 23, 1996; application; letter dated March 7, 1996, from Community Development Director denying setback adjustment; and proof of service by mail). Prepared by: STAN B. SAWA, Principal Planner Submitted by: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager poss.2o 1 i v uLtf — rfNECbu s-Js � • •• N .• • 2J 0 ® 1 1JO1 P a� 26/ L 1t rY w.•r , n•w.ar v G a•� OJ t/O ® J 11 1O • a J S POO I©J V(D ® J p / t • m I! 6o® s% v ISO. s a 26 ZIS aao�e + N Or ® r Q N r At I.-( os IF@ ® s J0 , :< Is41 AP 0 ®! NO ! J do i t i NLJt !O9 ! to J•J IQJJIe2 Q Z 44fNAffM /J /s Is m apy W tiw•_s _ e /) or PO t/ CASE MAP CASE No. 9� q &O— 3 q + SITe ORTH SCALE: NTS i SITE RE UIREMENTS CORNER LOT S I DEYARD : 5 FT. GARAGE SETBACK: 20 F . MINIMUM MINI REARYARD : 10 FT. MINIMUM I CONCRETE UxATE DRIVEWAY �. PAD AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION. ASPHALT CONNECTING I PAVEMENT W/ 2"x4" I I HEADERS o I I II AREAS TO BE i LANDSCAPE PROPERTY LINEF )CaUJFRONTYARD: 20MINIK14LINE S I DEYARD : - 10 FT. MINIMUM • 4 • 6-- Ac,Ile. �M44eZ- ,h"v, RAN 4&A► A(o - Sat 4- A N;rtp• or rt;ra t'n, G��uvlr/•ems • • .. - --• m= �- - =Al 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Appellant's Name Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce Date March 21, 1996 Mailing Address 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 19 347-3913 Phone: ) RE: Case No. Type of Appeal: Conditional Use Permit Outdoor Advertising Variance Consistency with General Plan Change of Zone Environmental Assessment' Public Use Permit xx Setback Adjustments Surface Mining & Temporary Use Permit Reclamation Permit Plot Plan Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number of the specific condition which is being protested. Use additional sheets if necessary. Signature MAILING 'ADDRESS = P.O. BOX 1504 - lA .OUINTA. CAUFORNIA 92253 FORM.003/CS • Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Basis for Appeal My wife and I purchased a 75' x 100' lot to build a home in La Quinta. We purchased a large lot to accomplish full utilization of our plans. A front setback of 10' was acceptable because we needed 60'. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 1 and north one-half of Lot 2, Block 275, Santa Carmelita at Vale, La Quinta, Unit No. 25, as shown by map on file in Book 19, pages 50, 51, in the Office of the County Recorder, Riverside County. Assessor's Parcel Number is 774-265-031. The property is a vacant lot and a street address has not been issued at this time. I have attached a copy of my letter dated February 23, 1996, and a copy of my Application for Setback Adjustment. I wish to change the setback from 20' to 18' on the east side of the property, from 10' to 8' on the west side of the property, and from 20' .to 12' on the north side of the property. In the letter dated March 7, 1996 (copy attached) from the Community Development Director, these setbacks are incorrectly stated. The Community Development Director has obviously misunderstood my requests, and we have been denied the variance we desire. I hereby appeal the action of the Community Development Director. I do not believe the Planning Commission can deny these variances when other homeowners in the area have been able to enjoy similar uses. RGS80461 • 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 February 23, 1996 City of -La Quinta Planning and Development Department La Quinta, CA 95523 Dear Sir: My wife and I purchased a lot and a half (75' x 100') to build an ideal home for our later years.' A small 50' x 100' lot was inadequate for.our needs. A purchase was made. of the larger lot to accomplish full utilization'of our planned complex. A front setback of 10' was acceptable because we needed 60' (75' depth less 10' in front and 5' in back). Now, after saving our money, and buying what we thought was an ideal lot, we have two problems. 1. We need a variance for a 74' width centered between the east and west setbacks, not including the chimney. 2. We need a variance for a 12' setback to the garage. I rise to the personal privilege to build a home for my living and family activities and my lifetime hobby pursuits. I particularly do not believe you can deny these variances, especially the 12' setback to the garage when the same right and use exists that others are enjoying.. I hereby request the city of La Quinta to approve these setbacks with.a letter stating acceptance of our request. If you choose to deny our request, please provide a letter stating justifiable and substantive reasons that will stand up in court. Prior to this stage of engagement, the city of La Quinta may Prefer an appeal process, and therefore could state the format, forms, and procedure. Very truly yours, R. C. Pierce i 0 • CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR SETBACK ADJUSTMENT CASE NO: FEE: $100.00 APPLICANT: Submit this form with two copies of a scaled site plan•, drawn to adequately depict the nature of the request. A nonrefundable fee of $100 is required when the Application is submitted. Check must be make payable to the "City of La Quinta". If the Applicant is not the owner of the property, a letter must be submitted by the owner authorizing the Applicant to execute this document in his behalf. ************************************************************************** PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR: Mr. and Mrs_ R. C Pi rra DATE February 23, 1996 CONTACT PERSON (IF DIFFERENT) - MAILING ADDRESS: 82-291 Sierra Avenue PHONE 619 347-3913 ss) (City) (State) -4 OWNER'S NAME: Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce PHONE 619 347-3913 MAILING ADDRESS: 82-291 Sier (Address VA 7L4V1—VL0o City) (State) (Zip) STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Not issued --vacant lot Lot 1 and north half of lot 2, Block 275, Santa LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:Carmelita.at Vale. La Ouinta, Unit No. 25, as shown by map on file in Book 19, pages 50, 51 in office of County Recorder, Riverside County. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:. 774-265-031 ADJUSTMENT REQUESTED: A 74 foot building width on Calle Potrero and a 12' setback from the north lot line to the garage. REASON FOR REQUEST: A 74 foot building width facilitates needed living and family activity space laid out as shown on the site Plan The 12' setback on the garage Provides 760 square feet of necessary length for hobbv and my collection See site plan. �t�t�t�t�t�t**** JUSTIFICATION: No request for a Setback Adjustment shall be granted unless it is determined that it is consistent with the intend and purpose of this Ordinance; that there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings .that justify the approval of the adjustment of the setback requirement, and that the adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the area of the parcel for. which the -adjustment is requested. FORM.013/CS Cv u��cv 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 March 7; 1996 Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, California 92201-4166 SUBJECT: Setback Adjustment 96-394 Location: Southeast corner of Calle Potrero,and Avenida Juarez Legal Description: APN 774-265-031 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pierce: The Community Development Director has reviewed your request to reduce the front setback from 20' to 18', the rear setback from 10' to 8', and the garage setback on the exterior sideyard from 20' to 12' and denied your application for a setback adjustment. Staff cannot approve the reduced setbacks pursuant to Chapter 9.188 of the City of La Quinta Planning and Zoning Regulations. Staff has determined that the findings necessary to grant VOUr setback adjustment can not be made for the following reasons: l . There are no special circumstances which are applicable to your property since it is larger than most properties in the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography and surrounded by residences which have complied with the applicable requirements. 2. The requested setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and vicinity of the subject property. 3. The lot is adequate in size and shape to design a residence on the property that complies with applicable setback requirements. Itrss.3 57 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 i• • The action of the Community Development Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 15 calendar days after the date of mailing of the decision. The appeal must be in writing and accompanied by a filing fee of $25.00. Your appeal should include reasons why you feel the findings necessary to approve your setback adjustment can be justified. Should you need additional infon-nation regarding required findings please contact me. Upon receipt of an appeal, your request will be scheduled for a Planning Commission m�n��rrr .iav�raaub. Should you have questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 777- 7064. Very truly yours, JERKY HERMAN CON MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR STAN B. SAWA Principal Planner SBS:cw c: Christi di Iorio Itrss.357 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 a N 12 JF 13 W 5 n Z k.o H o a 0 W '- C j 14 2 y —C Y k. y V V k.0 L j 15 Uf m J W C m m m 0 16 N o u WM a 17 m Ix 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL [CCP '§ 1013a(3) ] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) I am employed in the County of. Riverside, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 39700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 312, Rancho Mirage, California 92270. On March 22, 1996, I served the following document described as APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS on the parties in this action: [ ] By placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated.on the attached mailing list; [ ] By telef axing a true copy thereof to the party and telefax number below; [. ] By mailing [ ] the original [ ] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Planning Commission. City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA,-.92253 [ ] I am.readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing.. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S.' postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Rancho Mirage, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for.mailing affidavit. [ ] By personal delivery. *I caused such envelope to be hand delivered to the addresses above. [X ] By personal delivery. I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on March 22, 1996, at Rancho Mirage, aliforniap, i r• Rita Sikorski -1- RGS65456 Proof of Service u CC *TACH'MENT Planning Commission Meeting April23, P996 apply, but commercial equestrian facilities or uses may be subject to more trictive requirements through the.CUP process. As this applies to lighting i sound amplification issues, any lighting proposal must comply to the tdoor Lighting Control requirements as applicable in the current Code or later than 9:00 P.M. The CUP process could modify these regulations. In iition, staff talked about the pasture fencing, and informed Mrs. Kanlian t there is no setback required for pasture fencing. If the fencing does not end to the property line in order to allow a reasonable area to maintain the )perry line and that fencing, staff is recommending an area of 10-feet. A ,tion was also added for open area fencing that is not addressed in other as of the ordinance, but this would not be required until a modification or ensifying of the use in accordance with the nonconformity section was de to the property. 20. r. Larry Lawrence asked if the Zoning Ordinance update c ntinued to May 14th. Staff stated yes. Mr. Lawren that in regards t previously approved plans Section 9-Nonconformities does dress this and he went on to.cl a wording. 21. Lard, urther dirt was moved and seconded by Commissioners n ows to continue to the next regular meeting of the Planning ission at May 14, 1996. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Setback Adjustment 96-394; a request of Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce to appeal the Community Development Director's denial of setback adjustments. for the front yard, rear yard, and garage setback on the exterior side yard for a new residence located southwest of the intersection of Calle Potrero.and Avenida Juarez. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a -copy of which is on file in the Community Development J Department. 2. Commissioner Anderson asked staff to clarify which street frontage is considered by the City to be the front of the.house when it is. located on a corner. Principal Planner Stan Sawa clarified that the front. is determined by which frontage is the narrower of the two. Discussion followed. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that this is referenced in the Architectural Design Manual. PC4-23 9 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 1996 3. Mr. Doug Phillips, lawyer for the appellants, stated one of the most important concerns to the applicant is the placementn of the garage. He went on to state the reasons they thought justified their applying for and receiving a variance: A) Special Circumstances: 1) the lot is 7,500 square feet and not very large; 2) its shape is 75-feet wide and 100-feet long, very narrow; and 3) located on the corner with a radius causing less buildable area. B) Depravation to the Property Owner: Mr. Phillips stated there are ten locations located nearby where there are setback deviations for garages that had been approved by the County or the City. Discussion followed regarding the examples supplied by the applicant: C) What exits now is a vacant lot with debris, what the City will get is a new home built by local developer. The applicants need the same consideration and flexibility as they believe has been afforded to other property owners in the same vicinity. 4. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that staff would clarify the ten houses setbacks referred to by the appellant. Two setback adjustments were due to street vacation and irregular shape triangular lots. 5. Commissioner Anderson stated most of the examples of the sites were homes constructed before City incorporation and the City had no control over what was constructed. Therefore, a lot of homes were built with minimum zoning restrictions. For homes built after incorporation, one is located on a new cul- de-sac created by the City, which created the deviation. A 7,500 square foot lot is not difficult to build or design a home on. In reviewing the proposed house plan, some changes could be made to allow the house to exist on the lot. The problem appears to be that the plans were drawn before the lot was selected and this is not grounds to grant a variance. 6. Commissioner Barrows stated she did not believe that the conditions stated by the applicant warranted the setback adjustment. The lot configuration 'does not warrant a variance. 7. Commissioner Butler stated he concurred with Commissioners Anderson and Barrows in that the house is too large for the property. The applicant should reconfigure the house to bring it into compliance with the setback requirements. W. 8. Commissioner Gardner stated the house does take up a great deal of the lot and detracts from the property. If this variance were approved it would create a problem of others asking for variances. PC4-23 10 Planning Commission Meeting April23, 1996 9. -Commissioner Newkirk stated he concurred with what had been said.. It would set a precedent "for future problems. 10. Commissioner Tyler,asked Mr. Phillips to clarify why the appellant's appeal letter stated that the determination of the setbacks, stated in the City's letter was mis-read. Mr. Phillips stated that based on the basis of the applicant's position, a variance would be proper. They have ' no problem with staffs interpretation, however La Quinta did inherit the small lots fiom the County with houses already built. This is why so many of the setbacks for the older homes .were granted. Now, the applicant has a vacant lot and is asking the City to apply the same standards and give flexibility to this property owner. 1.1. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood the point, but should one of these homes be destroyed, he would have to build in accordance with the new Code requirements. In this instance the City has existing nonconforming uses but, they are not the grounds to grant a variance Mr. Phillips asked if there was anything else this owner could, do to solve this problem. Is there a suggestion by the Commissioners to solve this problem. 12. Commissioner Anderson stated it was a matter of reconfiguring the house; reconfigure the circulation plan of the house. Commissioner Anderson stated he could not specifically make a suggestion, but would relay some ideas to staff. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 96-015, denying the appeal of the appellant, and upholding the decision of the Community Development Director. Unanimously approved. B. Vacation 6-030 and -03 etermination of \Calle lan Consistency findings with proposed street vacations for portions of Cortez, Avenida Herrera, Avenida Juarez, Avenida Madero, Avenida Avenida Mendoza, Avenida Montezuma, Avenida Velasco, Avenida Villa, lon, Calle Portero, Calle Temecula; and Eisenhower Drive. 1. SeniO ngineer Steve Speer presented the information contained in the staff report, copy of which is on file in the Community . Development 2. Commissioner BUNEr asked staff if the property owners adjacent to the area were informed of t action. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they are notified and went on t explained the process by which the Public Works Department is required to ollow for a street vacation. PC4-23 ' I I AVrACHMENT 3 Appeal of Setback Adjustment 96-394. Mr. and Mrs. R. C: Pierce APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR'CONDITIONS Basis for Appeal Special circumstances are applicable to my property which support my request for relief from the setback requirements. I would be deprived of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity, under identical zoning classification, if the zoning ordinance is strictly applied. I will present photographs and setback .information as to the other properties at the hearing on my appeal. I agree that any variance granted shall be subject to conditions that will assure that the adjustment is not a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which my property is located. See Government Code Section 65906. ki RGS82210 Thank you for your consideration. 04/24/1996 13:38 6197777155 CITY OF LA QUI* PAGE 02 -a5 -J (� CALLE Tapir , (,A . , OUMTA, , CAUFORNIA 92253 RAX 19) -7101 — M IV, g 1996 PL ATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS 1 ULApU1NtA PlANN4Ns UEpARtI�EN� r, and Mrs. R. C. Pierce .:.Appellant's Name M Date May 1, 1996 x4iling Address 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 Phone: 1 � 619 347-3913 RE: Case no. 96-394 Type Of Appeal: _Conditional Use Permit _Variance _Change of Zone _Public Use permit Surface Mining a Reclamation Permit _Outdoor Advertising _Consistency with General Plan Environmental Assessment Setback Adjustments _.Temporary Use Permit Plot Plan Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number of the ape cific condition which is being See attached. Use additional sheets if necessary. re MAIUNO ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1M4 - LA OUINTA, :CALJFDRNiA WM FORX-003/CB r • ., �IJGLO:Sf3D t3Y comokkum rrY Div. 1\ ZONING REGULATIONS § 65906 son chal xed with conducting a public hearing thereon, notice of hear- ing sha T given by notice through the United States mails, with postage p aid using addresses from the last equalized assessment roll; or alte\botublication from such other records of the assessor or the tax collecton more recent addresses in the opinion of said body, or byication in -a newspaper of general circulation in accordance on 65854. and posting said notice -in conspicuous places, closeperty affected. Procedure for mailing or post- ing of said be governed by the provisions of the local or- dinance. (Added by S1 0, p. 4350, § 6.) Cross References Bridges or major thoroughfares, al ordinances requiring payment of fee to defray costs, notice pursuant to this a on, see 88484. Library References Zoning and Planning 4=359, 434, 534. C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning ;§ 93, 95, 187 to 1.89, 204, 208, 252. § 65.906. Variances from zoning ordinances Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges, enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance 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 oth- er properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situ- ated. A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity, which is not otherwise expressly autho- rized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property.' The Provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits. (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1880, p. 4350, § 6. Amended by Stats.1970, c. 660, p. 1284, § 1; Stats.1974, c. 607, p. 1450, § _ 1.; Historical Note The 1970 amendment added the third The 1974 amendment added the last sen- paragraph. tence in the third paragraph relating to conditional use permits. Forms See West's California Code Forme, Government. 105 . FILE COPY .44 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA" QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 May 14, 1996 Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce _ 82-291 Sierra Avenue . Indio, California 92201 SUBJECT: APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR SETBACK ADJUSTMENT 96-394 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pierce:. This is to acknowledge receipt of your appeal of the Planning Commission action on April 23, 1996, upholding the Community Development Department denial of.your request to reduce the garage on the side yard, front, and rear setbacks. We have scheduled the appeal for the City Council meeting, of June 4, 1996, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber. Please plan on attending to present your appeal. Prior to the meeting a copy of the staff report will be sent to you for your use. Should you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me. ; Very truly yours, - - JERRY HERMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 4 , STAN B. SAWA Principal Planner SBS:cw c: Dave Erwin, Best, Best & Krieger Itrss.408 ® MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 *(� - i 04/'1996 13:38 6197777155 CITY OF LA QUINTA PAGE 02 Q MAY 0 E 1996 CALLS_ T MPIC ' A. - , % — LA ,CUINTA, CALIFORNIA 922533ji- _ - H 1UA FAX tg) -7t01— MAY 8 1996 DT %M_---- --- - - GlII yr 5•• PIANN4K's EPRRTI.4ENT � ,APpellant's Name and Mrs. R. C. Pierce Date May 1, 1996 Mailing address 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 �619� 347-3913 RE: Case No. 96-394 Phone; Type of Appeal: Conditional Use Permit —.—Variance — Outdoor Advertising Change of Zone _Consistency with General Plan --.Public Use Permit Environmental Assessment Surface Mining & _V7— Setback Adjustments Reclamation Permit. ,Temporary Use permit Plot Plan Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number of the specific condition which is being g See attached. Use additional sheets it necessary. FORM.003/CB MAIUNO ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 15W - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA M253 r RGS82210 Appeal of Setback Adjustment 96-394 Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Basis for Appeal Special circumstances are applicable to my property which support my request for relief from the setback requirements. I would be deprived of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity, under identical zoning classification, if the zoning ordinance is strictly applied. I will present photographs and setback information as to the other properties at the hearing on my appeal. I agree that any variance granted shall be subject to conditions that will assure that the adjustment is�not a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which my property is located. See Government Code Section 65906. Thank you for your consideration. K OF B38 0144th Street ,6-W"220 .0011069 Best, Best 6 Krieger Riverside, CA 92502 LAWYERS 39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE • SUITE 312 May 2 , 1996 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 y DOLLARS $ PAY Tome City or La Ouinta Order Of BEFORE PRESENTING FOR PAYMENT. BEST. BEST & KRIEGER 39700 Bob Hope Dr. Rancho Mirage, California 92270 Lawyers PIERCE DJE 74865.0000 APPEAL FEE TO CITY COUNCIL DSP/rsm BEST & KRIEGER - GEN. ACCT. n CHECK NO, 0 01106 9 COpy...FILE} \ ��/ • 78-495 ,CALLE TAMPICO ' -LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 . - 619 ( ) 777-7000 .Af o f 1 \-�� FAX - (619) , •777-7101 April 24, 1996 'Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce - 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, California 92201 SUBJECT: Appeal of Setback Adjustment 96-394 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pierce: This is to report to you that the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 23, 1996,. denied your - appeal of the Community Development Director's decision, under Minute Motion 96-015, for the . setback adjustment for property located at the southwest corner of Calle•Potrero and Avenida Juarez., The action of the Planning Commission may be appealed'to the City Council within 15 days after the date of the mailing of the decision. The appeal must be in writing accompanied bya, filing fee of . $25.00. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 777-7064. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN 'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR STAN B. SAWA Principal Planner - SBS:cW c: David Erwin ' Best, Best & Krieger- Itrss.402 f s . ' • r. w` - - -• A ' MAILING ADDRESS =' P.O.' BOX 1504 - LA QUINT& CALIFORNIA 92253 ®�� . 4 ZZ-Ub ; j:4lrm :tst5ii, tst=ii.& mit BEST BEST &-KRIEGER LLP A CAUIGRWA L"79C kl,%WU7♦.AN TWIMOMN WCLYOM,O.R O/C.00MAL CO..ORA,MDM. LAWYERS RIVeR81DC ZDrOC 000 t1OPc DRIVE. 25VITC 312 ONTARIO ;9091 686.1450 POST OFFICE BOX ISSS (900) 069-R5E4 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 -" PALM SPRING$ TELfr1I0NC (619) 660•C611 SAN DIEGO !61B1 325-7204 TELECOPIER (6191 340-6608 1619) 525-1300 Date: April 22, 1996 1� THE•FOLLOWING DOCUMENT INCLUDING THIS'COVER SHEET IS JI� PAGES. PLEASE DELIVER TO: AT FAX NO. STAN SAWA, PRINCIPAL PLANNER 777-7101 CITY OF LA OUINTA THIS DOCUMENT IS FROM: Douglas S. Phillips, Esq. RE: Robert Pierce, Appeal No. 96--394. MESSAGE: Per our telephone conversation, please review the photographs and key map that were prepared by Mr. Pierce. I have attached calculator tape to each photograph to indicate the setbacks on the residences. - CLIENT/MATTER NO.: 74,865.0000 If any of these pages is not legible or you do not receive all of the pages, pease call Rita Sikorski at (619) 568-2611. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENIIIT 10 WHILH 11 IS ADUHESSED, AND NAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US INMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK "OU. '• .� t 1 �; J A� �7:!�n�Yt•vLZ:T7•>r' ,N UUiIA � RGS65166 VENT 1AVENIOA *.(n ~ AVENIDA i%FvCRjFW= 16VL/ry I r soon MY OF LA OWNTA -AVENIDA Af VENIDA AVIENIJ) MADEROI .......... ...... ... . I N i ................ ........... . JUAREZ M ................ AIDA AVE 1 ........... ... . ... ........ ......... T RU VE DIAZ ........... .. AVE . ............ ... . 'VARAOP 'AVENIDA ..... . . . . ... :OBREGO ... .... .......... ... . . ........... ...... . . ............. LVENjq ........... L .... . .... ..................... jCARRAN ... . ............... % ..... ............ . ....... RAMIREZ ........... ................ ,AVENIDA . .. ..... .. .. ...... .. ........... ............. VALLEJO ......... . t'kV ENIDA;,*,A .-I . . .... iz IHERf ............. MENIOA EISEk . . . .. . ................ AVE IDA ...... . . . .. . ... ..................... IAVENIDA \ 11AVENIDA- - ---------- ------11W VE!A=. W WP N A E . ............ MARTINIR I �VEWIDA ............. . . . wo, VZD0 m I .............. i AVEIJI0A :9 VILLA AVEI410A- 6AVARRO .E410A . .. ............. ............ . ....... AV AVENIOAj f SERM00A 5j_.......... ................. 000 0 • C�Bd� q13 A.,-- lswl:216 Extended Page 11 1 b °am 46 ;� p �dkc° CPO p C' v ° ' °8 gym° ��'o°oos6�°° oar ° ° ° '►4• �' ° o 0.0 o77-683 Calle Madrld ° Southwest corner of Calls N.adrid a b Ave:.:Velasco a m ° '22 feet 9 inches from garage to ° s curb face alignment Date: April 18, 1996 Key No. 2 _ m0 @ LMI o 0 0 ded Page 12. 1 0 y •' ' i""L' =`�y n e ° °p oa CD dW' ° Q ° ao*o p J;. � A !° �ss op ° a n 13 ° mp 9 d C2° -015 � a a u a D 54-711; Eisenhower Drive ° p North 'side of Calle=,Fotrero at Ave. Ber>Dudae ° `1AP, 23, feet.from;garage.to curb face alignment.-, p a e' ° °p D°° _ °vBDp° v �vD ewe °°ev oo-vOo.%°� naea Page 10, 1 0 0 a r �� ...w - ,�,4s i'd��+aila^e/iu.�1-..is:f°i+..3trt ^:+L�9W.i4•��1w.:h9l YaS,�V. _-'.Yili r�i��•C.4i5 �:�fii.:k '°ei2�Y�/ Aiq_=1' _:�d��.+n: •.�-3�'.�'.0'Tm��'N��➢ i!..`y�Yi ��t `l.�ux�"�•.-. .• .r4K� K•Z.�£ y sue^ ° �° v o ° '„-��'ts+rYpuy'�',�,r� 1�. • ram' p p m _ � �y �.��' �°:•s' � � tom; w o 00 *iK�y£x °40 .° y Yf'Y' �"' LI• t,L _ ° e�r�lY 'bb e ib OP ups pN P VIP 0 ° a 'ac-L M�e`G1 p i M � .. rr ✓ ,�`�" r Ak . P :. p °gyp ° ° O d` ° v ° owl z} '04 m � T�� ra oquo 8 a (: an IP 46 � a Q ' Kl • p 4 - o 1 cF tr Jim:., �r0 NO e y Yy si, Q o y;APR.�. S 'Sg .•t'r wi '?0.,r sb c c^. t. - ...�.s•,�� ,c-E3I c�4 �'cY_3, ff� •: r s � a_ .. � ago a% °�■ } l: c 0� f1 a °p° a °. -coo qq i gel a Q ID W.J54` 94l Ave Bermudas a �f v° v r ° ° }1 �Faet side of e 5Herrera by"Cul- ° ° ° o ° A� ° °° ° 'tip- Q ° a cw - aloe g ° 1 'de Sac nexttot4ve °�Bermudasa' °°� Q ° Q , - ® q, Q °4 .`P".c - ,,;, ,,. 6 ° Q a Q �p�Oy°° ob s Vriries�lbyfeetL to i6�feet `bvinchese a , ° a° c+ � .a•.>. ?cx.. R�.r —L+&,. e,y3a, , O ' °p ° + from'garage�,tc:curbface ali`gii, ors x mint Date:4 IB a Om 9p p.., 40° a, ms am p �paV °° tT O " „p1 +t - �-it.. r �_ 4 6 �ffi° ° ° ae a Q� ¢ '•ra ° ° p ti ° ° y ° drpit 0 Go a d _ •4t ..r - p,{vt .r .'Y'°� sf i "':r'�, n'U 'f iFx'--.•,�Y[,' 'r "�,i. :itz {�'KM±Yr .�c•: ..,,�,� •'� y„ �; ,s. y� � �: �. t •;hs, ..�-a�,• 6^Y%IIWUY rayG 17. 1 V1 lJ1 V G C . . I + 46 i 77r 28'.Qf f .% �e p° o° °pDo ° ° 0° ev ¢o j. �a%� ° °ep CPQBB ire. - _ ema .@.- °® pp .. Ck q„ °. q® °°° cc o ° ov° ®° 1. 16. ° ° o °34 945-Ave. Herrera a On 'Cul—de-Sack next to -Ave. Bermudas p Varies 24 feet i inches io 28.feet from garage to curb face aligment Date: April 19,•195h Key No. 5 n ss{yTa- Extended Paae 8.1 • 5L-53? Ave. Ob egun Sout6easc corner of Ave. Obregon d Calle Ierecula 22 feet 2 Inches from garage to curb face alignment Date: yo7°1 18, _ M Key NO. 6 000•- M-C 002•- l•1. f� txtenaed.page 7.1 r O O L k ♦ .. 77-445 Calle Potrero Southeast corner of Coke ?otrero 6 Ave. Alvarado 2.1. feet from garage to -.irb face a-icnment Date_: April 18, 1996 Key �;o._ J__ '' ' 77-445 Calle Potrero Southeast corner of Coke ?otrero 6 Ave. Alvarado 2.1. feet from garage to -.irb face a-icnment Date_: April 18, 1996 Key �;o._ J__ '' ' N to -1k O_ N. N 6] �p W _' ,• F-` LLJ m. X. Jz �.� ,�_�.�. �..._ ___ ,• - ;'yid' .w 54-510 Ave. "Juarez Southeast corner of Ave. Juarez°." S Ci11e Temecula _ 2.3 feet 3,inches from garage to curb face aligrnneat ' bate: l .16' 199-6 Rev, No. n 1 I I txLenaea rage 4, r T v rX---j f 1 U 77-125 Calle Madrid Southeast corner of Calle Madrid 6 Ave. Coxtez 22 feet 9 inches from garage to curb face alignment 12.50 - .� y- .dam-�jr_�.. - ._G.�. _ 1 . �. _. .• - .. _ 1 000 1 �€ r Vqa .� ,�02 .t 4 77-305 Colima Southwest corner of -Calla Colima i ff S Ave. Diaz 2'2 feet 8 inches ;from garage: to ' curb face;alignmen April 18 1996."Ke No '10-- SETBACK ADJUSTMENT 96-394 1 THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS AN APPEAL OF. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF A SETBACK ADJUSTMENT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE COVE ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE POTRERO AND AVENIDA JUAREZ. THE PROPERTY CONTAINS 75 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON AVENIDA JUAREZ AND 100-FEET OF FRONTAGE ON CALLE POTRERO WITH THE SIZE JUST UNDER 7500- SQUARE FEET. THIS LOT ORIGINALLY WAS A 50 BY 100-FOOT LOT BUT WAS ENLARGED BY A LOT MERGER OF 3 LOTS INTO 2 WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. THE PROPERTIES TO THE. NORTH, SOUTH, AND EAST ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST -- VACANT. ADJACENT TO THE REAR (OR WEST PROPERTY LINE) IS A POWER POLE WITH WIRES WHICH RUN IN A NORTH / SOUTH DIRECTION. THE CURBS AND GUTTERS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED ON THE STREET FRONTAGES AS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS. spchss.003 THE RESIDENCE, WHICH THE APPLICANT WISHES TO CONSTRUCT, WOULD BE OVER 2700-SQUARE FEET IN LIVING AREA WITH 400- SQUARE FEET FOR A 2-CAR GARAGE. THE RESIDENCE WILL CONSIST OF 3 BEDROOMS, 2 BATHS, A LIVING ROOM, DINING ROOM, NOOK, HOBBY ROOM, AND GREAT ROOM. THE RESIDENCE HAS BEEN DESIGNED WITH THE GARAGE AND FRONT DOOR ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE HOUSE WHICH FACES CALLE POTRERO. THE FRONT OF THE LOT FACES AVENIDA JUAREZ AND IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A 20-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. ON THIS SIDE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN 18-FOOT SETBACK WITH AN ENCROACHMENT FOR THE CHIMNEY. CALLE POTRERO IS THE EXTERIOR SIDE YARD AND REQUIRES A 10-FOOT SETBACK FOR THE BUILDING AND ,20-FOOT SETBACK FOR THE GARAGE. ON THIS SIDE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SETBACK OF 12-FEET FOR THE GARAGE. ALONG THE REAR, OR WEST PROPERTY LINE, A 10-FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED. -THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF 8-FEET FOR THIS SETBACK. THE INTERIOR SIDEYARD SETBACK,. WHICH IS ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, REQUIRES A 5-FOOT SETBACK. THE WHICH APPLICANT IS COMPLYING WITH. spchss.003 THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, ON MARCH 7TH, DENIED THIS REQUESTED SETBACK ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO GRANT THE ADJUSTMENT COULD NOT BE MADE. THOSE 3 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL ARE NOTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED INFORMATION ON WHY HE FEELS THE APPEAL SH D B APPROVED. IN Y, THE APPLICANT INDICATES T HE F ELS THAT THER HOME WNERS IN THE AREAI H E BEEN AL OWED TO ENJOY SIMILAR USES AND THE ORE THE PL COMMISSION SHOULD APPROVE HIS RECOMMENDATION: STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT, BY MINUTE MOTION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BASED ON, THE FINDINGS AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. spchss.003 FILETOPy 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — -LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - - (619) 777-7000 ti o UN�" FAX (619) 7774101. April 1, 1996 Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, California 92201 K, SUBJECT: APPEAL OF SETBACK ADJUSTMENT 96-394 x n- Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pierce: ' This is to acknowledge receipt of your appeal of the Community Development Director's'decision to deny the setback adjustment request for property located at the southeast corner of Calle Portrero and Avenida Juarez. Pursuant to Code Section 9.188.040, we have scheduled your appeal for Planning Commission consideration on April 23, 1996, 15 7:00 P.M'. in .the City Hall Council Chamber.'-' Prior to the consideration, we will send you a copy. of the Staff Report for your -time:: Please attend to answer any •questions the Planning Commission may have. Should you have any ,questions regarding this matter, please feel free .to contact me at 777-7064. ' Very truly yours, - - JERRY HERMAN ; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR , STAN B. ' SAWA Principal Planner t? SBS:cw t c: Tom Hartung, Building & Safety Department 1 • -' David Erwin, Best, Best & Krieger - 1. — .. . ., .. X . , - • yet .., .__ Ltrss.04 j 0' MAILING ADDRESS - -P.O. BOX 1504 - LA-QWNTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 ' COPY BI #1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 23, 1996 CASE NO.: SETBACK ADJUSTMENT 96-394 REQUEST: APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DENIAL OF SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM TWENTY -FEET TO EIGHTEEN -FEET, REAR YARD SETBACK FROM TEN -FEET TO EIGHT -FEET, AND GARAGE SETBACK ON EXTERIOR SIDE YARD FROM TWENTY -FEET TO TWELVE -FEET FOR NEW RESIDENCE. r APPLICANT AND APPELLANT: MR. & MRS. R. C. PIERCE LOCATION: SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CALLE POTRERO AND AVENIDA JUAREZ (ATTACHMENT 1) ZONING: S-R (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL) -ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTED BY THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SECTION 15305 (CLASS 5a) AND SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3a). THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS DEEMED NECESSARY. SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES SOUTH: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES EAST: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WEST: S-R/VACANT SINGLE FAMILY LOTS BACKGROUND: Site Descri tion The subject property is a vacant single family lot in the Cove with 75-feet of 'frontage on Avenue Juarez and 100-feet of frontage on Calle Potrero. The lot size is just under 7,500 square feet due to the corner radius, and was created by a merger of three lots into two lots. The property to the south, which shares a common property line, has a single family residence and wood fence on the property line. Along the west, or rear property line, is a utility pole with wires which run in a north/south pcss.2o 1 direction. The curbs and gutters have been installed along the two street frontages as part of the Assessment District improvements. The lot is one block from the top of the Cove and relatively flat. The appellant is proposing to construct a one-story single family residence of . approximately 2,730 square feet plus 400 square feet for a two -car garage. The residence will consist of three bedrooms, two baths, a living room, dining room, nook, hobby room, and great room. The entry door into the house, has been placed on the north (exterior side yard) side of the house. The front of the lot faces. Avenida Juarez, because it is the narrower dimension, and is required to have a 20-foot front yard setback. The appellant is requesting an eighteen -foot setback. Calle Potrero is the exterior side yard and requires a ten -foot setback for the building and a twenty -foot setback for the garage. The appellant is requesting a twelve -foot garage setback. The interior side yard, along the south property line requires a five-foot setback and 'along the west property line a ten -foot setback is required. The appellant is requesting eight -feet. The site requirements (Attachment 2) are illustrated in the Manual on Architectural Standards as adopted by Planning Commission per Section 9.42.080 Building Desian Standards. The appellant is requesting the Planning Commission reverse the Community Development Director's decision to deny reducing the front setback from twenty -feet to eighteen -feet, the rear setback from ten -feet to eight -feet, and the garage setback on the exterior side yard from twenty -feet to twelve -feet (Attachment 3). On March 22, 1996, the appellant appealed (Attachment 4) the decision of the Community Development Department. - The Community Development Director on March 7, 1996, denied the request and because the required findings necessary to grant the adjustment could -not be made. The findings for denial are as follows: 1. There are no special circumstances which are applicable to your property since it is larger than most properties in the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography, and surrounded by residences which have complied with applicable requirements. No setback adjustments have been approved of this extent for new residences within the neighborhood. pcss.201 2. The requested setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks, which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and vicinity of the subject property. The .reduction of setbacks would create an incompatible relationship with the surrounding residences which comply with the setbacks, would create a short 0 2-foot) driveway whereby parking would block the City right-of-way and reduce the streetscape appeal of the neighborhood. ' 3. The lot is adequate in size and shape to design a residence on the property that complies with applicable setback requirements. The reduction of setbacks, especially at the rear of the lot imposes on the right to privacy of the adjacent residents. The plan proposed provides a 27-foot by 51-foot yard area adjacent to the southern property line. This yard is considered large and indicates that the lot is sufficient in size for a residence to be custom designed to meet the required setbacks. By Minute Motion 96- deny appeal of appellant, and uphold decision of the Community Development Director, based on the findings as noted. Attachments: 1. Location Map . 2. Excerpt from Building Design Standards.. 3. Proposed site plan (Large plans for Planning Commission only). 4. Appeal from Mr.& Mrs. Pierce received March 22, 1996 (including "basis for appeal; letter dated February 23, 1996; application; letter dated March 7, 1996, from Community Development Director denying setback adjustment; and proof of service by mail). Prepared by: STAN B. SAWA, Principal Planner Submitted by: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager pcss.201 I .,,.'ATTACHMENT 1 Waa�®•a�OoY_aa � mt a°N Y`• • : 2 KI IOP 26/IJ.O II 4 4,11 p(D ® a po y Y C• , _. • W jo 1 • IO ®9., 1 R --- • _ ? nu d o0o C ®/I s ®// a /I ® // le 7 O ° • u.• •• o . LL SO Idasf 04 I - atr _ J aJlic2 ° a7Y1e _ •oe At a4fAe zoo J Q /6 o 0,9 14 So r• l• a. r Y• a• 2/ © GLLE a n x• j rECArf CASE MAP CASE No. �7� � !o— .3 —14' � • � . - � . SCALE: NTS. SITE REQU CORNER LOT tREME NTS � ATTACHMENT 2 t SIDEYARD: 5 FT. GARAGE SETBACK 20 F . MINIMUM MINI REARYARD : 10 FT, MINIMUM CONCRETE i LOCATE DRIVEWAY AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION. ASPHALT CONNECT I NG PAVEM IT . . W/ 2„ x4„ L. I HEADERS I II I I AREAS TO BE LANDSCAP � r FRONTYARD : 20 4. MINIMUM i / i --�------_-- CURBLINE IDEYARD 10 FT, MINIMUM LINES 4 0 0 ATTACHMENT 3 mar',turd wk!,'J- Fue*,.,A t rt;r ra ATTACHMENT- 4 .44 CQ 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF'FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS r Appellant's:Name Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce � Date March 21- 1996 Mailing Address 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 922C1 19� 347-3913 Phone: RE: Case No. ' Type.of Appeal. Conditional Use Permit Outdoor Advertising. Variance Consistency with General Plan Change of Zone Environmental Assessment Public Use Permit. xx Setback Adjustments . Surface Mining & Temporary Use Permit Reclamation Permit Plot Plan Please state basis for -appeal and include -any supportive evidence. If applicable,. -indicate the number.of..the specific condition,which.is being protested. See attached. , Use additional sheets if -necessary. Signature. MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 LA,, WINTA, CALIFORNIA, 92253 FORM.003/CS Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Basis for Appeal My wife and I purchased a 75' x 100' . lot to -build a home in La Quinta. We purchased a large lot to accomplish full utilization of our plans.` A front setback of 10' was acceptable because we needed 60'. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 1 and north one-half of Lot 2, Block 275, Santa Carmelita at Vale, La Quinta, Unit No. 25, as shown by map on file in Book 19, pages 50, 51, in the Office of the County Recorder, Riverside County. Assessor's Parcel Number is 774-265-031.' The property is a vacant lot and a street address has not been issued at this time. I have attached a copy of my letter dated February 23, 1996, and'a copy of my Application for Setback Adjustment. I wish to change the setback from 20' to 18' on the east side of the property, from 10' to 8' on the west side of the property,, and from 20' to 12' on the north side of the property. In the letter dated March 7., 1996 (copy attached) from the Community Development Director, these setbacks are incorrectly stated. The Community Development Director has obviously misunderstood my requests, and we have been denied the variance we desire.. I hereby appeal the action of the Community Development Director. I do not believe the Planning Commission can deny these variances when other homeowners- in ,the area have been able to enjoy similar uses. RGS80461 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 February.23, 1996 City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department La Quinta, CA 95523 Dear Sir: J My wife and I purchased a lot and a half (75' x 100') to build an ideal home for our later years. A small 50' x 100' lot was inadequate for our needs. A purchase was made of the larger lot to accomplish full utilization of our planned complex. A front setback of 10' was acceptable because we needed 60' (75' depth less 10' in front and 5' in back). Now, after saving our money, and buying what we thought was an ideal lot, we have two problems. 1. We need a variance for a 74' width centered between the east and west setbacks, not including the chimney. 2. We need a variance for a 12' setback to the garage. I rise to the personal privilege to build a home for my living and family activities and my lifetime hobby pursuits. I particularly do not believe you can deny these variances, especially the 12' setback to the garage when the same right and use exists that others are enjoying. I hereby request the city of La Quinta to approve these setbacks with a letter stating acceptance of our request. If you choose to deny our request., please provide a letter stating justifiable and substantive reasons that will stand up.in court. Prior to this stage of engagement, the city of La Quinta may prefer an appeal process, and therefore could state the format, forms, and procedure. Very truly yours,. R. C. Pierce • • CASE NO: CITY OF LA QUINTA FEE: $100.00 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR SETBACK ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: Submit this form with two copies of a scaled site plan-, drawn to adequately depict the nature of the request. A nonrefundable fee of $1b0 is required when the Application is submitted. Check must be make payable to the "City of La Quinta". If the Applicant is not the owner of the property, a letter must be submitted by the owner authorizing the Applicant to execute this document in his behalf. ************************************************************************** PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR: Mr. and Mrs. R C. Piprep DATE February 23, 1996 CONTACT PERSON ( IF DIFFERENT) ' PHONE 619 347.-3913 MAILING ADDRESS: 82-291 Sierra Ave (Address) OWNER'S NAME: Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce MAILING ADDRESS: 82-291 Sierra Av ess ndio 2 ty) (State) (Zip (City STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Not issued --vacant lot PHONE 619 347-3913 (State) (Zip Lot 1 and north half of lot 2, Block 275, Santa LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:Carmelita.at Vale. La Ouinta, Unit No. 25, as shown by map on file in Book 19, pages 50, 51 in office of County Recorder, Riverside County. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 774-265-031 ADJUSTMENT REQUESTED: A 74 foot building width on Calle Potrero and a 12' setback from the north lot line to the garage. REASON FOR REQUEST: A 74 foot building width facilitates needed living and family activity space laid out as shown on the site Plan The 12' setback on the garage provides 760 square feet of necessary length for hobby and my collection See site plan. JUSTIFICATION: No request for a Setback Adjustment be granted unless it is determined that it is consistent with th intend and purpose of this Ordinance; that there are special circumstance be to the property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that justify the approval of the adjustment of the setback requirement, and that the adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in -the area of the parcel for which the -adjustment is requested. ************************************************************************** FORM.013/CS 4 78-495 .CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) . 777-7101 March 7, 1996 Mr. & Mrs. R. C.. Pierce 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, California 92201-4166 SUBJECT: Setback Adjustment 96-394 Location: Southeast corner of Calle Potrero and Avenida Juarez Legal Description: APN 774-265-031 Dear Mr. &. Mrs. Pierce: The Community Development Director has reviewed your request to reduce the front setback from 20' to IT, the rear setback from 10' to 8', and'the garage setback on the exterior sideyard from 20' to 12' and denied your application for a setback adjustment. Staff cannot approve the reduced setbacks pursuant to Chapter 9.188 of the City of La Quinta Planning and Zoning Regulations. Staff has determined that the findings necessary to grant your setback adjustment can not be made for the following reasons: l . There are no special circumstances which are applicable to your property since it is larger than most properties in the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography and surrounded by residences which have. complied with the applicable requirements. 2. The requested setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and vicinity of the subject property. 3. The lot is adequate. in size and shape to design a residence on the property that complies with applicable setback requirements. Itrss.357 MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 46• . The action of the Community Development Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 15 calendar days after the date of mailing of the decision. The appeal must be in writing and accompanied by a filing fee of $25.00. Your appeal should include reasons why you feel the findings necessary to 'approve your setback adjustment can be justified. Should you need additional information regarding required findings please contact me. Upon receipt of an appealJ P P pp ,your request will be scheduled for a Planning Commission lllVVllll£,. Should you have. questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 777- 7064•. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR STAN B. SAWA Principal Planner SBS:cw c: Christi di Iorio Itrss.337 r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 0 12 J N N 13 W 5 in = k. 0(�Nnz W�;x o W�>0 14 �Yoma U. W 4 � W U U o a 15 ;f- =oa Nm Ir W c H mmo� 16 F- °o = W u Wm a 17 m 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • PROOF OF SERVICE'BY MAIL [CCP § 1013a(3)] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) I am employed in the County of Riverside, State of California.. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 39700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 312, Rancho Mirage, California 92270. On March 22, 1996, I served the following document described as .APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS on the parties in this action: [ ] By placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list; [ ] By telef axing a true copy thereof to the party and telefax number below; [ ] By mailing [ ] the original [ ] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:. Planning Commission City -of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 [ ] I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be'deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Rancho Mirage, California in the ordinary course of•business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than.one day after date of deposit for mailing affidavit. [ ] By personal delivery. I caused such envelope to be hand delivered to the addresses above. [X ] By personal delivery. I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee. c I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed- on March 22, 1996, at Rancho Mirage, aliforniaF, Rita Sikorski RGS65456 -1 Proof of Service ..•�. , . .. . _ � ..._ ��r � —; }:�.,:-:—urn .4 .. . ..., . K , a,.. - .. ...� Y .[ ,. .-,.,.. .. ... ..,.. ::,.. � ,: - /�