2024-071 Allow The Construction Of An Accessory Structure Exceeding Fifteen Feet In Height Within The Rear Yard

Home Browse Search

III. The existing accessory structures on the site and the proposed pavilion are not consistent with the Art Moderne style and detract from the historical designation of the home and the neighborhood as a whole; IV. The property owners have shown a proclivity to violate the statutory requirements of designation as an historical landmark as well as violating the SAMC; V. The property owner's use of the site as a cultural center(e.g., seasonal cultural gatherings, festivals, and tours) that bring high volume of cars and school buses; and VI. Questions whether the Planning Commission visited the site prior to approving CUP No. 2022-06 to view the property and surrounding homes and whether the Planning Commission gave any consideration of the recent designation of Floral Park as a National Historic District. Moreover, the appellant provides further questions about whether the owners will be held accountable for obtaining retroactive building permits for an ADU, as well as maintenance/upkeep of the "historically important home," and how the City will monitor the site to ensure it is not being used as a cultural center. K. On November 19, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Appeal Application No. 2024-01. Staff notes that the appellant does not provide any evidence that the proposed project would adversely impact the community, pursuant to Section 41-638 of the SAMC. Specifically, the appellant does not provide evidence to substantiate that the project will be a detriment to the general wellbeing of the neighborhood or the community; detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; would adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of property in the surrounding area; does not comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this chapter for such use; and would adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. Nevertheless, a comprehensive response on the appeal items previously outlined has been prepared and can be found in Exhibit 6 of the staff report dated November 19, 2024 that was prepared for the appeal. Section 2. The City Council, after hearing, considering and weighing all evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and being fully informed of the application, the Planning Commission's decision, and the appeal, hereby finds and determines that the Planning Commission's decision was not made in error, that the Planning Commission's decision was not an abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Resolution No. 2024-071 Page 3 of 15