Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 04-04 WALL HEIGHTS 2005 -- w/%J _ s6w /0 -ram Cv -- _ � w Y � ■ _,, R _ f .� , ks �' . ` i u ; (, � 'r M. ,,, , �: s; . / � mw�� ---�- 1 P t � �M� '�, `C �� Y _� � � � ��, '• .a � .). � R y _.��t. ._ _ _ V ,-. _ i . _ . �.� - - - - . - ,R��� . ., __� A �� ......� x... � .:..... ''j i� t c. s 1 �r �2 ! i f-l� •s i . 3..�fp' -!'`• i, i". 4 i ��- � Y Y. . low"� _ . ��. , !`�.• .� �, `� „ice' pe 00 Se ORDINANCE NO. 1091A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.56.195 AS IT RELATES TO WALL HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS IN THE R-1, R-2, R-3 AND PR ZONE DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of April, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.195, as described above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has adopted its resolution No.2322 recommending approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its approval as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That ZOA 04-04 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, w ORDINANCE NO. 1091A published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this day of , 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 10 ORDINANCE NO. 1091A EXHIBIT 'A' That Municipal Code Section 25.56.195 be amended to read as follows: 25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences for single family residential lots in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. A. Purpose. The following wall and fence development standards specifying location, material and review procedures are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve consistency throughout the city. The objective is to protect and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, privacy, security, view sight lines and drainage. B. Review Procedures. All applications for fences and walls shall be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval by both the Department of Community Development and Building and Safety, unless the applicant submits photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall(s) may create. In addition, retaining walls will require approval by the Department of Public Works. C. Wall Requirement--New Residential Construction. All new residential construction shall include walls or fences of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and interior side yards. D. Development Standards. 1. Walls and fences within front and street side setbacks: a. Fences forty-two inches in height or less: i. Location: may be located on property line, but in no event less than a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. May not be located in public right-of-way. ii. Material: must be decorative material including decorative blocks, stucco or wrought iron. b. Fences greater than 42-inches in height, but less than 61 9 g , inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street, minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco, or wrought iron. C. Fences 61 inches in height to 72 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public 3 I ORDINANCE NO. 1091A street, minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to a maximum of seventy-two inches in height: a. Side yard tie-in fences, interior side yard and rear yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: Materials: i. Decorative block; ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; predbet: iv. Wrought iron. b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way: Materials: i. Block--all types; ii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iii. Wrought iron. 3. Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and wrought iron fences: a. Retaining walls and combination walls located on a rear or interior side property line associated with a cut slope shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from the highest adjoining grade. Material standards in subsection (D) (1) of this section shall apply. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to a maximum of six feet in height of solid wall material as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. A combination of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent grade. The maximum combination fence height measured from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet. In addition, the Department of Public Works shall refer to Ordinance 514 amending Title 27 (the grading ordinance) as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill conditions. C. Where a fill slope retaining wall is proposed adjacent to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the city's grading ordinance, the city engineer shall determine the lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the grade elevation drainage requirements. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 1091A 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted to preserve a quality appearance. Major structural repairs or replacement shall be required to conform to be above location and material standards. 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject to a conditional use permit. E. Exceptions Procedures. Requests for exceptions to the above standards may be brought before the Palm Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be approved, the architectural commission must make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this section and that the exception shall not result in damage to adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the proposed exception shall be informed of the application at least ten days prior to the architectural commission meeting. (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) if the property is within a gated community with a homeowners association with a bona tide architectural review process and the applicant obtains approval from that architectural review body, the city's architectural review process may be waived. F. Measuring Wall Height. Wall height shall be measured from natural grade at the wall location. G. Landscape Plan Required. A formal landscape plan shall be required to be submitted and approved by the landscape manager prior to the approval of any application for a wall adjacent to a public street. H. Undulation of Walls. All walls adjacent to a public street shall be designed to provide undulation (offset of at least 18 inches) or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. Undulating walls may encroach up to 18 inches into required wall setbacks. I. Wall Color. Walls shall be finished in a desert color which shall be approved as part of this review process. 5 ORDINANCE NO. 1091A i AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF C PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.56.195 AS IT RELATES TO WALL HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS IN THE R-1, R-2, R-3 AND PR ZONE DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of April, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.195, as described above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has adopted its resolution No.2322 recommending approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS,said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm . Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, sai City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its approval as deribod below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent' the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That ZOA 04-04 as delineated in the attached Exhibit"A"is hereby ordained. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. ORDINANCE NO. 1091A PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 281h day of April, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: KELLY, SPIEGEL, and CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: BENSON and FERGUSON ABSTAIN: NONE BUFORD A. ITE , Mayor ATTEST: 1 RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 1 . 2 — ORDINANCE NO. 1091A EXHIBIT "A" That Municipal Code Section 25.56.195 be amended to read as follows: 25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences for single family residential lots In the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. A. Purpose. The following wall and fence development standards specifying location, material and review procedures are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve consistency throughout the city. The objective is to protect and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, privacy, security, view sight lines and drainage. B. Review Procedures. All applications for fences and walls shall be subject.to on-site inspection prior to approval by both the Department of Community Development and Building and Safety, unless the applicant submits photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall(s) may create. In addition, retaining walls will require approval by the Department of Public Works. C. Wall Requirement--New Residential Construction. All new residential construction shall include walls or fences of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and interior side yards. D. Development Standards. 1. Walls and fences within front and street side setbacks: a. Fences forty-two inches in height or less: i. Location:maybe located on property line,but in no event less than a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. May not be located in public right-of- way. ii. Material: must be decorative ,material including decorative blocks, stucco or wrought iron. b. Fences greater than42-inches in height, but lessthan 61 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street, minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco, or wrought iron. C. Fences 61 inches in height to 72 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public ( street, minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that t ORDINANCE NO. 1091A visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to a maximum of seventy-two inches in height: a. Side yard tie-in fences, interior side yard and rear yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: Materials: i. Decorative block; ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; P+'oduet, iv. Wrought iron. b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way: Materials: i. Block--all types; ii. Redwood,cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iii. Wrought iron. 3. Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and wrought iron fences: a. Retaining walls and combination walls located on a rear or interior side property line associated with a cut slope shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from the highest adjoining grade. Material standards in subsection (D) (1) of this section shall apply. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to a maximum of six feet in height of solid wall material as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. A combination of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent grade. The maximum combination fence height measured from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet. In addition, the Department of Public Works shall refer to Ordinance 514 amending Title 27(the grading ordinance) as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill conditions. C. Where a fill slope retaining wall is proposed adjacent to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the citys grading ordinance, the city engineer shall determine the lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the grade elevation drainage requirements. 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted to preserve a quality appearance.Major structural repairs or replacement shall be required to conform to be above location and material standards. 4 _ e i ORDINANCE NO. 1091A 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject to a conditional use permit. E. Exceptions Procedures. Requests for exceptions to the above standards may be brought before the Palm Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be approved, the architectural commission must make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this section and that the exception shall not result in damage to adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the proposed exception shall be informed of the application at least ten days prior to the architectural commission meeting. (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) If the property is within a gated community with a homeowners association with a bona fide architectural review process and the applicant obtains approval from thatarchitectural reviewbody, the city's architectural review process may be waived. F. Measuring Wall Height. Wall height shall be measured from natural grade at the wall location. G. Landscape Plan Required. A formal landscape plan shall be required to be submitted and approved by the landscape manager prior to the approval of any application for a wall adjacent to a public street. H. Undulation of Walls. All walls adjacent to a public street shall be designed to provide undulation (offset of at least 18 inches) or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. Undulating walls may encroach up to 18 inches into required wall setbacks. I. Wall Color. Walls shall be finished in a desert color which shall be approved as part of this review process. 5 ORDINANCE NO. 1091A .i AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.56.195 AS IT RELATES TO WALL HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS IN THE R-1, R-2, R-3 AND PR ZONE DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of April, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.195, as described above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has adopted its resolution No.2322 recommending approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS,said application has complied with the requirements of the"Cityof Palm _ Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, saidCity Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its approval`as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent(with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. Ile 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That ZOA 04-04 as delineated in the attached Exhibit"A" is hereby ordained. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. 1\ ORDINANCE NO. 1091A PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 28`h day of April, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: KELLY, SPIEGEL, and CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: BENSON and FERGUSON ABSTAIN: NONE BUFORD A. FhITE , Mayor ATTEST: I RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 1 . 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1091A EXHIBIT "A" That Municipal Code Section 25.56.195 be amended to read as follows: 25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences for single family residential lots in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. A. Purpose. The following wall and fence development standards specifying location, material and review procedures are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve consistency throughout the city. The objective is to protect and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, privacy, security, view sight lines and drainage. B. Review Procedures. All applications for fences and walls shall be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval by both the Department of Community Development and Building and Safety, unless the applicant submits photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall(s) may create. In addition, retaining walls will require approval by the Department of Public Works. C. Wall Requirement--New Residential Construction. All new residential construction shall include walls or fences of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and interior side yards. D. Development Standards. 1. Walls and fences within front and street side setbacks: a. Fences forty-two inches in height or less: i. Location:may be located on property line, but in no event less than a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. May not be located in public right-of- way. ii. Material: must be decorative material including decorative blocks, stucco or wrought iron. b. Fences greaterthan 42-inches in height, but less than 61 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street, minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco, or wrought iron. C. Fences 61 inches in height to 72 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public fstreet, minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that II 3 _ ._ ORDINANCE NO. 1091A visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25,56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to a maximum of seventy-two inches in height: a. Side yard tie-in fences, interior side yard and rear yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: Materials: i. Decorative block; ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; Redwood,eedar or other appr&md decay resistantwood produet, iv. Wrought iron. b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way: Materials: i. Block--all types; ii. Redwood,cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iii. Wrought iron. 3. Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and wrought iron fences: a. Retaining walls and combination walls located on a rear or interior side property line associated with a cut slope shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from the highest adjoining grade. Material standards in subsection (D) (1) of this section shall apply. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to a maximum of six feet in height of solid wall material as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. A combination of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent grade. The maximum combination fence height measured from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet. In addition, the Department of Public Works shall refer to Ordinance 514 amending Title 27(the grading ordinance)as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill conditions. c. Where a fill slope retaining wall is proposed adjacent to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the city's grading ordinance, the city engineer shall determine the lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the grade elevation drainage requirements. 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted to preserve a quality appearance. Major structural repairs or replacement shall be required to conform to be above location and material standards. l 4 ORDINANCE NO. 1091A I 'I 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject to a conditional use permit. E. Exceptions Procedures. Requests for exceptions to the above standards may be brought before the Palm Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be approved, the architectural commission must make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this section and that the exception shall not result in damage to adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the proposed exception shall be informed of the application at least ten days prior to the architectural commission meeting. (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) If the property is within a gated community with a homeowners association with a bona fide architectural review process and the applicant obtains approval from that architectural reviewbody, the city's architectural review process may be waived. F. Measuring Wall Height. Wall height shall be measured from natural grade at the wall location. G. Landscape Plan Required. A formal landscape plan shall be required to be submitted and approved by the landscape manager prior to the approval of any application for a wall adjacent to a public street. H. Undulation of Walls. All walls adjacent to a public street shall be designed to provide undulation (offset of at least 18 inches) or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. Undulating walls may encroach up to 18 inches into required wall setbacks. I. Wall Color. Walls shall be finished in a desert color which shall be approved as part of this review process. // 5 1 MEETINL-ATE ❑ 9ONTINUED TO CITY OF PALM Dk SPI&SED TO 2NO READING ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMERT STAFF REPORT I REQUEST: Consideration of approval of a zoning ordinance amendment as it relates to wall heights, materials, colors and locations in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. SUBMITTED BY: (Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 04-04 DATE: April 14, 2005 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Background and Discussion Attachment #1 - Current Wall Provisions Draft Ordinance No. 1091A January 13, 2005 City Council Staff Report February 24, 2005 City Council Staff Report Staff Recommendation: That Ordinance No. 1091A amending Municipal Code Section 25.56.195 be passed to second reading. Background: January 13, 2005 City Council directed staff to process an ordinance amendment relating to walls in the front and street side yards of single family residences. Council was concerned that single family neighborhoods were becoming "Alamo" like as a result of people enclosing front and street side yard areas with solid walls. February 24, 2005 City Council gave first reading to Ordinance No. 1091 which addressed wall heights and locations. At second reading March 10, 2005, City Y Staff Report Case No. ZOA 04-04 Page 2 April 14, 2005 Council referred the matter back to staff to add sections to limit wall color to "desert colors" and to eliminate wood as an acceptable material in front or street side yards. Discussion: Staff has further amended the code section relating to walls in single family areas. Specifically, we have removed "wood split rail, open picket" as an approved material for fences 42 inches in height or less (it was never acceptable for walls higher). Any wood fence in the front or street side yard will need to be processed through the "exception" section of the ordinance. Secondly, we have added section "I. Wall Colors" which reads that walls shall be finished in "desert colors" which are approved at time of approval. This report should be read in concert with the February 24, 2005 report. CEQA REVIEW The proposed amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for the purpose of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. Submitted �by: Department Head: —4ew---- Steve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Z Approval: — Z AC� Homer Croy Carlos L. Opgaa IV ACM for Devel p ent Services City Manager (Wpd=Um�sr%zue01-04xc ) MEETING D.ATE� .0K05` ❑ ,TINNED IO C' U l s e`� rn CITY CLERK SFOFFIC RECEIVD t� rASSEDTO2NDRERUiPJG E�c —� 'g PALM DESERT, CA m a 2005 APR 13 AM 10: 26 - G) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF _ v PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN > AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.56.195 � AS IT RELATES TO WALL HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS IN THE R-1, R-2, R-3 AND PR ZONE DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 L i WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on th f4th I day of April, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment o t e Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.195, as described above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has adopted its resolution No.2322 recommending approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its approval as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That ZOA 04-04 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, v ORDINANCE NO. 1091A published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this day of , 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 e/ ORDINANCE NO. 1091A EXHIBIT 'A' That Municipal Code Section 25.56.195 be amended to read as follows: 25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences for single family residential lots in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. A. Purpose. The following wall and fence development standards specifying location, material and review procedures are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve consistency throughout the city. The objective is to protect and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, privacy, security, view sight lines and drainage. B. Review Procedures. All applications for fences and walls shall be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval by both the Department of Community Development and Building and Safety, unless the applicant submits photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall(s) may create. in addition, retaining walls will require approval by the Department of Public Works. C. Wall Requirement—New Residential Construction. All new residential construction shall include walls or fences of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and interior side yards. D. Development Standards. 1. Walls and fences within front and street side setbacks: a. Fences forty-two inches in height or less: i. Location: may be located on property line, but in no event less than a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. May not be located in public right-of-way. H. Material: must be decorative material including decorative blocks, stucco or wrought iron. inches in height: b. Fences greater than 42-inches in height, but less than 61 i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street, minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street comers shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200 ii. Material: decorative block, stucco, or wrought iron. C. Fences 61 inches in height to 72 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public 3 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1091A street, minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street comers shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to a maximum of seventy-two inches in height:. a. Side yard tie-in fences, interior side yard and rear yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: Materials: I. Decorative block; ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; tie ; iv. Wrought iron. right-of-way: b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public Materials: i. Block--all types; product; ii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood iii. Wrought iron. 3. Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and wrought iron fences: a. Retaining walls and combination walls located on a rear or interior side property line associated with a cut slope shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from the highest adjoining grade. Material standards in subsection (D) (1) of this section shall apply. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to a maximum of six feet in height of solid wall material as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. A combination of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent grade. The maximum combination fence height measured from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet. In addition, the Department of Public Works shall refer to Ordinance 514 amending Title 27 (the grading ordinance) as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill conditions. C. Where a fill slope retaining wall is proposed adjacent to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the city's grading ordinance, the city engineer shall determine the lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the grade elevation drainage requirements. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 1091A 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted to preserve a quality appearance. Major structural repairs or replacement shall be required to conform to be above location and material standards. 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject to a conditional use permit. E. Exceptions Procedures. Requests for exceptions to the above standards may be brought before the Palm Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be approved, the architectural commission must make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this section and that the exception shall not result in damage to adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the proposed exception shall be informed of the application at least ten days prior to the architectural commission meeting. (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) If the property is within a gated community with a homeowners association with a bona ride architectural review process and the applicant obtains approval from that architectural review body, the city's architectural review process may be waived. F. Measuring Wall Height. Wall height shall be measured from natural grade at the wall location. G. Landscape Plan Required. A formal landscape plan shall be required to be submitted and approved by the landscape manager prior to the approval of any application for a wall adjacent to a public street. H. Undulation of Walls. All walls adjacent to a public street shall be designed to provide undulation (offset of at least 18 inches) or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. Undulating walls may encroach up to 18 inches into required wall setbacks. I. Wall Color. Walls shall be finished in a desert color which shall be approved as part of this review process. 5 I CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of approval of a zoning ordinance amendment as it relates to wall heights, materials, colors and locations in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 04-04 DATE: April 14, 2005 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Background and Discussion Attachment#1 - Current Wall Provisions Draft Ordinance No. 1091A January 13, 2005 City Council Staff Report February 24, 2005 City Council Staff Report Staff Recommendation: That Ordinance No. 1091A amending Municipal Code Section 25.56.195 be passed to second reading. Background: January 13, 2005 City Council directed staff to process an ordinance amendment relating to walls in the front and street side yards of single family residences. Council was concerned that single family neighborhoods were becoming "Alamo" like as a result of people enclosing front and street side yard areas with solid walls. February 24, 2005 City Council gave first reading to Ordinance No. 1091 which addressed wall heights and locations. At second reading March 10, 2005, City Y t Staff Report Case No. ZOA 04-04 Page 2 April 14, 2005 Council referred the matter back to staff to add sections to limit wall color to "desert colors" and to eliminate wood as an acceptable material in front or street side yards. Discussion: Staff has further amended the code section relating to walls in single family areas. Specifically, we have removed "wood split rail, open picket" as an approved material for fences 42 inches in height or less (it was never acceptable for walls higher). Any wood fence in the front or street side yard will need to be processed through the "exception" section of the ordinance. Secondly, we have added section "I. Wall Colors" which reads that walls shall be finished in "desert colors" which are approved at time of approval. This report should be read in concert with the February 24, 2005 report. CEQA REVIEW The proposed amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for the purpose of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. Submitted by: Department Head: Steve Smith v Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development M Approval: -"�/ — Homer Croy Carlos L. Ortega ACM for Devel p ent Services City Manager (WWonUmisrxoa04-04.cN) . ORDINANCE NO. 1091A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.56.195 AS IT RELATES TO WALL HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS IN THE R-1, R-2, R-3 AND PR ZONE DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of April, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.195, as described above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has adopted its resolution No.2322 recommending approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its approval as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That ZOA 04-04 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, v ORDINANCE NO. 1091A published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this day of , 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1091A EXHIBIT 'A' That Municipal Code Section 25.56.195 be amended to read as follows: 25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences for single family residential lots in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. A. Purpose. The following wall and fence development standards specifying location, material and review procedures are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve consistency throughout the city. The objective is to protect and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, privacy, security, view sight lines and drainage. B. Review Procedures. All applications for fences and walls shall be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval by both the Department of Community Development and Building and Safety, unless the applicant submits photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall(s) may create. In addition, retaining walls will require approval by the Department of Public Works. C. Wall Requirement--New Residential Construction. All new residential construction shall include walls or fences of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and interior side yards. D. Development Standards. 1. Walls and fences within front and street side setbacks: a. Fences forty-two inches in height or less: i. Location: may be located on property line, but in no event less than a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. May not be located in public right-of-way. ii. Material: must be decorative material including decorative blocks, stucco or wrought iron. b. Fences greater than 42-inches in height, but less than 61 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street, minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco, or wrought iron. C. Fences 61 inches in height to 72 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public 3 ORDINANCE NO. 1091A street, minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to a maximum of seventy-two inches in height: a. Side yard tie-in fences, interior side yard and rear yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: �— Materials: i. Decorative block; ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; iii. o erapprove eca - ntwood --flre�ts iv. Wrought iron. b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way: Materials: i. Block--all types; ii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iii. Wrought iron. 3. Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and wrought iron fences: a. Retaining walls and combination walls located on a rear or interior side property line associated with a cut slope shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from the highest adjoining grade. Material standards in subsection (D) (1) of this section shall apply. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to a maximum of six feet in height of solid wall material as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. A combination of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent grade. The maximum combination fence height measured from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet. In addition, the Department of Public Works shall refer to Ordinance 514 amending Title 27 (the grading ordinance)as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill conditions. C. Where a fill slope retaining wall is proposed adjacent to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the city's grading ordinance, the city engineer shall determine the lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the grade elevation drainage requirements. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 1091A 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted to preserve a quality appearance. Major structural repairs or replacement shall be required to conform to be above location and material standards. 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject to a conditional use permit. E. Exceptions Procedures. Requests for exceptions to the above standards may be brought before the Palm Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be approved, the architectural commission must make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this section and that the exception shall not result in damage to.adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the proposed exception shall be informed of the application at least ten days prior to the architectural commission meetin . (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) Measuring Wall Height. Wall height shall be measured from natural grade at the wall location. G. Landscape Plan Required. A formal landscape plan shall be required to be submitted and approved by the landscape manager prior to the approval of any application for a wall adjacent to a public street. H. Undulation of Walls. All walls adjacent to a public street shall be designed to provide undulation (offset of at least 18 inches) or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. Undulating walls may encroach up to 18 inches into required wall setbacks. I. Wall Color. Walls shall be finished in a desert color which shall be approved as part of this review process. 11 5u�� C644NM P7 wMA � a If the property is within'a homeowners association with a bona fide architectural review process and the applicant obtains approval from that architectural review body,the city's architectural review process may be waivedq . 5 aIY 0f Pu1M D73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578 TEL: 760 346-obi i FAX: 760 341-7098 mfo@p.l.-d,sc,t.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to wall heights, materials, colors and locations in single family districts. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 14, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk March 31 , 2005 City of Palm Desert, California Page 1 of 2 Monroe, Tonya From: Flake, Debbie [DFLAKE@palmspri.gannett.com] Sent: Monday, March 28,2005 12:01 PM To: Monroe, Tonya Subject: RE: New Legal Notice for Publication Thank you, (Debbw Elake -----Original Message----- From: tmonroe@ci.palm-desert.ca.us [mailto:tmonroe@ci.palm-desert.ca.us] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 11:39 AM To: Debbie@TheDesertSun.com Subject: New Legal Notice for Publication CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to wall heights, materials, colors and locations in single family districts. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 14, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk March 31, 2005 City of Palm Desert, California Thanks, Debbie! Tonya Monroe City of Palm Desert Department of Community Development 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 (760) 346-0611, Ext. 484 03/28/2005 MEEM,?—ATE —d- 0 C NUEO TO CITY OF PALM DEE E PASSED TO 2ND READING DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I REQUEST: Consideration of approval of a zoning ordinance amendment as it relates to wall heights and locations in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 04-04 DATE: February 24, 2005 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Background and Discussion Attachment#1 - Current Wall Provisions Draft Ordinance No. 1091 Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 1, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes for ZOA 04-04 dated February 1, 2005 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2322 January 13, 2005 City Council Staff Report January 25, 2005 ARC Minutes Comments from City departments and other agencies Staff Recommendation: That Ordinance No. 1091 amending Municipal Code Section 25.56.195 be passed to second reading. Background: January 13, 2005 City Council directed staff to process an ordinance amendment relating to walls in the front and street side yards of single family residences. Council was concerned that single family neighborhoods were r Staff Report Case No. ZOA 04-04 Page 2 February 24, 2005 becoming "Alamo" like as a result of people enclosing front and street side yard areas with solid walls. Discussion: With a view to addressing the City Council concern of creating a fortress-like look from the street, staff presented a memo to the Landscape Beautification Committee (copy attached) wherein two suggested means of addressing the issue were presented as follows: A. That code be amended to limit the amount of the linear street frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron) at six (6) feet to 60%. B. Look at moving six (6) foot solid walls farther back from the street (i.e., five-foot high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb, but move six-foot high solid walls back to 20 feet from curb). The committee indicated that both suggestions had merit and should be reviewed further. Staff then reviewed the matter with Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission. ARC and Planning Commission endorsed the modifications delineated below: The proposed amendments require that a landscape plan be submitted and approved for the area between the wall and the curb, lower the maximum wall heights at current setback limits, and treat each side of a corner lot equally. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A. Current code requires that six-foot high walls be setback 15 feet from front curb and 12 feet from the street side yard curb. This was allowed to create wider rear yards on corner lots. \ Staff Report Case No. ZOA 04-04 Page 3 February 24, 2005 It is recommended that the distinction between front yards and street side yards be eliminated and that they both be treated the same. This will reduce the impact of walls on the adjacent residence which is typically its front yard. B. That the current provision allowing four-foot high walls at seven feet from curb be amended to a maximum of 42 inches in height and that it be allowed on the property line, but in no event with a setback of less than seven feet. The vast majority of city streets have 12-foot wide parkways from the curb to the property line so the majority of these walls will be 12 feet from the curb. C. Currently, walls between 48 inches and 72 inches in height may be located 15 feet from the front curb and 12 feet from the street side yard curb. It is proposed to create two categories with increased setbacks: 1 . Maximum height of a wall in a residential district is six feet. 2. Walls greater than 42 inches in height but less than 61 inches in height shall provide a minimum setback from curb of 15 feet. 3. Walls between 61 inches and 72 inches in height shall provide a minimum setback from curb of 20 feet. D. Current code prescribes acceptable material types, but no specific design criteria. It is recommended that a section be added that solid walls at a minimum provide a step or undulation or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. The undulation or step will be at least 18 inches deep. The walls where they step may encroach up to 18 inches into the wall setback area. Staff Report Case No. ZOA 04-04 Page 4 February 24, 2005 E. Current code does not require a landscape plan be submitted with a wall application. It is recommended that a section be added which requires a formal landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Landscape Manager with all wall applications. F. Current code does not specify how or where the height of walls is measured. It is recommended that a section be added requiring that wall height be measured from natural existing grade at the wall location. This will discourage the artificial raising of grade to get a higher wall. G. Current code requires that all wall applications be subject to a site visit by Community Development staff and a building inspection before approval. Given the staffing level in the department, it is difficult to achieve the "all" requirement. If it is decided to implement the "all" provision, then the cost of processing a wall permit, even those done over the counter, will increase in cost and time substantially. Currently the fee for those walls done "over the counter" is $20. A site visit to each location would result in fees of around $200 per application for over the counter approvals and higher for those processed through ARC. It is recommended that the code be amended to add language to allow the applicant to submit photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall might create. H. It is recommended that the code sections dealing with the triangular area at the intersections, "exceptions", and acceptable construction materials be retained as currently provided. Staff Report Case No. ZOA 04-04 Page 5 February 24, 2005 CONCLUSION While these proposed amendments do not specifically implement the maximum 40% solid wall and 60% maximum open fencing provisions, staff feels that with the increased setbacks, the lower permitted walls and the requirement of a landscape plan this code amendment will address the concern expressed by City Council. CEQA REVIEW The proposed amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for the purpose of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. Submitted by: Department Head: S e Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Approval- Approval: AlZvdhr Homer Croy Carlo . Ortega ACM for Develoloient Services City Manager Referred Or. No. 1091 back for reintro- duction to include modifications requesteaCITY COUNCIL ACTION: at this meeting regarding wood-fencing PROVED DENIED�9� for street-side and front yards and RE EID OTHER��4 desert color palette. 3-0 0, / dL refl ttc i�1 (Ferguson, Crites ABSENT) MEETING DATE AYES:& x, � Q old NOES: (W'pdmMmks1 =04-04.a2) ABSENT: 21100 ^^01 � ABSTAIN:�� VERIFIED BY: original on File th City Clerk' s Office i ATTACHMENT #1 CURRENT WALL PROVISIONS A. Walls four (4) feet or less in height may be located on the property line, but must be at least seven (7) feet from the curb. B. Walls between four (4) feet and six (6) feet in height may be located within 15 feet of setback to the front and 12 feet of setback on a street side yard. C. Walls four (4) feet or less in height in a front or street side yard must be a decorative material including decorative blocks, stucco, wood split rail, open picket or wrought iron. D. Walls four (4) to six (6) feet in height in front or street side yards must be decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. E. On corner lots, walls within a triangular area at the intersection of the curblines are limited to a maximum height of three (3) feet. F. ARC may approve an "exception" to the above standards if it can make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance and that the exception shall not result in damage to adjacent properties. G. Section 25.56.195 B requires that all applications for walls be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval. l ORDINANCE NO. 1091 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.56.195 AS IT RELATES TO WALL HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS IN THE R-1, R-2, R-3 AND PR ZONE DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 24th day of February, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.195, as described above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has adopted its resolution No.2322 recommending approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its approval as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That ZOA 04-04 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, I i ORDINANCE NO. 1091 published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this day of , 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ICI ORDINANCE NO. 1091 EXHIBIT `A' That Municipal Code Section 25.56.195 be amended to read as follows: 25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences for single family residential lots in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. A. Purpose. The following wall and fence development standards specifying location, material and review procedures are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve consistency throughout the city. The objective is to protect and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, privacy, security, view sight lines and drainage. B. Review Procedures. All applications for fences and walls shall be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval by both the Department of Community Development and Building and Safety, unless the applicant submits photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall(s) may create. In addition, retaining walls will require approval by the Department of Public Works. C. Wall Requirement--New Residential Construction. All new residential construction shall include walls or fences of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and interior side yards. D. Development Standards. 1. Walls and fences within front and street side setbacks: a. Fences forty-two inches in height or less: i. Location: may be located on property line, but in no event less than a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. May not be located in public right-of-way. ii. Material: must be decorative material including decorative blocks, stucco, wood split rail, open picket, or wrought iron. b. Fences greater than 42-inches in height, but less than 61 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street, minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street comers shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco, or wrought iron. C. Fences 61 inches in height to 72 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public 3 ORDINANCE NO. 1091 street, minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to a maximum of seventy-two inches in height: a. Side yard tie-in fences, interior side yard and rear yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: Materials: i. Decorative block; ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; iii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iv. Wrought iron. b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way: Materials: i. Block--all types; ii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iii. Wrought iron. 3. Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and wrought iron fences: a. Retaining walls and combination walls located on a rear or interior side property line associated with a cut slope shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from the highest adjoining grade. Material standards in subsection (D) (1) of this section shall apply. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to a maximum of six feet in height of solid wall material as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. A combination of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent grade. The maximum combination fence height measured from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet. In addition, the Department of Public Works shall refer to Ordinance 514 amending Title 27 (the grading ordinance)as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill conditions. C. Where a fill slope retaining wall is proposed adjacent to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the city's grading ordinance, the city engineer shall determine the lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the grade elevation drainage requirements. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 1091 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted to preserve a quality appearance. Major structural repairs or replacement shall be required to conform to be above location and material standards. 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject to a conditional use permit. E. Exceptions Procedures. Requests for exceptions to the above standards may be brought before the Palm Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be approved, the architectural commission must make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this section and that the exception shall not result in damage to adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the proposed exception shall be informed of the application at least ten days prior to the architectural commission meeting. (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) F. Measuring Wall Height. Wall height shall be measured from natural grade at the wall location. G. Landscape Plan Required. A formal landscape plan shall be required to be submitted and approved by the landscape manager prior to the approval of any application for a wall adjacent to a public street. H. Undulation of Walls. All walls adjacent to a public street shall be designed to provide undulation (offset of at least 18 inches) or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. Undulating walls may encroach up to 18 inches into required wall setbacks. 5 d 25'56.190' 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988; Ord. 512 § 1, 1987; Ord. Materials: 128 § 7 (part), 1976: Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975;Exhibit A i. Block—all types; § 25.32-705) ii. Redwood,cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; 25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences iii. Wrought iron. within or adjacent to R-1 3. Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and single-family zones. wrought iron fencing: A. Purpose.The following wall and fence development a. Retaining and combination walls located on a rear standards specifying location,material and review proce- or interior side property line associated with a cut slope dures are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from consistency throughout the city.The objective is to protect the highest adjoining grade.Material standards in subsection and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, (D) (1) of this section shall apply. Privacy, security, view sight lines and drainage. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior B. Review Procedures.All applications for fences and side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to 04 walls shall be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval a maximum of six feet in height of solid wall material as by both the department of community development and measured from the lowest adjacent grade.A combination 00 building and safety.In addition,retaining walls will require of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed 00 approval by the department of public works. nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent C. Wall Requirement—New Residential Construction. grade.The maximum combination fence height measured 04 All new residential construction shall include walls or fences from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and In addition,the department of public works shall refer to WV..Ainterior side yards. Ordinance 514 amending Title 27(the grading ordinance) ow D. Development Standards. as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill conditions. 00 1. Walls and fences within front and street side set- c. Where a fill slope retaining wall is proposed adjacent backs: to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the city's a. Fences under forty-eight inches in height: grading ordinance, the city engineer shall determine the i. location:may be located on property line but shall lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the be a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the ii. Material: must be decorative material including grade elevation drainage requirements. decorative blocks,stucco,wood split rail,open picket,or 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal wrought iron. maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted b. Fences forty-eight inches to seventy-two inches to preserve a quality appearance.Major structural repairs in height: or replacement shall be required to conform to the above i. Location: within front yard setback must be a location and material standards. minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb.Within street 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street minimum than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject of twelve feet from face of curb.Site inspection shall insure to a conditional use permit that visibility adjacent to driveways and street comers shall E- Exceptions Procedures. Requests for exceptions not be impaired. (Reference: code Section 2556.200) to the above standards may be brought before the Palm ii. Material:decorative block stucco,or wrought iron. Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to approved,the architectural commission must make a finding a maximum of seventy-two inches in height: that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal a. Side yard tie-in fences,interior side yard and rear interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this Materials: section and that the exception shall not result in damage i. Decorative block; to adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; proposed exception shall be informed of the application iii. Redwood,cedar or other approved decay-resistant at least ten days prior to the architectural commission wood product; meeting. (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) iv. Wrought iron. b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way: 419 (rahn rkm s-or) .: ;Y ; wv+xYdl 25.56.200 2556 200 Traffic sight obstructions structures shall be cantilevered or supported only by neces- er sary columns.A balcony or deck projecting from a higher On a comer lot,no fence,wall,hedge,structure or othend over a lower balcony or deck but obstruction except the natural issting of futurre urblines not nrsuch case be deemed roof for the lower balcony triangular area forted by a (Part)' 1975: Exhibit A § and a line connecting points on the existing or future or deck (Ord. 98 § 1 curblines a minimum of forty feet from the intersection 25.32-7.07(4)) of the projection of the curblines, shall exceed a height n stairways- of three feet above established grade at the edge of the 255 pen, unencl s d fire escaps and fireproof outside street pavement or the existing pavement or traveled way- Open, y�not more than (Ord.524§2(Exhibit A), 1987:Ord.98§ 1(part), 1975: stairways may project into any required four feet;provided,that no yard shall be reduced to less Exhibit A § 25-32-7.06) than three feet. (Ord. 98 § 1 (part). 1975: Exhibit A § 2556.210 Projections into yards. 25.32-7.07(5)) Architectural projections including eaves, awnings, 2556 260 Covered patios. louvers,and similar shading devices; sills,belt causes. Covered patios attached to a main structure may project cornices,and similar features;and flues and chimneys may not more than eight feet into a required rear Yard and five project trot more than six feet into a required from Yard rear yard or side yard on the street side of a corner lot, feet into a required side yard within thirty-fiveide feet and shall and not more than two feet into any other required Yard; rear lot line: provided, that the required Y provided,that the distance between an architectural projec- not be reduced ro less than five feet and of the rear the covered yard- lessand a side or rear property fine shall not be less than shall not cover more than fifty pert three feet (Ord_ err § 1 (part), hall Exhibit A § A covered patio not attached to a main structure is deemed an accessory structure.(Ord.98§ 1 (part), 1975:Exhibit 2532-7-07(1)) A § 25.32-7.046)) 2556.220 Oriel or bay windows 25.56.270 Underground structures. Oriel or bay windows may project not more than three Underground Structures(Pow may piqed without limit feet into a required front Yard,rear yard.or side yard on the street side of a comer lot;provided,that the aggregate into any required yards;Provided that they shall not have a height of more than two and a half feet and are not close width of oriel or bay windows shall not exceed fifty percent hne (Ord 98§ 1(part),1975: It of the length of the wall in which they are located and than five feet ro any property the width of any individual oriel or bay window shall not Exhibit A § 25.32-7.07(7)) III exceed ten feet. (Ord 98 § I (Part), 1975: Exhibit A $ 2556.280 Detached accessory buildings. 25.32- 1.07(2)) Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall be subject to the following regulations: 25.56.230 Porches and steps Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected Unroofed porches,steps,and terraces may project not A �mO Accessory buildings and or side and in any required Yard except a rear Yard' more than six feet into a required front y Y „iced Yazd shall not be subject to on the street side of a comer,lot,or to a point not closer not located in any required line; this section. than three feet to an interior side or mar property B. On lots having twelve thousand square f of lot provided,that the height including railings shall not exceed buildingsmay be located of the ground at the property line. area or more detached accessory six feet above the gradebit A § 25-32-7.07(3)) Y (Ord 98 § 1 (Pan), of Exhi in a required rear Yard upon approval of a conditional use permit by planning commission and approval by architectur- al review commission.Said detached accessory building 2556.240 Balconies over six feet above ground shall not exceed one story or fourteen feet in height and Balconies,decks,terraces, and other similar unroofed may not occupy more than twenty-five Percent of the � wired rear yard and shall beset back from the property structures at a height including railing more than six feet lines equal to its height above the level at which a yardfro must be provided may Imes a distance eq thousand square fcet of lot area ard On lots having forty project not more than six feet into a required the i, yard and five feet into any other requiredor more, the raided the height shall bone story and or rear I provided,that they shall not reduce any yard to less than eighteen feet ante equal swiss height. lick m proper- 1 five feet except on the street side of a corer lot Such ry line a distance eq 420 'F 'I1 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 1 , 2005 � I CASE NO: ZOA 04-04 /--n REQUEST: Approval of a zoning ordinanceendment as it relates to wall heights and locations in the R-1d PR zone districts. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: January 13, 2005 City Council directed staff to process an ordinance amendment relating to walls in the front and street side yards of single family residences. Council was concerned that single family neighborhoods were becoming "Alamo" like as a result of people enclosing front and street side yard areas with solid walls. II. DISCUSSION: Current code provisions (Municipal Code Sections 25.56.195 and 25.56.200, copy enclosed) control the location, height and materials of walls as follows: A. Walls four (4) feet or less in height may be located on the property line, but must be at least seven (7) feet from the curb. B. Walls between four (4) feet and six (6) feet in height may be located within 15 feet of setback to the front and 12 feet of setback on a street side yard. C. Walls four (4) feet.or less in height in a front or street side yard must be a decorative material including decorative blocks, stucco, wood split rail, open picket or wrought iron. D. Walls four (4) to six (6) feet in height in front or street side yards must be decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. E. On corner lots, walls within a triangular area at the intersection of the curblines are limited to a maximum height of three (3) feet. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 F. ARC may approve an "exception" to the above standards if it can make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance and that the exception shall not result in damage to adjacent properties. G. Section 25.56.195 B requires that all applications for walls be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval. With a view to addressing the City Council concern of creating a fortress-like look from the street, on November 30, 2004 staff presented a memo to the Landscape Beautification Committee (copy attached) wherein two suggested means of addressing the issue were presented as follows: A. That code be amended to limit the amount of the linear street frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron) at six (6) feet to 60%. B. Look at moving six (6) foot solid walls farther back from the street (i.e., five-foot high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb, but move six-foot high solid walls back to 20 feet from curb). The committee indicated that both suggestions had merit and should be reviewed further. Staff then reviewed the matter with Architectural Review Commission. ARC endorsed the modifications recommended by staff in this report. In our review of this matter other issues arose: A. How do we measure wall height when the grade rises or falls from the curb height? B. Why are walls in street side yards allowed a lesser setback than those in front yards? 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Staff reviewed the current code with a view to addressing the above questions and amending it to create less obtrusive, better designed street fronting walls. Accordingly, staff recommends the following amendments: A. Current code requires that six-foot high walls be setback 15 feet from front curb and 12 feet from the street side yard curb. This was allowed to create wider rear yards on corner lots. Staff recommends that the distinction between front yards and street side yards be eliminated and that they both be treated the same. This will reduce the impact of walls on the adjacent residence which is typically its front yard. B. That the provision allowing four-foot high walls at seven feet from curb be amended to a maximum of 42 inches in height and that it be allowed on the property line, but in no event with a setback of less than seven feet. The vast majority of city streets have 12-foot wide parkways from the curb to the property line so the majority of these walls will be 12 feet from the curb. C. Currently, walls between 48 inches. and 72 inches in height may be located 15 feet from the front curb and 12 feet from the street side yard curb. IrKw `d Staff proposes to create two categories with different setbacks: 1 . Maximum height of a wall in a residential district is six feet. 2. Walls greater than 42 inches in height but less than 61 inches in height shall provide a minimum setback from curb of 15 feet. 3. Walls between 61 inches and 72 inches in height shall provide a minimum setback from curb of 20 feet. 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 D. Current code prescribes acceptable material types, but no specific design criteria. Staff recommends a section be added that solid walls at a minimum provide a step or undulation or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. The undulation or step will be at least 18 inches deep. The walls where they step may encroach up to 18 inches into the wall setback area. E. Current code does not require a landscape plan be submitted with a wall application. Staff recommends that a section be added which requires a formal landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Landscape Manager with all wall applications. F. Current code does not specify how or where the height of walls is measured. Staff recommends that a section be added requiring that wall height be measured from natural existing grade at the wall location. This will discourage the artificial raising of grade to get a higher wall. G. Current code requires that all wall applications be subject to a site visit by Community Development staff and a building inspection before approval. Given the staffing level in the department, it is difficult to achieve the "all" requirement. If it is decided to implement the "all" provision, then the cost of processing a wall permit, even those done over the counter, will increase in cost and time substantially. Currently the fee for those walls done "over the counter" is $20. A site visit to each location would result in fees of around $200 per application. Staff recommends that the code be amended to add language to allow the applicant to submit photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall might create. 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 H. Staff recommends that the code sections dealing with the triangular area at the intersections, "exceptions", and acceptable construction materials be retained as currently provided. IV. CONCLUSION: While these proposed amendments do not specifically implement the maximum 40% solid wall and 60% maximum open fencing provisions, staff feels that with the increased setbacks and the lower permitted walls this code amendment will address the concern expressed by City Council. Specifically, it requires a landscape plan be submitted and approved, lowers the maximum height of walls at current setback limits and treats all sides of corner lots equally. V. CEQA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for the purpose of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. VI. RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Case No. ZOA 04-04. VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Municipal Code Sections 25.56.1 95 and 25.56.200 5 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 E. November 30, 2004 memo to the Landscape Beautification Committee F. January 13, 2005 City Council Minutes G. January 25, 2005 Draft ARC Minutes Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: Steve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Review nd Con Homer Cr ACM for D v opment Services /tm 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2322 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 25.56.195 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR WALLS AND FENCES FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE R-1, R-2, R-3 AND PR ZONE DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of February, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 25.56.195 relating to wall and fence standards for single family dwellings in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its recommendation as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit 'A' to amend Municipal code Section 25.56.195. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2322 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of February, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, JONATHAN NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: SAB r , Chairperson n PHILIP DRELL, ecmtaLy..-- Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2322 EXHIBIT 'A' That Municipal Code Section 25.56.195 be amended to read as follows: 25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences for single family residential lots in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. A. Purpose. The following wall and fence development standards specifying location, material and review procedures are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve consistency throughout the city. The objective is to protect and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, privacy, security, view sight lines and drainage. B. Review Procedures. All applications for fences and walls shall be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval by both the Department of Community Development and Building and Safety, unless the applicant submits photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall(s) may create. In addition, retaining walls will require approval by the Department of Public Works. C. Wall Requirement--New Residential Construction. All new residential construction shall include walls or fences of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and interior side yards. D. Development Standards. 1. Walls and fences within front and street side setbacks: a. Fences forty-two inches in height or less: i. Location: may be located on property line, but in no event less than a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. May not be located in public right-of-way. ii. Material: must be . decorative material including decorative blocks, stucco, wood split rail, open picket, or wrought iron. b. Fences greater than 42-inches in height, but less than 61 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street, minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco, or wrought iron. C. Fences 61 inches in height to 72 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2322 street, minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to a maximum of seventy-two inches in height: a. Side yard tie-in fences, interior side yard and rear yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: Materials: i. Decorative block; ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; iii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iv. Wrought iron. b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way: Materials: i. Block--all types; ii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iii. Wrought iron. 3. Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and wrought iron fences: a. Retaining walls and combination walls located on a rear or interior side property line associated with a cut slope shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from the highest adjoining grade. Material standards in subsection (D) (1) of this section shall apply. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to a maximum of six feet in height of solid wall material as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. A combination of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent grade. The maximum combination fence height measured from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet. In addition, the Department of Public Works shall refer to Ordinance 514 amending Title 27 (the grading ordinance) as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill conditions. C. Where a fill slope retaining wall is proposed adjacent to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the city's grading ordinance, the city engineer shall determine the lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the grade elevation drainage requirements. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2322 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted to preserve a quality appearance. Major structural repairs or replacement shall be required to conform to be above location and material standards. 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject to a conditional use permit. E. Exceptions Procedures. Requests for exceptions to the above standards may be brought before the Palm Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be approved, the architectural commission must make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance coded in this section and that the exception shall not result in damage to adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the proposed exception shall be informed of the application at least ten days prior to the architectural commission meeting. (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) F. Measuring Wall Height. Wall height shall be measured from natural grade at the wall location. G. Landscape Plan Required. A formal landscape plan shall be required to be submitted and approved by the landscape manager prior to the approval of any application for a wall adjacent to a public street. H. Undulation of Walls. All walls adjacent to a public street shall be designed to provide undulation (offset of at least 18 inches) or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. Undulating walls may encroach up to 18 inches into required wall setbacks. 5 SUBKOT ?. MINUTES LNAFT REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Community Development Condition No. 6 requiring parking lot restriping and installation of directional signage. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. ZOA 04-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a zoning ordinance amendment as it relates to wall heights and locations in the R-1 and PR' zone districts. Mr. Smith distributed photographs of walls he took pictures of around the city. He explained the matter before the Commission was as a result of Council direction in that the Council was concerned that certain single family neighborhoods are becoming "Alamo' like as a result of people enclosing front street side yards with solid walls. The staff report before the Commission listed the current provisions relating to walls, and then there were some proposed amendments. He wanted to add under the request where it referred to this as applying to the R-1 and PR zone districts, the R-2 and R-3 zone districts since it applies to single family lots in those zone categories as well. He reviewed the salient points of the staff report. He stated that it was a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEOA and recommended approval. He noted that this was reviewed by the Landscape Beautification Committee in late November and they gave some direction which staff took. More recently, this was before Architectural Review and staff had some additional clauses which ARC convinced staff to remove, so what the Planning Commission had before them came with ARC's recommendation. Commissioner Campbell thought that the pictures were very effective and covered all the areas in the staff recommendation as to the landscaping and insert/deepness of the wall, the steps on the wall, and the gates. She thought it was very good. In one of the photographs, Commissioner Lopez said it looked like a corner lot. Mr. Smith thought it was the nine-lot tract on Portola. Commissioner Lopez asked if it was acceptable. Mr. Smith said yes. The intent in that photo was to show what pilasters add to an otherwise flat wall. Mr. Drell indicated that on tracts, staff has been enforcing a 20-foot setback on perimeter walls for a long time because of undulating sidewalks, etc., so theoretically it should be 20 feet if it's. a perimeter 11 _ SUBJE MINUTES ` a"' � REVISION " PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 \ tract wall. Chairperson Jonathan noted that this one wasn't. It's an attractive project, but it put a lot into a small area. That wall is maybe three feet from the sidewalk. Commissioner Lopez agreed, making note that the wall looked huge. He said the only reason he asked the question was, especially in an environment like this where if they don't have some type of wall this high, they could get all the car lights in the windows. He was sure there is flexibility, but he didn't think this would be acceptable. Mr. Drell said if it wasn't 20, he wasn't sure why they didn't make it 20. Maybe because the site was so tight to begin with. Chairperson Jonathan said they may have granted an exception. They were really trying to fit in all those homes into a small area. Mr. Drell said as an example, all the homes on Portola and Hovley and all the other tracts, they've been doing 20 feet. Commissioner Finerty asked where Mr. Smith was addressing the type of material that the walls may be out of. She saw in the current code, Items C and D, where they are spelling out decorative block, stucco, wood split rail, open picket or wrought iron, but she wasn't seeing a reference in the recommendation. Mr. Smith said the recommendation is that it remain as is. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that Mr. Smith was just adding wording to the existing wording with regard to the step or undulation or pilaster. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Drell said that if they look at the exhibit, the exhibit contains the materials section. Mr. Smith said it was pages three and four of the draft resolution. Commissioner "Lopez thought it was interesting to see that the Architectural Review Board did not like wrought iron. Mr. Drell said they allow wrought iron, they didn't feel it should get any exception relative to distance. They didn't think wrought iron was inherently more attractive than a well-designed decorative block wall. So wrought iron is still an approved material, there was a discussion that perhaps wrought iron could be closer. But to some degree, wrought iron takes on a prison- like look, especially if it's close to the street. Regarding the proposed amendment, Chairperson Jonathan noted that it was proactive and not retroactive. Existing homes are grandfathered in. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked how a decorative wall would be handled that escalates up quite a bit and then comes down. He asked if there was a provision allowing that. Mr. Smith explained that it was through the exceptions process. Mr. Drell said it goes through the Architectural 12 v A Jay MINUTES REVISIU a PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Commission. They've been doing that frequently. The idea is to get architecture in those walls, especially if they are blocking the view in front of the house. Typically ARC has been fairly positive toward attempts to make walls more interesting. Referring to one of the photograph examples, Commissioner Campbell thought it put the focus on the gate itself and was like a work of art in itself. The wall was simple, but the gate was the main focus. Commissioner Tschopp didn't disagree, but he thought it looked more like a fortress America than anything else. He didn't know if there was some way to draft this do away with that. Commissioner Finerty brought up the issue of landscaping. Mr. Smith said that wall complied with code at 15 feet and the wall around the corner was the problem wall. Mr. Drell said that wall would be further back and would have landscaping in front of it. The initial response, and these general ideas were also brought to the Council when they initiated the amendment, what triggered this whole thing were comments about people walling off their whole yard and some discussion to prevent people from doing that and saying people could only wall of 40% or 60%. Some of the Councilmen who had that initial idea, when staff brought it back to them the second time, thought people should have the right to create privacy if they want it. What was more important was the setback and the landscaping in front of the wall. He suggested if the Planning Commission felt strongly that people shouldn't be able to wall off their front yard, then they could put that sort of provision back. Only 40% of the lineal frontage could be enclosed. And maybe 60% if wrought iron was used. The Council seemed to back away from that given the prevalence of whole communities that are walled in like fortresses in this town. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the proposed walls took into consideration the requirements for pools in the front yards. Mr. Smith said it would be more difficult to have pools in the front yard since pools must be enclosed by a five-foot high fence. So they will be at 15 feet. Mr. Drell said either that, or they would have to go through the exceptions process. One thing people have done with pools in their front yards is they use the excuse of the pool and then enclose their entire front yard as well. It would be part of the exceptions process and compelling reasons why they can't put a pool in their backyard or they might not be able to have the size of the pool they want. It's a balancing 13 SUBJE. MINUTES Ley IM ® REVISIui PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 of values here. He said houses are just setback a minimum of 20 feet from property line, so in most situations there is 32 feet from curb. The message is if you want a pool in the front yard, design your house further back. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it had been the experience of staff that someone living in an older neighborhood where the volume of traffic on the street corner is greater than ever anticipated that an exception is granted for a higher wall, or closer. You could see that in some areas of the city where that has happened. Mr. Smith said they've had several on Portola. Mr. Drell said they have had more enclosed front yards in the more exclusive, less traffic neighborhoods. Commissioner Finerty noted that they were allowed in Palm Desert Country Club because people back up to the golf course and they can't put a pool in their backyard because they don't have one. Mr. Drell concurred. He said the exceptions section was not set up like a variance. You don't have to prove that someone is going to die if it's granted. In the past the Council didn't pay a lot of attention to walls. The ARC has been ruling on exceptions for 15 years. So initially, Council is going to be looking at exceptions very carefully and a certain number of them might get called up and the parameter for what sort of exceptions they granted will get established through that process. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. MR. CHRISTOPHER GUNDERSON, 43-845 Tennessee Avenue in Palm Desert Country Club, stated that he was here more for information to see where this was going. His house is not just a corner lot, it's surrounded on three sides: by Fred Waring, Tennessee and Florida Avenue. The road expansion on the south wall coming in, obviously they were dealing with a high volume of traffic and then with a traffic signal proposed for Tennessee and Fred Waring. His question was how he would be affected on the Tennessee portion of the setback in this circumstance because according to the ordinance, he would only be allowed to have a four-foot wall. With the sound level coming from Fred Waring, this became an issue. He asked if he would fall into the exceptions rule or if he would have something in advance at this point. 14 F_ `�` SUBJECT T' MINUTES F ., F °° REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1. 2005 Chairperson Jonathan asked why only a four-foot wall. He asked if he was limited because of the setback ability. Mr. Gunderson stated that the current wall that-is on his property Y that will disappear with the construction of the sound wall was originally permitted and on the Tennessee side where they didn't finish the wall because of the pending construction. Where it stops is 10 feet from the Tennessee curb. Based on the ordinance he just read, he would have to be setback 15 feet, which puts it right smack dab in the middle of his yard. His concern with the passing of this ordinance is they would have a huge piece of property in front next to the curb and he would have half a yard and the only thing that would be left is the property on the Florida side. Chairperson Jonathan said if he read it correctly, he could be seven feet from curb at three and a half feet. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Drell noted that he was interested in a sound wall. Under our current code he couldn't be at ten feet either; in the current code it would be 15 feet. So he would be asking for an exception either way. He has an existing wall that isn't finished. Mr. Gunderson said the wall was under construction when they received the notice of the widening project nine years ago. Mr. Drell asked if this was the wall on Tennessee. Mr. Gunderson said that was correct. The wall is on Fred Waring and it has a 45-degree angle on the corner which ends on Tennessee and it was meant to continue to the driveway, but with the construction project and widening and a sound wall that was proposed nine years ago, he stopped construction on the wall because he didn't want to throw the money into something that was going to get torn down. Chairperson Jonathan said that if Mr. Gunderson was looking for an exception to the height limitation or to a setback for a certain height, he would go through the exception process under the proposed revised provision. Mr. Gunderson said what he proposed to the City is the sound wall is supposed to be at eight feet coming around the corner and then 15 SUBJECT MINUTES 1-i — REVISIO,u F" PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION I FEBRUARY 1 2005 having it step down to six feet over to the driveway area and then continuing on around four feet on the Florida side. Chairperson Jonathan said that in his mind, those would be the kind of circumstances that would justify an exception. Hopefully he would be able to resolve that, but he was right, what he has in mind doesn't seem to fit under the ordinance, so it would have to go through the exceptions request process. Mr. Gunderson thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Lopez thought it was a good ordinance. He lives in a community where for whatever reason someone decided to put up a wall in the front and the next 14 homes decided to do the same thing. They all look different and he was very concerned about some of the landscaping, and some have no landscaping. He thought this was taking the right steps to formalize what should be done with these walls. He moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell concurred and seconded the motion. Commissioner Finerty also concurred. Commissioner Tschopp thought it was a good attempt to address an unsightly problem at times. He believed that the exception allowance was also needed and necessary. Chairperson Jonathan concurred and remarked that one of the things he liked about the revised ordinance is that it doesn't make a decision for a homeowner that he thought was a matter of personal preference, which is simply to have a front yard wall or not and instead seeks to create some standards that meet the aesthetic requirements of the city, yet can lend themselves to the requirements of the homeowner. Fundamentally he liked that. There were no other comments and he called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. 16 v O�' .,i � � SUBIEC( REV1SiG�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1. 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2322, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 04-04. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that it was informational. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty informed Commission that the meeting was tomorrow. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was informational. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Campbell asked what items were on the agenda for the next meeting because she might be absent. Mr. Smith said there were three or four items. Commissioner Campbell asked if Sacred Heart was one of them. Mr. Smith said yes. They would also be revisiting Sares Regis. They weren't adding units, they were adding property. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any other Commissioners who knew they might be absent on the 15th. There was no one else expecting to be absent. 17 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of initiation of zoning ordinance amendment with respect to wall heights/locations in single family districts. SUBMITTED BY: . Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 04-04 DATE: January 13, 2005 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Discussion November 30, 2004 Memo December 1, 2004 Landscape Beautification Committee Minutes Staff Recommendation: That by minute motion the City Council direct staff to process a zoning ordinance amendment as it relates to perimeter wall height / locations in single family districts. Discussion: Over the past few months the City Council has indicated an interest in amending the present code as it relates to walls in the front and street side yards of single family residences. November 30, 2004 staff presented a memo to the Landscape Beautification Committee (copy attached) wherein two suggested means of addressing the issue were presented as .follows: 1 . That code be amended to limit the amount of the linear street frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron) at six feet to 60%. Staff Report Case No. ZOA 04-04 Page 2 January 13, 2005 2. Look at moving six (6) foot solid walls farther back from the street (i.e., 5-foot high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb, but move 6-foot high solid walls back to 20 feet from curb. The committee indicted that both suggestions had merit and should be reviewed further. December 13, 2004 a meeting of the City Council Subcommittee, which was appointed to address this matter, was held. At that meeting Councilman Kelly suggested to staff that the City consider limiting any solid walls in front yards to a maximum height of three feet, but to permit up to a total height of six (6) feet if the top section is wrought iron. If City Council directs staff to process this amendment, it is staff's intention to schedule it for public hearing at Planning Commission on February 1, 2005 and tentatively to schedule it for public hearing before City Council February 24, 2005. Submitted by: Department Head: Stev6 Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Approva . Approval: HcVner Croq Carlos L. Ort ACM for Deyblopment Services City Manager * Approved the recommendation and directed staff to/ ocess all future applications for CITY COUNCIL ACTION: � walls in single family districts through the APPROVED ✓ DENIED Architectural Review Commission during RECEIVED OTHER the subject Zoning. Ordinance Amendment case MEETI DATE — — review. 4-0 (Spiegel ABSENT) ASS, NOES: ABSENT' ABSTAIN• (Wpdoc Vmisrkzo N-04.=) '.VERIFIED BY: original on File w h City Cler 's 0 E. CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Landscape Beautification Committee FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 30, 2004 SUBJECT: Walls in Single Family Residential Districts Presently code permits walls in R-1 districts to enclose 100% of the front yard area where the applicant chooses to gate the driveway. Six foot high walls must be setback 15 feet and 12 feet on the street side of corner lots. Councilman Ferguson expressed concern that front yards are being totally enclosed creating a fortress-type look from the street. Suggested means to address the issue: 1. That code be amended to limit the amount of the linear frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron) at six feet to 60%. Or 2. Look at moving six (6) foot solid walls farther back from the street (i.e. 5' high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb but move 6' high solid walls back to 20' from curb. No new regulation is proposed for four foot or lower walls. The committee may wish to conduct a tour of the City to further assess the situation. SS/dq CITY OF PALM DESERT LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE MINUTES December 1, 2004 at 11:30 a.m. Public Works Conference Room I. CALL TO ORDER Spencer Knight convened the meeting at 11:39 a.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Buford Crites, Councilmember Carlos Ortega, City Manager Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Cindy Finerty, Planning Commissioner Absent: Richard S. Kelly, Councilmember Also Present: Sheila Gilligan, ACM for Community Services Kristy Kneiding, Marketing Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Tony Bagato,Assistant Planner Monica Loredo, Administrative Secretary Ill. COMMENTS - None IV. ITEMS OF BUSINESS A. DATE LABEL DESIGN Spencer K. circulated a sample of the date label for the Committee to review. He noted the font size for "Palm Desert" was increased. Sheila G. asked if the date boxes would be given out as gifts or would they be sold. Spencer responded that they are going to be gifts. A bar code will be on the label, if in the future staff decides to place the dates on the market. 1 Landscape Beautifica._-.i Committee Minutes Page 2 of 4 December 1, 2004 Sheila G. asked how many gift boxes would be distributed. Spencer K. responded several thousand and noted that the dates are being held in cold storage. Sheila G. commented that the dates could be sold at the Visitors Center for a nominal amount. Kristy K. added that it could cover some the costs for labeling and packaging. Spencer K. asked if the Committee approved the label. The committee decided the word "real" should be deleted from the label. Action: Delete the word "real' from the label. B. RILLINGTON COMMUNITIES (TT 31071) Tony B. presented .the perimeter landscaping for Gateway and Gerald Ford Drive at Rillington Communities. He stated that City Council had a discussion. of widening the landscaping area. Tony B. said that staff recommended going 50 ft. from the corner. Phil D. also mentioned the Planning Department discussed that there is 12 ft. between the curb and the sidewalk to add a tree so that there are some trees closer to the street. i Councilmember Crites asked if staff was happy with the landscaping material. Diane H. responded that staff has been working with the landscape architect on some changes. Phil D. mentioned that they are working on a palette for the appropriate trees. The landscape architect named some of the different trees that they plan on planting. The Committee also gave him some recommendations for trees. C. WALL CONSTRUCTION Residential Wall Construction Spencer K. reported that there are two issues with wall construction. First is with residential wall construction. The concern is not to have tall walls that can create a fortress or Alamo look. Phil D. distributed a copy of the current code for single-family homes and a memorandum with suggestions to address the concerns. He explained what the code presently permits. Phil D. suggested to amend the code to limit the amount of linear feet that can be enclosed by a solid six foot wall or look at moving a six foot wall farther back from the street. He last suggested for the committee to take a tour of the City to look at good and bad examples of walls. 2 G.ICdy GerkWomen BouraroWomen%Style GuidelSample MMufes W-0Ma&S Landscape Beautific( i Committee Minutes Page 3 of 4 December 1, 2004 Cindy F. asked if staff was referring to residential and homeowner associations. Phil D. replied that it was mainly for single-family homes. Cindy F. asked if landscape is required in front of the wall. Phil D. responded yes. Phil D. stated that another issue with walls is the minimum distance between columns or other decorative features, and does the City want to require a decorative feature if the wall runs more than 20 feet. The Committee agreed that columns or other decorative features should be required. It was commented that residents want six-foot walls for security and privacy. Action: Amend code to combine both suggestions for six-foot high walls. Move the distance farther back from the curb and limit the front enclosure, include some vertical relief every 60 feet. Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Wall Design Spencer K. reported that staff has been talking to some landscape architects requesting proposals for a group of conceptual ideas on how to treat capitol improvement project walls. Once staff receives some designs, staff will request the City Council to review the conceptual designs then choose three to four treatments to be used on a regular basis for projects. There also will be treatments that can be applied to existing walls. Spencer K. asked if there should be an informational item added to the December City Council agenda or wait until January. Carlos O. responded that if a member from City Council requests information, he will let Council know that the Landscape Beautification Committee discussed CIP wall designs, and a proposed policy will come back for their review. D. SAFETY ISSUE-WATER RUN-OFF Spencer K. explained the safety issue along the walkway in front of the Council Chamber adjacent to the driveway, which is caused by water run- off from the turf. He asked the Committee for direction if the landscape in front of the Council Chamber should be redone. Phil D. asked if the idea of an atrium has been completely abandoned. He commented that if an atrium is not going to be put in then the there should be new landscaping. 3 G:Clly CfeMWoreen SouoharJWorsenlStyle GuidelSamWa Minutes W.0 Marks PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2005 XV. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 30342 (SGH Partners, L.P., Applicant) (Continued from the meetings of November 18, and December 9, 2004). Mayor Crites said staffs recommendation was to continue this matter. Mayer-Pre-Tem-Fergusommoved te--continue#his-rnaffer ndefinit*.- Metien was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Spiegel ABSENT. XVI. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OF A TELEVISION COMMERCIAL AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS TO PROMOTE RECYCLING EFFORTS IN THE CITY (CONTRACT NO. C22030). Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson stated for the record that due to his representation of Waste Management, he would be abstaining on this matter, and in accordance with State law, he recused himself from the Chamber prior to any discussion or action. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1)Authorize the Mayor to enter into the subject agreement with Lawrence Company, Santa Monica, California, in an amount not to exceed $132,040 for the development and production of a television commercial, a Recycle Grab Game (on CD), a coloring book, and other recycling related materials designed to promote the City's recycling programs; 2)authorize the expenditure for airtime coverage of said commercial in an amount not to exceed $16,000; 3)appropriate funds in the amount of$148,040 from Account No. 236-4195-454-3090 for this purpose. Councilmember Benson seconded the motion, commenting that she hoped this effort would be carried into the schools, and it carried by a 3-0 vote, with Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson and Councilman Spiegel ABSENT. B. CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO WALL HEIGHTS/LOCATIONS IN 0000. SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS Case No. ZOA 04-04 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Mayor Crites stated he felt this item should be taken out of order, as it will impact City Council action on items under New Business dealing with Architectural Review Commission decisions. Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report, including the three suggested means of addressing the issue of walls in the front and street side yards of single-family residences: 1) limiting the amount of linear street 20 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2005 frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six-foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron)at six feet to 60%; 2)moving six-foot solid walls farther back from the street(i.e., five-foot high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb, but move six-foot high solid walls back to 20 feet from curb); 3) limiting solid walls in front yards to a maximum height of three feet, but allow up to a total height of six feet if the top section is wrought iron. Staff was requesting Council direction to begin the normal Zoning Ordinance Amendment process, scheduling a public hearing before the Planning Commission, with --input from the-Arehitestaral-Review Gemmissien; and-ultimately ^ public hearing before the City Council. He said staff did have an ongoing processing concern in that while Councilmembers do see notices of action from Architectural Review Commission,they do not get noticed on the items processed by staff over the counter. During this amendment process, Council may wish to direct that any fences that fall into the categories being reviewed be directed through the Architectural Review Commission. He offered to answer any questions. Upon question by Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson, Mr. Smith responded that this would apply to street side yard walls as well as front yard walls but not interior side walls, unless Council wanted staff to look at those as well. Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson noted that he had visited the properties for all three applications before Council under New Business and could see there are very bona fide privacy interests on side yards because the back yards were where homeowners wanted their privacy. He said a concern it raised was the possibility of having solid six-foot walls along entire streets instead of single-family homes, which is what the City had envisioned in its residential communities. Councilman Kelly said it was his suggestion to limit the solid walls in front yards to a maximum of three feet while permitting up to a total height of six feet if the top section of the wall is wrought iron. He said there were cases where people also need privacy in their front yards if, for instance,they have their pools in the front yard rather than the back. He said he felt there should be significant enough setback so that there can be landscaping that keeps it from looking like just a row of walls. After reconsidering his suggestion, he said his preference now was to allow walls up to six feet with setbacks to allow landscaping and have landscaping be a requirement. This way residents and the City could both have what they need, privacy for residents and ambiance in the neighborhoods. Upon question by Councilmember Benson as to whether his suggestion to allow six-foot walls in the front was only if the residents could not have their privacy in the back, Councilman Kelly responded that this was not necessarily the case. He said he agreed with the recommendation for 15-foot setbacks forfive-foot solid walls and 20- foot setbacks for six-foot solid walls was a good idea as long as homeowners who want the six-foot walls will abide by the 20-foot setback requirement and install landscaping in that setback area. 21 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2005 Councilmember Benson said she would be in favor of allowing the six-foot solid wall in front if they could not do it in the back yard. Although, she expressed concern with allowing them in the front as a rule. Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson stated there are situations where homeowners do not have back yards or they have reverse footprint houses where the front of the houses have courtyards. He said he liked the idea of having open style fencing above three feet. He noted the neighbor across the street from --------- — - doe0.ha e a reverse-footprhfiiomeandropen-style-fencing -- has landscaped the area with bougainvillea and other types of plants that grow among the wrought iron. They get the coverage they want without the big setback, and the neighborhood ends up getting a beautiful wall as opposed to just a flat wall. He said he felt this meets both the property owner's and the City's interests. He liked staffs idea about the setbacks and Councilman Kelly's idea about the three-foot wall, and he would like to see an exception process so that if someone has an irregular shaped lot or there are some compelling reasons, architecturally or otherwise, the City can deviate from that rule if needed, while the general rule would be open-style fencing. Mayor Crites stated another possible suggestion would be to have both the Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission look at this "menu"of ideas,with direction that the City Council does not want to turn the R-1 neighborhoods into series of street side walls that make every home look like a gated community. Given that as a starting spot, they could use their expertise to draft an ordinance they feel best suits the needs of homeowners and aesthetic values forthe community. In the meantime,during the subject Zoning Ordinance Amendment process, future applications for walls in single-family districts would be processed through the Architectural Review Commission. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Direct staff to process a Zoning Ordinance Amendment as it relates to perimeter wall height/locations in single family districts; 2) direct staff to process all future applications for walls in single family districts through the Architectural Review Commission during the subject Zoning Ordinance Amendment case review. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Spiegel ABSENT. 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES of the colors. Mr. Drell suggested getting rid of the stripes. Commissioner Gregory stated that a new architect should take the colors into account. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that she felt that the applicant doesn't necessarily have to come back to get as close as they can to the original drawings and if there's some other solution, then that should be their option. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request and advised the applicant to meet with staff and an architect and return with a solution to create an elevation identical to the rendering or an equivalent alternative. Motion carried 7- 0. 1, 2. Commission comments regarding amendment to wall setback �1 standards in residential districts. Mr. Smith stated that the City Council has directed staff to process an amendment for front yard walls. They want to get away from the "Alamo" look. What we're looking at doing thus far, and we're certainly open to suggestions, direction and comments from the commission is making the following changes to the current code: The 48" walls that we currently allow at 7' from curb, which happen very infrequently because we don't have a lot of 7' parkways (10' or 12' is more the norm with 90% at 12') would be lowered f rom 48" to 42". Previously, we had a category above 48"-72" and now we're going to split that and create an area between 43"-5' at the current setback of 15'. We're also going to do away with the special provision for street side yards. They'll both be treated the same. It's a problem because it takes away from backyards, however, it protects the lot next door. Mr. Drell commented that the side is really the front for the person next door. Mr. Smith stated that walls from 61"-72" would be 20' on both sides from the curb. We're looking at inserting a provision clarifying that walls are measured from natural grade at the location of the wall and also a provision requiring that every 30' in a wall we have at least a pilaster or a significant horizontal step or undulation. We are inserting a requirement that a formal landscape plan for the parkway area be provided and approved by the Landscape Managers office. Mr. Drell stated that it must include irrigation. Mr. Smith stated that this must be done before a permit could be issued for a wall. They will not get a permit without approval of a landscape plan. We're looking at a provision to give some relief to swimming pool enclosures where they choose to use an open-style wall (i.e. wrought iron) so that it needs to be 5' in height and could be 12' from the curb. Commissioner Gregory asked if it would be straight wrought iron or a combination of wrought iron next to masonry sections. Mr. Smith stated that the way they have G:Planning\Donna QuaiveAwpdoc \AgminAR050125.MIN 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES it now it would need to be open for the area between 12' and 15'. Any solid portion of the wall would have to meet the above criteria. We're putting the incentive on open systems and they'll be required to landscape in front of the fence. Mr. Drell stated that they could put a hedge in front of a fence, but it's still softer than a masonry wall. Commissioner Gregory asked about what happens when the hedging grows up 6' tall or 100' tall. Mr. Drell commented that we don't regulate the height of hedges. We had also suggested at one time, limitation on the percentage of frontage that you could enclose. You could not enclose your entire front yard. You could only enclose a certain percentage of it. Commissioner Gregory asked about the person at the corner of Ironwood and Burroweed (Stan Smith). His wall essentially incorporates the entire side and front yard. Mr. Smith stated that his front on Ironwood complies with current code. It would not meet the proposed amended code. Mr. Drell stated that there still might be council members who do not want entire front yards enclosed. I actually don't like wrought iron fencing. It creates more of a prison look. Commissioner Hanson stated that you would see all of their ugly lawn furniture. I would prefer to see a solid wall with some landscaping in front of it. Commissioner Gregory asked if we really want open fencing. 1 don't see anything neat about it. Commissioner Hanson stated that dogs rush up to the fence and bark a lot with an open fence. Since you made a provision for other fencing that has to have pilasters every so often and then we don't like the wrought iron and that doesn't have any pilasters because you can't have them at 12' so it's almost like we're getting the worst of the worst. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that we wouldn't want wrought iron without pilasters anyway. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would look better with pilasters. Mr. Smith clarified by saying that wrought iron would be acceptable with pilasters at 20'. Mr. Drell asked if the commission felt that wrought iron is a more superior surface than a masonry wall. The commission agreed that wrought iron was not a superior fence material and felt that it was actually inferior. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would be nicer to have more landscaping in front of a masonry wall. I would rather have a wrought iron fence further back and require the pilasters every so often. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he never had a problem with the "Alamo' concept. Although, on the house on Ironwood that we reviewed recently, you drive by that place and it looks like they just built it to code. It's just one huge, long, straight wall at the setback. Commissioner Gregory stated that the new rule would require some type of undulation or articulation every so often. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was even wondering about requiring a pilaster every 30' is what we want to say. Then we're going to end up with a whole bunch of walls that are just these long, straight walls and every 30' they've got their pilaster. Mr. Smith stated that G:Planning0onna Ouaiver\wpdocs\AgminWR050125.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES they're calling for some form of undulation. Commissioner Gregory asked if they could come out a foot and then go in a foot or two feet. Mr. Drell stated that basically it would go from 18'-22'. Commissioner Hanson commented that she likes that. Mr. Drell stated that in reality, in terms of functional space on the inside it's set by the closest. They part that's undulating out doesn't really help them that much. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't penalize them either. Commissioner Gregory commented that it would look better. Commissioner Lopez stated that the homeowners will then landscape the wall and hide the articulation. Desert Willow has beautiful pilasters, but you can't see them because of the landscaping. Commissioner Gregory asked about a house on Ironwood on the north side and it has the worst wall that I've ever seen. Commissioner Hanson commented that the people who are doing half of the stuff that we hate are people who don't have a clue. They hire some "yahoo" contractor to do it and they don't know. It's almost if you have 8 Y2" x 11" examples of concepts of ideas which will at least give them some information so that it helps them along and makes our process easier. A picture is worth a thousand words. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it would be like a design guideline that you would get at a country club. A wrought iron detail with a pilaster option or something to show people as good examples. Mr. Drell stated that our landscape department is in the process of putting together something that shows design typicals of doing landscaping and maybe we could add walls to that. Walls are really a part of the landscape. Commissioner Hanson stated that she felt that this would be really important and it would make everybody's job a lot easier. Commissioner Vuksic stated that a number of the commissioners deal with design guidelines all the time. They have lots of pictures of examples. It's funny that the City doesn't have something like this. I think that it would be a good idea because they really help. Commissioner Lambell asked about the decision on wrought iron. Mr. Drell stated that wrought iron won't be encouraged, therefore, we're not going to give it a break in terms of setbacks. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they can still use wrought iron, but it has to be at 20'. Commissioner Hanson stated that it also needs pilasters every so often. Mr. Drell asked if they should be every 15'. Commissioner Gregory stated that they should not give a specific number because someone might have a really cool idea and shouldn't be limited to a set number. Mr. Drell commented that we're still going to have an exception section. People can always propose interesting things, it's just that they have to be real exceptions. I think that we need a conservative minimum distance between pilasters. Are the panels 8'? Maybe they should require a pilaster every 16'. GRanning0onna Quaiverlwpdo sWgmin�AR050125.MIN 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Van Viiet asked if the wall materials are going to change. Mr. Drell stated that they still have to have a decorative finish with decorative block or decorative stucco. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about wood. Mr. Drell stated that the only wood that I would think would be acceptable would be on the 42" walls, which could be a picket fence or split rail. No dog-eared cedar plank fencing. Sometimes people come in with vinyl fencing. I try to get them to use a tan color because the white fencing looks hokey. Commissioner Hanson commented that vinyl melts. Vinyl windows melt here. Commissioner Gregory suggested making the distance for pilasters on a wrought iron fence be three times the height (i.e. if the height is 5' then the pilasters would be every 15'). Mr. Drell suggested that they have at least three pilasters. Commissioner Gregory suggested that they don't specify the amount of undulation and just say that undulation will be averaged in front and behind the wall on walls over a certain length. Mr. Drell stated that a typical lot in South Palm Desert on a 10,000 square foot lot has about 70' feet of frontage. Mr. Smith stated that a wall of more than 60' in length shall require undulation. Mr. Drell commented that what we need to say is a general statement that we make a design judgement on. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes the idea of adding architecture every 30'. It can't just be an average of 20' because somebody will find a loop-hole in that and make part of it 12'. Mr. Drell stated that there would be a minimum where if the wall were undulating they could go to 18'. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to endorse in concept the revised wall standards. Motion carried 7-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin\AR050125.MIN 20 fi h .v x i x )g l 1 f r i - r Al mm Jn1.c -rJ; 111 s � ti T w . 1-} 4. V- 'xOv' �3y 1 � . ~» . � § , �, � � � .� a : < � . �> _ � wr . / z � �^? % % a : � � 2 � � � � � � \ ` � . j } �> \� yw� ?< \ ; � � /` /< - } �- � ? «w � ©»! ; » : � zz:�: , a « « . > �yam\ ~ - � � . \\ � - \ \ � 1 / , { .: f��\ ,¥ � : � � � . � yy p Qom. < : ��G '! � _ �« a ; < \ < �. . ° � ' . , � �\ . \ ` \� \ > :� ` . >7 . 1/ 4 9, f � e �ti j a �i i i /�"� 4' L, K:� R _ �� e i 43 i, �• �3�' .� �t r ` _ f ,f y� .=� ,, Y ,$ ., _., �,; �:a . 1 t y� ` - � � � �. t E ��� � ;t ., , , � . �s. t E A a u l�k Yi4f. �i i i r � t r II ♦ .ti Ive 3f t� s t `. ._r. .. :. , ., i ; �. r':. '¢ A' v: sa. v; �. '. P� F »i J �. �� �1�� h �' `y •� � ~ V -=Y .` 1 `�� }� �` . .�Y .�. i ` _ .; �4 .._ �� � . \�� . ."© � 2� : \ ! � 2 » , / . . � ` � ` » / lk� �\ � , �• � _ ��y / . -� � . � . / ` ° U :± �� \RAC © �� . . w � » . kE«yz= « . � ? ` % . \�§% \ \� . J k- i� 4 r _ 71 r. 40 y. ti c , K l V Jn, r l - ` f a 7 t � I s i y �Y . r r i ti Al l �a PC �. t 4l1. f fr � k�fr� ttf_ rE� L v f ,tittl 212 ; ff.. ti.7y � F ' CIIV OF P 0 [ M UESi, � i _ I73-5 10 FR£D WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578 TEL: 760 346—o611 FAX; 760 341-7098 info@palm-dnne.arg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to wall heights and locations in single family dwellings in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, February 24, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk February 9, 2005 City of Palm Desert, California Page 1 of 1 Smith, Steve From: Greenwood, Mark Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:03 PM To: Smith, Steve Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment- Front Yard Walls Steve, I understand that you are processing a zoning ordinance amendment regarding front yard walls in residential areas. The code currently allows walls within T of the curbline, while the public right of way generally extends to 10'-12'behind curbline. This results innumerous requests for encroachment permits and a great deal of frustration and confusion to residents. It doesn't seem appropriate for the City to acquire right of way only to allow encroachment in some cases and not others. Of course construction of a wall in the right of way renders that part of the right of way useless to the public. It is requested that the zoning ordinance amendment include prohibition of any walls or fences within the public right of way. It would also be helpful if this section of the code referred to section 25.56.200 regarding sight distance at street intersections. Please let me know if there any questions. Mark Greenwood, P.E. City Engineer 1/21/2005 February 24, 2005 Subject: Draft Ordinance No. 1091, amending Municipal Code Section 25.66.195 as it relates to front walls in single-family neighborhoods. Upon review of the subject draft ordinance, I submit the following comments for your consideration. It is my understanding that the City Council is very concerned about single-family neighborhoods becoming "Alamo" like as a result of people enclosing front and street side yard areas with solid walls. To mitigate this particular concern, the Council is going to adapt the subject ordinance, which will even further restrict homeowner's ability to utilize a good chunk of their land. I found the Council's decision to amend the existing ordinance misguided and unnecessary as itiadverse effect on the City residents outweighs its benefit. There are good,rre� asons why single-family residents want to have walls around their properties, whichl7rhost part are necessities, not luxury. So, if the Council wants to deny these needs, there has to be justifiable reasons, and above all, residents must make those decisions. The premise for your action is the unpleasant look of walls around houses. It is very difficult to follow the rationale when the Council is doing nothing about the real culprit with respect to walls —country clubs and gated communities. In fact, this City is walled beyond comprehension, and it is too late to do anything about it. Perhaps, banning new country clubs and gated communities might help advance your goals of limiting walls. It is very ironic and hard to understand that a few walls by single-family residents are going to ma ny difference what so ever. Besides, what good a few feet of setbacks can do others enying small lot owners the benefit of using their property? Based on the abovep I strongly oppose this amendment. A Suhas Chakraborty W SnA 4334Y Gf. , 46 NO mAn rn fiz r Delde , eA 5 2 2 9 o Ln7t- 32- m Phi .af '}°60 - R°9-f 38G Mtn pQ n-n w m RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PALM DESERT, CA 2005 FEB 17 AN 10: 13 PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of the Comity aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen -= - years, and not a party to or interested in the No.1 os9 Cm of PALM DESERT above-entitled matter.1.am the principal clerk of a LEGAL NOTICE printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 COMPANY a newspaper Of general circulation, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing printed and published in the city of Palm Springs; will be held before the Palm DeseR City Council to consider an amendment to the zoning ordl- County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been nance as It relates to wan heights and locafons In adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the PR fa ilydis dwellings In the R-1, R-2, R-3 and zonSuperior Court of the County of Riverside,State of SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday. California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case February 24,2005, at 4:00 p m. in the Council Chamber.at the Palm Desert Civic Center,73-510 Number 191236; that the notice,of which the Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert. California, at annexed is.I printed co in a not smaller which time and place all Interested persons are P copy t3'P Invited to attend and be heard.Written comments than non pariel, has been published in each regular concerning all Items covered by this public hew- ing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration Is available for supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: review In the Department of Community Develop- ment at the above address between the hours of If you challlnd lenge0the proposed actions In court, February 9 you may be limited to r raising only those Issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing desce del In this notice for in written oorrespan- the p delivered to the pity,Council at,or prior to, the Public hearing.. , All in the year 2005 RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 1 certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the ' Tanya Monroe foregoing is true and correct. City of Palm Desert g g Department of Community Development I 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert;CA 95260-2570 Dated at Palm Springs,California this-10`"—day R7U60)346-0611, Ext. 484 _February 9, 2005. of---/February----,2005 Ipn ry _ ------------------------ Signature Page 1 of 2 Monroe, Tonya From: Flake, Debbie [DFLAKE@palmspri.gannett.com] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 1:14 PM To: Monroe, Tonya Subject: RE: Legal Notice for Publication Thank you, Debbie`Flake -----Original Message----- From: tmonroe@ci.palm-desert.ca.us [mailto:tmonroe@ci.palm-desert.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 12:10 PM To: Debbie@TheDesertSun.com Subject: Legal Notice for Publication Hi Debbie! And another one : ) CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to wall heights and locations in single family dwellings in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, February 24, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk February 9, 2005 City of Palm Desert, California City of Palm Desert Department of Community Development 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 (760) 346-0611, Ext. 484 02/03/2005 GIIY M � ESERI 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6i i FAX: 760 341-7o98 info@palm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to wall heights and locations in single family dwellings in the R-1 , R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, February 24, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk February 9, 2005 City of Palm Desert, California J3sl CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 1 , 2005 I CASE NO: ZOA 04-04 nn� lv REQUEST: Approval of a zoning ordinance mendment as it relates to wall heights and locations in the R-1 and PR zone districts. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: January 13, 2005 City Council directed staff to process an ordinance amendment relating to walls in the front and street side yards of single family residences. Council was concerned that single family neighborhoods were becoming "Alamo" like as a result of people enclosing front and street side yard areas with solid walls. II. DISCUSSION: Current code provisions (Municipal Code Sections 25.56.195 and 25.56.200, copy enclosed) control the location, height and materials of walls as follows: A. Walls four (4) feet or less in height may be located on the property line, but must be at least seven (7) feet from the curb. B. Walls between four (4) feet and six (6) feet in height may be located within 15 feet of setback to the front and 12 feet of setback on a street side yard. C. Walls four (4) feet.or less in height in a front or street side yard must be a decorative material including decorative blocks, stucco, wood split rail, open picket or wrought iron. D. Walls four (4) to six (6) feet in height in front or street side yards must be decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. E. On corner lots, walls within a triangular area at the intersection of the curblines are limited to a maximum height of three (3) feet. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 F. ARC may a an "exception"y rove ppto the above standards if it can make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance and that the exception shall not result in damage to adjacent properties. G. Section 25.56.195 B requires that all applications for walls be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval. With a view to addressing the City Council concern of creating a fortress-like look from the street, on November 30, 2004 staff presented a memo to the Landscape Beautification Committee (copy attached) wherein two suggested means of addressing the issue were presented as follows: A. That code be amended to limit the amount of the linear street frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron) at six (6) feet to 60%. B. Look at moving six (6) foot solid walls farther back from the street (i.e., five-foot high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb, but move six-foot high solid walls back to 20 feet from curb). The committee indicated that both suggestions had merit and should be reviewed further. Staff then reviewed the matter with Architectural Review Commission. ARC endorsed the modifications recommended by staff in this report. In our review of this matter other issues arose: A. How do we measure wall height when the grade rises or falls from the curb height? B. Why are walls in street side yards allowed a lesser setback than those in front yards? 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Staff reviewed the current code with a view to addressing the above questions and amending it to create less obtrusive, better designed street fronting walls. Accordingly, staff recommends the following amendments: A. Current code requires that six-foot high walls be setback 15 feet from front curb and 12 feet from the street side yard curb. This was allowed to create wider rear yards on corner lots. Staff recommends that the distinction between front yards and street side yards be eliminated and that they both be treated the same. This will reduce the impact of walls on the adjacent residence which is typically its front yard. B. That the provision allowing four-foot high walls at seven feet from curb be amended to a maximum of 42 inches in height and that it be allowed on the property line, but in no event with a setback of less than seven feet. The vast majority of city streets have 12-foot wide parkways from the curb to the property line so the majority of these walls will be 12 feet from the curb. C. Currently, walls between 48 inches and 72 inches in height may be located 15 feet from the front curb and 12 feet from the street side yard curb. /NC'✓pQ`�/ ' Staff proposes to create two categories with different setbacks: 1 . Maximum height of a wall in a residential district is six feet. 2. Walls greater than 42 inches in height but less than 61 inches in height shall provide a minimum setback from curb of 15 feet. 3. Walls between 61 inches and 72 inches in height shall provide a minimum setback from curb of 20 feet. 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 D. Current code prescribes acceptable material types, but no specific design criteria. Staff recommends a section be added that solid walls at a minimum provide a step or undulation or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. The undulation or step will be at least 18 inches deep. The walls where they step may encroach up to 18 inches into the wall setback area. E. Current code does not require a landscape plan be submitted with a wall application. Staff recommends that a section be added which requires a formal landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Landscape Manager with all wall applications. F. Current code does not specify how or where the height of walls is measured. Staff recommends that a section be added requiring that wall height be measured from natural existing grade at the wall location. This will discourage the artificial raising of grade to get a higher wall. G. Current code requires that all wall applications be subject to a site visit by Community Development staff and a building inspection before approval. Given the staffing level in the department, it is difficult to achieve the "all" requirement. If it is decided to implement the "all" provision, then the cost of processing a wall permit, even those done over the counter, will increase in cost and time substantially. Currently the fee for those walls done "over the counter" is $20. A site visit to each location would result in fees of around $200 per application. Staff recommends that the code be amended to add language to allow the applicant to submit photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall might create. 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 H. Staff recommends that the code sections dealing with the triangular area at the intersections, "exceptions", and acceptable construction materials be retained as currently provided. IV. CONCLUSION: While these proposed amendments do not specifically implement the maximum 40% solid wall and 60% maximum open fencing provisions, staff feels that with the increased setbacks and the lower permitted walls this code amendment will address the concern expressed by City Council. Specifically, it requires a landscape plan be submitted and approved, lowers the maximum height of walls at current setback limits and treats all sides of corner lots equally. V. CEOA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for the purpose of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. VI. RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Case No. ZOA 04-04. VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Municipal Code Sections 25.56.195 and 25.56.200 5 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 E. November 30, 2004 memo to the Landscape Beautification Committee F. January 13, 2005 City Council Minutes G. January 25, 2005 Draft ARC Minutes Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: Steve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Review nd Con Homer CrQWA ACM for D v opment Services AM 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 25.56.195 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR WALLS AND FENCES FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE R-1 AND PR ZONE DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of February, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 25.56.195 relating to wall and fence standards for single family dwellings in the R-1 and PR zone districts; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its recommendation as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit 'A' to amend Municipal code Section 25.56.195. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of February, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT `A' That Municipal Code Section 25.56.195 be amended to read as follows: 25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences for single family residential lots in the R-1 and PR zone districts. A. Purpose. The following wall and fence development standards specifying location, material and review procedures are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve consistency throughout the city. The objective is to protect and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, privacy, security, view sight lines and drainage. B. Review Procedures. All applications for fences and walls shall be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval by both the Department of Community Development and Building and Safety, unless the applicant submits photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall(s) may create. In addition, retaining walls will require approval by the Department of Public Works. C. Wall Requirement--New Residential Construction. All new residential construction shall include walls or fences of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and interior side yards. D. Development Standards. 1. Walls and fences within front and street side setbacks: a. Fences forty-two inches in height or less: i. Location: may be located on property line, but in no event less than a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. May not be located in public right-of-way. ii. Material: must be decorative material including decorative blocks, stucco, wood split rail, open picket, or wrought iron. b. Fences greater than 42-inches in height, but less than 61 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street, minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco, or wrought iron. C. Fences 61 inches in height to 72 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. street, minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to a maximum of seventy-two inches in height: a. Side yard tie-in fences, interior side yard and rear yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: Materials: i. Decorative block; ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; iii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iv. Wrought iron. b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way: Materials: i. Block--all types; ii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iii. Wrought iron. 3. Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and wrought iron fences: a. Retaining walls and combination walls located on a rear or interior side property line associated with a cut slope shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from the highest adjoining grade. Material standards in subsection (D) (1) of this section shall apply. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to a maximum of six feet in height of solid wall material as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. A combination of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent grade. The maximum combination fence height measured from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet. In addition, the Department of Public Works shall refer to Ordinance 514 amending Title 27 (the grading ordinance) as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill.conditions. C. Where a fill slope retaining wall is proposed adjacent to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the city's grading ordinance, the city engineer shall determine the lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the grade elevation drainage requirements. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted to preserve a quality appearance. Major structural repairs or replacement shall be required to conform to be above location and material standards. 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject to a conditional use permit. E. Exceptions Procedures. Requests for exceptions to the above standards may be brought before the Palm Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be approved, the architectural commission must make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this section and that the exception shall not result in damage to adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the proposed exception shall be informed of the application at least ten days prior to the architectural commission meeting. (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) F. Measuring Wall Height. Wall height shall be measured from natural grade at the wall location. G. Landscape Plan Required. A formal landscape plan shall be required to be submitted and approved by the landscape manager prior to the approval of any application for a wall adjacent to a public street. H. Undulation of Walls. All walls adjacent to a public street shall be designed to provide undulation (offset of at least 18 inches) or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. Undulating walls may encroach up to 18 inches into required wall setbacks. 5 ANIL 11Y Of Pfll (fl 0ESlr, 1 73-510 PREO WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9236o-1578 TEL: 760 346—o611 FAR: 76o 341-709S - - iofn@p.lm-dean CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to wall heights and locations in single family districts. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 1, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council ' Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else.raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or. prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary January 20, 2005 Palm Desert Planning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of initiation of zoning ordinance amendment with respect to wall heights/locations in single family districts. SUBMITTED BY: . Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 04-04 DATE: January 13, 2005 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Discussion November 30, 2004 Memo December 1, 2004 Landscape Beautification Committee Minutes Staff Recommendation: That by minute motion the City Council direct staff to process a zoning ordinance amendment as it relates to perimeter wall height / locations in single family districts. Discussion: Over the past few months the City Council has indicated an interest in amending the present code as it relates to walls in the front and street side yards of single family residences. November 30, 2004 staff presented a memo to the Landscape Beautification Committee (copy attached) wherein two suggested means of addressing the issue were presented as follows: 1 . That code be amended to limit the amount of the linear street frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron) at six feet to 60%. Staff Report Case No. ZOA 04-04 Page 2 January 13, 2005 2. Look at moving six (6) foot solid walls farther back from the street (i.e., 5-foot high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb, but move 6-foot high solid walls back to 20 feet from curb. The committee indicted that both suggestions had merit and should be reviewed further. December 13, 2004 a meeting of the City Council Subcommittee, which was appointed to address this matter, was held. At that meeting Councilman Kelly suggested to staff that the City consider limiting any solid walls in front yards to a maximum height of three feet, but to permit up to a total height of six (6) feet if the top section is wrought iron. If City Council directs staff to process this amendment, it is staff's intention to schedule it for public hearing at Planning Commission on February 1 , 2005 and tentatively to schedule it for public hearing before City Council February 24, 2005. Submitted by: Department Head: Q —� Stev6 Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Z Approvals: HcVner Croq Carlos L. Ort ACM for Dey6lopment Services City Manager * Approved the recommendation and directed CITY COUNCIL CTION: staff to/�ocess all future applications for APPROVED V DENIED walls in single family districts through the RECEIVED OTHER Architectural Review Commission during the subject Zoning Ordinance Amendment case MEETIKP DATE — — review. 4-0 (Spiegel ABSENT) AYES. yl NOES: ABSENT' ABSTAIN• (wpdomWcNsr�caN--0 co) 'JERIFIED BY: ' riginal on Fil w h City Clerk's Oft' o� Landscape Beauti,__at,_.i Committee Minutes Page 2 of 4 December 1, 2004 Sheila G. asked how many gift boxes would be distributed. Spencer K. responded several thousand and noted that the dates are being held in cold storage. Sheila G. commented that the dates could be sold at the Visitors Center for a nominal amount. Kristy K. added that it could cover some the costs for labeling and packaging. Spencer K. asked if the Committee approved the label. The committee decided the word "real' should be deleted from the label. Action: Delete the word "real' from the label. B. RILLINGTON COMMUNITIES (TT 31071) Tony B. presented.the perimeter landscaping for Gateway and Gerald Ford Drive at Rillington Communities. He stated that City Council had a discussion. of widening the landscaping area. Tony B. said that staff recommended going 50 ft. from the corner. Phil D. also mentioned the Planning Department discussed that there is 12 ft. between the curb and the sidewalk to add a tree so that there are some trees closer to the street. i Councilmember Crites asked if staff was happy with the landscaping material. Diane H. responded that staff has been working with the landscape architect on some changes. Phil D. mentioned that they are working on a palette for the appropriate trees. The landscape architect named some of the different trees that they plan on planting. The Committee also gave him some recommendations for trees. C. WALL CONSTRUCTION Residential Wall Construction Spencer K. reported that there are two issues with wall construction. First is with residential wall construction. The concern is not to have tall walls that can create a fortress or Alamo look. Phil D. distributed a copy of the current code for single-family homes and a memorandum with suggestions to address the concerns_ He explained what the code presently permits. Phil D. suggested to amend the code to limit the amount of linear feet that can be enclosed by a solid six foot wall or look at moving a six foot wall farther back from the street. He last suggested for the committee to take a tour of the City to look at good and bad examples of walls. 2 G iCrry GeMWorem Bouc arcVkreenlS(yle GuidelSample MMules W 0 Marks Landscape Beautifica i Committee Minutes Page 3 of 4 December 1, 2004 Cindy F. asked if staff was referring to residential and homeowner associations. Phil D. replied that it was mainly for single-family homes. Cindy F. asked if landscape is required in front of the wall. Phil D. responded yes. Phil D. stated that another issue with walls is the minimum distance between columns or other decorative features, and does the City want to require a decorative feature if the wall runs more than 20 feet. The Committee agreed that columns or other decorative features should be required. It was commented that residents want six-foot walls for security and privacy. Action: Amend code to combine both suggestions for six-foot high walls. Move the distance farther back from the curb and limit the front enclosure, include some vertical relief every 60 feet. Capital Improvement Proiect (CIP) Wall Design Spencer K. reported that staff has been talking to some landscape architects requesting proposals for a group of conceptual ideas on how to treat capitol improvement project walls. Once staff receives some designs, staff will request the City Council to review the conceptual designs then choose three to four treatments to be used on a regular basis for projects. There also will be treatments that can be applied to existing walls. Spencer K. asked if there should be an informational item added to the December City Council agenda or wait until January. Carlos O. responded that if a member from City Council requests information, he will let Council know that the Landscape Beautification Committee discussed CIP wall designs, and a proposed policy will come back for their review. D. SAFETY ISSUE-WATER RUN-OFF Spencer K. explained the safety issue along the walkway in front of the Council Chamber adjacent to the driveway, which is caused by water run- off from the turf. He asked the Committee for direction if the landscape in front of the Council Chamber should be redone. Phil D. asked if the idea of an atrium has been completely abandoned. He commented that if an atrium is not going to be put in then the there should be new landscaping. 3 GJCrty ClerkWoreen BoucnareWoreenlSlyle GuHel$ample Minutes W-O Marks Page 1 of 1 Smith, Steve From: Greenwood, Mark Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:03 PM To: Smith, Steve Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment- Front Yard Walls Steve, I understand that you are processing a zoning ordinance amendment regarding front yard walls in residential areas. The code currently allows walls within T of the curbline, while the public right of way generally extends to 10'-12' behind curbline. This results in numerous requests for encroachment permits and a great deal of frustration and confusion to residents. It doesn't seem appropriate for the City to acquire right of way only to allow encroachment in some cases and not others. Of course construction of a wall in the right of way renders that part of the right of way useless to the public. It is requested that the zoning ordinance amendment include prohibition of any walls or fences within the public right of way. It would also be helpful if this section of the code referred to section 25.56.200 regarding sight distance at street intersections. Please let me know if there any questions. Mark Greenwood, P.E. City Engineer 1/21/2005 25.56.190 00 00 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988; Ord. 512 § 1, 1987; Ord. Materials: No 128 § 7 (part), 1976:Ord. 98 §,1 (part), 1975;Exhibit A i. Block—all types; W § 25.32-7.05) ii. Redwood,cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; No 25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences iii. Wrought iron- within or adjacent to R-1 3- Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and single-family zones. wrought iron fencing: 00 A. Purpose.The following wall and fence development a. Retaining and combination walls located on a rear standards specifying location,material and review proce- or interior side property line associated with a cut slope 00 dures are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from 00 consistency throughout the city.The objective is to protect the highest adjoining grade.Material standards in subsection and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, (D) (1) of this section shall apply. 00 privacy, security, view sigbt lines and drainage. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior so B. Review Procedures.All applications for fences and side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to ow walls shall be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval a maximum of six feet in height of solid wall material as by both the department of community development and measured from the lowest adjacent grade.A combination y building and safety.In addition,retaining walls will require of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed 00 approval by the department of public works. nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent C. Wall Requirement—New Residential Construction. grade.The maximum combination fence height measured wo All new residential construction shall include walls or fences from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and In addition,the department of public works shall refer to interior side yards. Ordinance 514 amending Title 27(the grading ordinance) D. Development Standards. as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill conditions. 1. Walls and fences within front and street side set- c. Where a fill slope retauting wall is proposed adjacent backs: to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the city's 00 a. Fences under forty-eight inches in height: grading ordinance, the city engineer shall determine the 00 i. Location:may be located on property line but shall lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the be a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the ii. Material: must be decorative material including grade elevation drainage requirements. decorative blocks,stucco,wood split rail,open picket,or 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal wrought iron. maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted b. Fences forty-eight inches to seventy-two inches to preserve a quality appearance.Major structural repairs in height: or replacement shall be required to conform to the above i. Location: within front yard setback must be a location and material standards. minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb.Within street 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street minimum than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject of twelve feet from face of curb.Site inspection shall insure to a conditional use permit. that visibility adjacent to driveways and street comers shall E- Exceptions Procedures. Requests for exceptions not be impaired. (Reference: code Section 2556.200) to the above standards may be brought before the Palm ii. Material:decorative block stucco,or wrought iron. Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to approved,the architectural commission must make a finding a maximum of seventy-two inches in height: that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal a. Side yard tie-in fences,interior side yard and rear interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this Materials: section and that the exception shall not result in damage i. Decorative block; to adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; proposed exception shall be informed of the application iii. Redwood,cedar or other approved decay-resistant at least ten days prior to the architectural commission wood product; meeting- (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) iv. Wrought iron. b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way: 419 (Patin Dev S-01) 25.56.200 2556.200 Traffic sight obstructions structures shall be cantilevered or supported only by neces- On acomer lot,no fence,wall,hedge,structure or other sary,columns.A balcony or deck projecting from a higher obstruction,a on, except the natural grade of a site, within a story may extend over a lower balcony or deck but shall triangular area formed by the existing or future curblines not in such case be deemed a roof for the lower balcony or deck. (Ord- 98 § 1 (part). 1975: Exhibit A § and a line connecting points on the existing or future curblines a minimum of forty feet from the intersection 2532-7.07(4)) of the projection of the curblines, shall exceed a height Open stairways. of three feet above established grade at the edge of the 2556.250 street pavement or the existing pavement or traveled and fireproof outside veled way- Open, unenclosed fire escapes into any required yard not more than 1975Y: stairways may Project (Ord.524§2(Exhibit A), 1987:Ord.98§ I(Part), four feet;provided,that no yard shall be reduced to less Exhibit A § 25.32-7.06) than three feet (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.56.210 Proje ctions into yards. 25.32-7.07(5)) Architectural projections including eaves, awnings, 2556.260 Covered patios. louvers. and similar shading devices; sills,belt courses, Covered patios attached to a main structure may ProJect cornices,and similar features;and flues and chumneys may not more than eight feet into a required rear Yard and five project not more than six feet into a required front yard rear yard,or side yard on the street side of a comer lot feet into a required side Yard he re thin'-five feet of the and not more than two feet into any other required yard; rear lot line; provided, that the required side yard shall provided that the distance between an architectural ProJeC- not be reduced to less than five feet and the covered patios lion and a side or rear Property line shall not be less than shall not cover more than fifty percent of the rear yard- provided, three feet (Ord. 98 § I (Part). 1975: Exhibit A § A covered patio not attached to a main r 19s Exhibit an accessory structure-(Ord.98§1 (part), 25.32-7.07(1)) A § 25.32-7.07(6)) 2s.56.220 Oriel or bay windows and structures. Oriel or bay windows may project not more than three 25.Under Underground( without limit rear or side yard on Underground structures(pools)may Prolecr feet into a required front Yard Yard into an required yards;provided,that they shall not have the street side of a comer lot;provided.that the aggregate Y ie9 cos shall not exceed fifty Percent a height of more than two and a half feet and are not closer width of oriel or bay windows tine-(Ord-98§ 1(part),1975: of the length of the wall in which they are located and than five feet to any property Exhibit A § 25.32-7.07(7)) the width of any individual oriel or bay window shall not I;I exceed ten feet (Ord. 98 § I (pan), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.56.280 Detached accessory buildings 25.32-7.07(2)) Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by � �and this chapter shall be subject to the following regulations: 2556.230 A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected Unroofed porches,steps.and terraces may project not required yard except a rear yard.Accessory buildings ! more than six feet into a required front yard or side yard in any rat required yard shall not be subject to on the street side of a comer lot,or to a point not closer not located in any than three feet to an interior side or rear Property line; this section• g square feet of lot shall not exceed B. On lots learn twelve thousand provided,that the height including railings buildings May be located six feet above the grade of the ground at the property line. area or more detached accessory gs Y in a required rear Yard upon approval of a conditional use (Ord.98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-7.07(3)) permtit by planning commission and approval by architectu - at review commission.Said detached accessory building 2556 240 Balrnnits over six feet above shall not exceed one story or fourteen feet in height and ground. not occupymore than twenty-five percent of the l Balconies,decks,terraces,and other similar unroofed may red rear d and shall be set back from the property t i structures at a height including railing more d m�y l irequt�s�ce equal to its height I above the level at which a yard must be provided On lots having forty thousand square fee of lot area j project not more than six feet into a required front yard or rear yard and than feet into any other required Yard; or more, the maximum height shall be one story and provided,that they shall not reduce any yard to less than eighteen feet provided the structure is set back from proper- �.I I five feet except on the street side of a comer lot. Such ty line a distance equal to its height- five (palm Deurt 6-0I) i F CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Landscape Beautification Committee FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 30, 2004 SUBJECT: Walls in Single Family Residential Districts Presently code permits walls in R-1 districts to enclose 100% of the front yard area where the applicant chooses to gate the driveway. Six foot high walls must be setback 15 feet and 12 feet on the street side of corner lots. Councilman Ferguson expressed concern that front yards are being totally enclosed creating a fortress-type look from the street. Suggested means to address the issue: 1. That code be amended to limit the amount of the linear frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron) at six feet to 60%. Or 2. Look at moving six (6)foot solid walls farther back from the street (i.e. 5' high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb but move 6' high solid walls back to 20' from curb. No new regulation is proposed for four foot or lower walls. The committee may wish to conduct a tour of the City to further assess the situation. SS/dq PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2005 XV. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 30342 (SGH Partners, L.P., Applicant) (Continued from the meetings of November 18, and December 9, 2004). Mayor Crites said staffs recommendation was to continue this matter. Mayor---Pro-Tem-Ferguson-moved--to-continue-this-matter-indefinitely.--Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Spiegel ABSENT. XVI. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OF A TELEVISION COMMERCIAL AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS TO PROMOTE RECYCLING EFFORTS IN THE CITY (CONTRACT NO. C22030). Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson stated forthe record that due to his representation of Waste Management, he would be abstaining on this matter, and in accordance with State law, he recused himself from the Chamber prior to any discussion or action. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1)Authorize the Mayor to enter into the subject agreement with Lawrence Company, Santa Monica, California, in an amount not to exceed $132,040 for the development and production of a television commercial, a Recycle Grab Game (on CD), a coloring book, and other recycling related materials designed to promote the City's recycling programs; 2)authorize the expenditure for airtime coverage of said commercial in an amount not to exceed $16,000; 3)appropriate funds in the amount of$148,040 from Account No. 236-4195-454-3090 for this purpose. Councilmember Benson seconded the motion, commenting that she hoped this effort would be carried into the schools, and it carried by a 3-0 vote, with Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson and Councilman Spiegel ABSENT. B. CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO WALL HEIGHTS/LOCATIONS IN SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS Case No. ZOA 04-04 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Mayor Crites stated he felt this item should be taken out of order, as it will impact City Council action on items under New Business dealing with Architectural Review Commission decisions. Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report, including the three suggested means of addressing the issue of walls in the front and street side yards of single-family residences: 1) limiting the amount of linear street 20 I PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2005 frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six-foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron)at six feet to 60%;2)moving six-foot solid walls farther back from the street(i.e.,five-foot high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb, but move six-foot high solid walls back to 20 feet from curb); 3) limiting solid walls in front yards to a maximum height of three feet, but allow up to a total height of six feet if the top section is wrought iron. Staff was requesting Council direction to begin the normal Zoning Ordinance Amendment process, scheduling a public hearing before the Planning Commission, with input from the-Architectural-Review Commission,-and-ultimately-a-public hearing before the City Council. He said staff did have an ongoing processing concern in that while Councilmembers do see notices of action from Architectural Review Commission,they do not get noticed on the items processed by staff over the counter. During this amendment process, Council may wish to direct that any fences that fall into the categories being reviewed be directed through the Architectural Review Commission. He offered to answer any questions. Upon question by Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson, Mr. Smith responded that this would apply to street side yard walls as well as front yard walls but not interior side walls, unless Council wanted staff to look at those as well. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson noted that he had visited the properties for all three applications before Council under New Business and could see there are very bona fide privacy interests on side yards because the back yards were where homeowners wanted their privacy. He said a concern it raised was the possibility of having solid six-foot walls along entire streets instead of single-family homes, which is what the City had envisioned in its residential communities. Councilman Kelly said it was his suggestion to limit the solid walls in front yards to a maximum of three feet while permitting up to a total height of six feet if the top section of the wall is wrought iron. He said there were cases where people also need privacy in their front yards if,for instance,they have their pools in the front yard rather than the back. He said he felt there should be significant enough setback so that there can be landscaping that keeps it from looking like just a row of walls. After reconsidering his suggestion, he said his preference now was to allow walls up to six feet with setbacks to allow landscaping and have landscaping be a requirement. This way residents and the City could both have what they need, privacy for residents and ambiance in the neighborhoods. Upon question by Councilmember Benson as to whether his suggestion to allow six-foot walls in the front was only if the residents could not have their privacy in the back, Councilman Kelly responded that this was not necessarily the case. He said he agreed with the recommendation for 15-foot setbacks forfive-foot solid walls and 20- foot setbacks for six-foot solid walls was a good idea as long as homeowners who want the six-foot walls will abide by the 20-foot setback requirement and install landscaping in that setback area. 21 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2005 Councilmember Benson said she would be in favor of allowing the six-foot solid wall in front if they could not do it in the back yard. Although, she expressed concern with allowing them in the front as a rule. Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson stated there are situations where homeowners do not have back yards or they have reverse footprint houses where the front of the houses have courtyards. He said he liked the idea of having open style fencing above three feet. He noted the neighbor across the street from ------ --- -- --his-home;who-does-have-a-reversefootprint-home-and-open-style-fencing, -- has landscaped the area with bougainvillea and other types of plants that grow among the wrought iron. They get the coverage they want without the big setback, and the neighborhood ends up getting a beautiful wall as opposed to just a flat wall. He said he felt this meets both the property owner's and the City's interests. He liked staffs idea about the setbacks and Councilman Kelly's idea about the three-foot wall, and he would like to see an exception process so that if someone has an irregular shaped lot orthere are some compelling reasons, architecturally or otherwise, the City can deviate from that rule if needed, while the general rule would be open-style fencing. Mayor Crites stated another possible suggestion would be to have both the Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission look at this "menu"of ideas,with direction that the City Council does not want to turn the R-1 neighborhoods into series of street side walls that make every home look like a gated community. Given that as a starting spot, they could use their expertise to draft an ordinance they feel best suits the needs of homeowners and aesthetic values for the community. In the meantime,during the subject Zoning Ordinance Amendment process, future applications for walls in single-family districts would be processed through the Architectural Review Commission. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Direct staff to process a Zoning Ordinance Amendment as it relates to perimeter wall height/locations in single family districts; 2) direct staff to process all future applications for walls in single family districts through the Architectural Review Commission during the subject Zoning Ordinance Amendment case review. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Spiegel ABSENT. 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION .' 13�ECTT� JANUARY 25, 2005 U11 tVISIpN MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of elevations for model homes, site plan and landscape plans. LOCATION: 37-970 Shephard Lane ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner — — -- -- -- -- -Oppenheim for-preliminary approval, subject to-approval by the - - - - Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: SA 04-115 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) SANTA CURSON INVESTMENTS, 42-185 Washington Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:Approval of proposed solutions for issues regarding wall, business signage, and exterior colors for Hand Car Wash of Palm Desert. LOCATION: 42-185 Washington Street ZONE: P.C. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request and advised the applicant to meet with staff and an architect and return with a solution to create an elevation identical to the rendering or an equivalent alternative. Motion carried 7- 0. 2. Commission comments regarding amendment to wall setback standards in residential districts. Mr. Smith stated that the City Council has directed staff to process an amendment for front yard walls. They want to get away from the "Alamo" look. What we're looking at doing thusfar, and we're certainly open to suggestions, direction and comments from the commission. The 48" walls that we currently allow at 7' from curb, which happen very infrequently because we don't have a lot of 7' parkways (10' or 12' is G:PlanningTonna Ouaiverlwpdocs\Agmin1AR050125.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION & A G y'Y = r ' = JANUARY 25, 2005 y �, ?its%IitJ MINUTES more the norm with 90% at 12'). We're going to lower those walls from 48" to 42". Previously, we had a category above 48"-72" and now we're going to split that and create an area between 43"-5' at the current setback of 15'. We're also going to do away with the special provision for street side yards. They'll both be treated the same. It's a problem because it takes away from backyards, however, it protects the lot next door. Mr. Drell commented that the side is really the front for the person next door. Mr. Smith stated that walls from 61"-72" - would-be 20'-on-both-sides-from-the-curb.We're-looking at-inserting-a — provision clarifying that walls are measured from natural grade at the location of the wall and also a provision requiring that every 30' in a wall we have at least a pilaster or a significant horizontal step or undulation. We are inserting a requirement that a formal landscape plan for the parkway area be provided and approved by the Landscape Manager's office. Mr. Drell stated that it must include irrigation. Mr. Smith stated that this must be done before a permit could be issued for a wall. They will not get a permit without approval of a landscape plan. We're looking at a provision to give some relief to swimming pool enclosures where they choose to use an open-style wall (i.e. wrought iron) so that it needs to be 5' in height and could be 12' from the curb. Commissioner Gregory asked if it would be straight wrought iron or a combination of wrought iron next to masonry sections. Mr. Smith stated that the way they have it now it would need to be open for the area between 12' and 15'. Any solid portion of the wall would have to meet the above criteria. We're putting the incentive on open systems and they'll be required to landscape in front of the fence. Mr. Drell stated that they could put a hedge in front of a fence, but it's still softer than a masonry wall. Commissioner Gregory asked about what happens when the hedging grows up 6' tall or 100' tall. Mr. Drell commented that we don't regulate the height of hedges. We had also suggested at one time, limitation on the percentage of frontage that you could enclose. You could not enclose your entire front yard. You could only enclose a certain percentage of it. Commissioner Gregory asked about the person at the corner of Ironwood and Burroweed (Stan Smith). His wall essentially incorporates the entire side and front yard. Mr. Smith stated that his front on Ironwood complies with current code. It would not meet the proposed amended code. Mr. Drell stated that there still might be council members who do not want entire front yards enclosed. I actually don't like wrought iron fencing. It creates more of a prison look. Commissioner Hanson stated that you would see all of their ugly lawn furniture. I would prefer to see a solid wall with some landscaping in front of it. Commissioner Gregory asked if we really want open fencing. I don't see anything neat about it. Commissioner GPlanning0onna Quaivehwpdocs\AgminVAR050125.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION `'� ~' REVISION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES Hanson stated that dogs rush up to the fence and bark a lot with an open fence. Since you made a provision for other fencing that has to have pilasters every so often and then we don't like the wrought iron and that doesn't have any pilasters because you can't have them at 12' so it's almost like we're getting the worst of the worst. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that we wouldn't want wrought iron without pilasters anyway. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would look better with pilasters. Mr. Smith clarified by saying that wrought iron — — -- — would -be acceptable with pilasters-at 20`. -Mr.- Drell -asked-if the — commission felt that wrought iron is a more superior surface than a masonry wall. The commission agreed that wrought iron was not a superior fence material and felt that it was actually inferior. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would be nicer to have more landscaping in front of a masonry wall. I would rather have a wrought iron fence further back and require the pilasters every so often. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he never had a problem with the "Alamo" concept. Although, on the house on Ironwood that we reviewed recently, you drive by that place and it looks like they just built it to code. It's just one huge, long, straight wall at the setback. Commissioner Gregory stated that the new rule would require some type of undulation or articulation every so often. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was even wondering about requiring a pilaster every 30' is what we want to say. Then we're going to end up with a whole bunch of walls that are just these long, straight walls and every 30' they've got their pilaster. Mr. Smith stated that they're calling for some form of undulation. Commissioner Gregory asked if they could come out a foot and then go in a foot or two feet. Mr. Drell stated that basically it would go from 18'-22'. Commissioner Hanson commented that she likes that. Mr. Drell stated that in reality, in terms of functional space on the inside it's set by the closest. The} part that's undulating _1 out doesn't really help them that much. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't penalize them either. Commissioner Gregory commented that it would look better. Commissioner Lopez stated that the homeowners will then landscape the wall and hide the articulation. Desert Willow has beautiful pilasters, but you can't see them because of the landscaping. Commissioner Gregory asked about a house on Ironwood on the north side and it has the worst wall that I've ever seen. Commissioner Hanson commented that the people who are doing half of the stuff that we hate are people who don't have a clue. They hire some "yahoo' contractor to do it and they don't know. It's almost if you have 8 1/2' x 11" examples of concepts of ideas which will at least give them some information so that it helps them along and makes our process easier. A picture is worth a thousand words. Commissioner G:PlanningOonna Quaiver\wpdocs'Agmin\AR050125.MIN 8 SU3Jr :_GT r' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ^ r `J "'' REVISION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES out doesn't really help them that much. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't penalize them either. Commissioner Gregory commented that it would look better. Commissioner Lopez stated that the homeowners will then landscape the wall and hide the articulation. Desert Willow has beautiful pilasters, but you can't see them because of the landscaping. Commissioner Gregory asked about a house on Ironwood on the north side and it has the worst wall that I've ever seen. Commissioner Hanson commented that the people who are doing half --of-the stuff-that-we-hate-are-people-who-don't-have-a clue—T-hey-hire some "yahoo" contractor to do it and they don't know. It's almost if you have 8 'Y2" x 11" examples of concepts of ideas which will at least give them some information so that it helps them along and makes our process easier. A picture is worth a thousand words. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it would be like a design guideline that you would get at a country club. A wrought iron detail with a pilaster option or something to show people as good examples. Mr. Drell stated that our landscape department is in the process of putting together something that shows design typicals of doing landscaping and maybe we could add walls to that. Walls are really a part of the landscape. Commissioner Hanson stated that she felt that this would be really important and it would make everybody's job a lot easier. Commissioner Vuksic stated that a number of the commissioners deal with design guidelines all the time. They have lots of pictures of examples. It's funny that the City doesn't have something like this. I think that it would be a good idea because they really help. Commissioner Lambel asked about the decision on wrought iron. Mr. Drell stated that wrought iron won't be encouraged, therefore, we're not going to give it a break in terms of setbacks. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they can still use wrought iron, but it has to be at 20'. Commissioner Hanson stated that it also needs pilasters every so often. Mr. Drell asked if they should be every 15'. Commissioner Gregory stated that they should not give a specific number because someone might have a really cool idea and shouldn't be limited to a set number. Mr. Drell commented that we're still going to have an exception section. People can always propose interesting things, it's just that they have to be real exceptions. I think that we need a conservative minimum distance between pilasters. Are the panels 8'? Maybe they should require a pilaster every 16'. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the wall materials are going to change. Mr. Drell stated that they still have to have a decorative finish with decorative block or decorative stucco. Commissioner Van Vliet G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\P.gmin\AR050125.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES length. Mr. Drell stated that a typical lot in South Palm Desert on a 10,000 square foot lot has about 70' feet of frontage. Mr. Smith stated that a wall of more than 60' in length shall require undulation. Mr. Drell commented that what we need to say is a general statement that we make a design judgement on. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes the idea of adding architecture every 30'. It can't just be an average of 20' because somebody will find a loop-hole in that and make part of it 12'. Mr. Drell stated that there would be a minimum where if-the wall were-undulating-they-could go to M'. — - — — — Action: Commissioner Lambel moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to endorse in concept the revised wall standards. Motion carried 7-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning0onna Quaiverlwpdoc \Agmin�AR050125.MIN 10 CIIV 01 P111M 01 1 P T 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6u FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-deserr.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: February 2, 2005 City of Palm Desert Re: ZOA 04-04 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its regular meeting of February 1 , 2005: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2322. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. TaA-AOlip Drell, Se retary �Y+" m Desert PI nning Commission /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal C,�nenErwnnnrvrw PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2322 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 25.56.195 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR WALLS AND FENCES FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE R-1, R-2, R-3 AND PR ZONE DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of February, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 25.56.195 relating to wall and fence standards for single family dwellings in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its recommendation as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit 'A' to amend Municipal code Section 25.56.195. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2322 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of February, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, JONATHAN NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: SAB A ,J Chairperson nn PHILIP DRELL, equtagjX ,— Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2322 EXHIBIT `A' That Municipal Code Section 25.56.195 be amended to read as follows: 25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences for single family residential lots in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and PR zone districts. A. Purpose. The following wall and fence development standards specifying location, material and review procedures are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve consistency throughout the city. The objective is to protect and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, privacy, security, view sight lines and drainage. B. Review Procedures. All applications for fences and walls shall be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval by both the Department of Community Development and Building and Safety, unless the applicant submits photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall(s) may create. In addition, retaining walls will require approval by the Department of Public Works. C. Wall Requirement--New Residential Construction. All new residential construction shall include walls or fences of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and interior side yards. D. Development Standards. 1. Walls and fences within front and street side setbacks: a. Fences forty-two inches in height or less: i. Location: may be located on property line, but in no event less than a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. May not be located in public right-of-way. ii. Material: must be decorative material including decorative blocks, stucco, wood split rail, open picket, or wrought iron. b. Fences greater than 42-inches in height, but less than 61 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street, minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco, or wrought iron. C. Fences 61 inches in height to 72 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public 3 a , PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2322 street, minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to a maximum of seventy-two inches in height: a. Side yard tie-in fences, interior side yard and rear yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: Materials: i. Decorative block; ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; iii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iv. Wrought iron. b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way: Materials: i. Block--all types; ii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iii. Wrought iron. 3. Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and wrought iron fences: a. Retaining walls and combination walls located on a rear or interior side property line associated with a cut slope shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from the highest adjoining grade. Material standards in subsection (D) (1) of this section shall apply. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to a maximum of six feet in height of solid wall material as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. A combination of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent grade. The maximum combination fence height measured from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet. In addition, the Department of Public Works shall refer to Ordinance 514 amending Title 27 (the grading ordinance) as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill conditions. C. Where a fill slope retaining wall is proposed adjacent to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the city's grading ordinance, the city engineer shall determine the lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the grade elevation drainage requirements. 4 i• PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2322 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted to preserve a quality appearance. Major structural repairs or replacement shall be required to conform to be above location and material standards. 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject to a conditional use permit. E. Exceptions Procedures. Requests for exceptions to the above standards may be brought before the Palm Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be approved, the architectural commission must make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this section and that the exception shall not result in damage to adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the proposed exception shall be informed of the application at least ten days prior to the architectural commission meeting. (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) F. Measuring Wall Height. Wall height shall be measured from natural grade at the wall location. G. Landscape Plan Required. A formal landscape plan shall be required to be submitted and approved by the landscape manager prior to the approval of any application for a wall adjacent to a public street. H. Undulation of Walls. All walls adjacent to a public street shall be designed to provide undulation (offset of at least 18 inches) or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. Undulating walls may encroach up to 18 inches into required wall setbacks. 11 5 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 . 2005 Community Development Condition No. 6 requiring parking lot restriping and installation of directional signage. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. ZOA 04-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a zoning ordinance amendment as it relates to wall heights and locations in the R-1 and PR zone districts. Mr. Smith distributed photographs of walls he took pictures of around the city. He explained the matter before the Commission was as a result of Council direction in that the Council was concerned that certain single family neighborhoods are becoming "Alamo" like as a result of people enclosing front street side yards with solid walls. The staff report before the Commission listed the current provisions relating to walls, and then there were some proposed amendments. He wanted to add under the request where it referred to this as applying to the R-1 and PR zone districts, the R-2 and R-3 zone districts since it applies to single family lots in those zone categories as well. He reviewed the salient points of the staff report. He stated that it was a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA and recommended approval. He noted that this was reviewed by the Landscape Beautification Committee in late November and they gave some direction which staff took. More recently, this was before Architectural Review and staff had some additional clauses which ARC convinced staff to remove, so what the Planning Commission had before them came with ARC's recommendation. Commissioner Campbell thought that the pictures were very effective and covered all the areas in the staff recommendation as to the landscaping and insert/deepness of the wall, the steps on the wall, and the gates. She thought it was very good. In one of the photographs, Commissioner Lopez said it looked like a corner lot. Mr. Smith thought it was the nine-lot tract on Portola. Commissioner Lopez asked if it was acceptable. Mr. Smith said yes. The intent in that photo was to show what pilasters add to an otherwise flat wall. Mr. Drell indicated that on tracts, staff has been enforcing a 20-foot setback on perimeter walls for a long time because of undulating sidewalks, etc., so theoretically it should be 20 feet if it's a perimeter 11 MINUTES ' PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1. 2005 tract wall. Chairperson Jonathan noted that this one wasn't. It's an attractive project, but it put a lot into a small area. That wall is maybe three feet from the sidewalk. Commissioner Lopez agreed, making note that the wall looked huge. He said the only reason he asked the question was, especially in an environment like this where if they don't have some type of wall this high, they could get all the car lights in the windows. He was sure there is flexibility, but he didn't think this would be acceptable. Mr. Drell said if it wasn't 20, he wasn't sure why they didn't make it 20. Maybe because the site was so tight to begin with. Chairperson Jonathan said they may have granted an exception. They were really trying to fit in all those homes into a small area. Mr. Drell said as an example, all the homes on Portola and Hovley and all the other tracts, they've been doing 20 feet. Commissioner Finerty asked where Mr. Smith was addressing the type of material that the walls may be out of. She saw in the current code, Items C and D, where they are spelling out decorative block, stucco, wood split rail, open picket or wrought iron, but she wasn't seeing a reference in the recommendation. Mr. Smith said the recommendation is that it remain as is. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that Mr. Smith was just adding wording to the existing wording with regard to the step or undulation or pilaster. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Drell said that if they look at the exhibit, the exhibit contains the materials section. Mr. Smith said it was pages three and four of the draft resolution. Commissioner Lopez thought it was interesting to see that the Architectural Review Board did not like wrought iron. Mr. Drell said they allow wrought iron, they didn't feel it should get any exception relative to distance. They didn't think wrought iron was inherently more attractive than a well-designed decorative block wall. So wrought iron is still an approved material, there was a discussion that perhaps wrought iron could be closer. But to some degree, wrought iron takes on a prison- like look, especially if it's close to the street. Regarding the proposed amendment, Chairperson Jonathan noted that it was proactive and not retroactive. Existing homes are grandfathered in. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked how a decorative wall would be handled that escalates up quite a bit and then comes down. He asked if there was a provision allowing that. Mr. Smith explained that it was through the exceptions process. Mr. Drell said it goes through the Architectural 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 . 2005 Commission. They've been doing that frequently. The idea is to get architecture in those walls, especially if they are blocking the view in front of the house. Typically ARC has been fairly positive toward attempts to make walls more interesting. Referring to one of the photograph examples, Commissioner Campbell thought it put the focus on the gate itself and was like a work of art in itself. The wall was simple, but the gate was the main focus. Commissioner Tschopp didn't disagree, but he thought it looked more like a fortress America than anything else. He didn't know if there was some way to draft this do away with that. Commissioner Finerty brought up the issue of landscaping. Mr. Smith said that wall complied with code at 15 feet and the wall around the corner was the problem wall. Mr. Drell said that wall would be further back and would have landscaping in front of it. The initial response, and these general ideas were also brought to the Council when they initiated the amendment, what triggered this whole thing were comments about people walling off their whole yard and some discussion to prevent people from doing that and saying people could only wall of 40% or 60%. Some of the Councilmen who had that initial idea, when staff brought it back to them the second time, thought people should have the right to create privacy if they want it. What was more important was the setback and the landscaping in front of the wall. He suggested if the Planning Commission felt strongly that people shouldn't be able to wall off their front yard, then they could put that sort of provision back. Only 40% of the lineal frontage could be enclosed. And maybe 60% if wrought iron was used. The Council seemed to back away from that given the prevalence of whole communities that are walled in like fortresses in this town. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the proposed walls took into consideration the requirements for pools in the front yards. Mr. Smith said it would be more difficult to have pools in the front yard since pools must be enclosed by a five-foot high fence. So they will be at 15 feet. Mr. Drell said either that, or they would have to go through the exceptions process. One thing people have done with pools in their front yards is they use the excuse of the pool and then enclose their entire front yard as well. It would be part of the exceptions process and compelling reasons why they can't put a pool in their backyard or they might not be able to have the size of the pool they want. It's a balancing 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 of values here. He said houses are just setback a minimum of 20 feet from property line, so in most situations there is 32 feet from curb. The message is if you want a pool in the front yard, design your house further back. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it had been the experience of staff that someone living in an older neighborhood where the volume of traffic on the street corner is greater than ever anticipated that an exception is granted for a higher wall, or closer. You could see that in some areas of the city where that has happened. Mr. Smith said they've had several on Portola. Mr. Drell said they have had more enclosed front yards in the more exclusive, less traffic neighborhoods. Commissioner Finerty noted that they were allowed in Palm Desert Country Club because people back up to the golf course and they can't put a pool in their backyard because they don't have one. Mr. Drell concurred. He said the exceptions section was not set up like a variance. You don't have to prove that someone is going to die if it's granted. In the past the Council didn't pay a lot of attention to walls. The ARC has been ruling on exceptions for 15 years. So initially, Council is going to be looking at exceptions very carefully and a certain number of them might get called up and the parameter for what sort of exceptions they granted will get established through that process. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. MR. CHRISTOPHER GUNDERSON, 43-845 Tennessee Avenue in Palm Desert Country Club, stated that he was here more for information to see where this was going. His house is not just a corner lot, it's surrounded on three sides: by Fred Waring, Tennessee and Florida Avenue. The road expansion on the south wall coming in, obviously they were dealing with a high volume of traffic and then with a traffic signal proposed for Tennessee and Fred Waring. His question was how he would be affected on the Tennessee portion of the setback in this circumstance because according to the ordinance, he would only be allowed to have a four-foot wall. With the sound level coming from Fred Waring, this became an issue. He asked if he would fall into the exceptions rule or if he would have something in advance at this point. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Chairperson Jonathan asked why only a four-foot wall. He asked if he was limited because of the setback ability. Mr. Gunderson stated that the current wall that is on his property that will disappear with the construction of the sound wall was originally permitted and on the Tennessee side where they didn't finish the wall because of the pending construction. Where it stops is 10 feet from the Tennessee curb. Based on the ordinance he just read, he would have to be setback 15 feet, which puts it right smack dab in the middle of his yard. His concern with the passing of this ordinance is they would have a huge piece of property in front next to the curb and he would have half a yard and the only thing that would be left is the property on the Florida side. Chairperson Jonathan said if he read it correctly, he could be seven feet from curb at three and a half feet. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Drell noted that he was interested in a sound wall. Under our current code he couldn't be at ten feet either; in the current code it would be 15 feet. So he would be asking for an exception either way. He has an existing wall that isn't finished. Mr. Gunderson said the wall was under construction when they received the notice of the widening project nine years ago. Mr. Drell asked if this was the wall on Tennessee. Mr. Gunderson said that was correct. The wall is on Fred Waring and it has a 45-degree angle on the corner which ends on Tennessee and it was meant to continue to the driveway, but with the construction project and widening and a sound wall that was proposed nine years ago, he stopped construction on the wall because he didn't want to throw the money into something that was going to get torn down. Chairperson Jonathan said that if Mr. Gunderson was looking for an exception to the height limitation or to a setback for a certain height, he would go through the exception process under the proposed revised provision. Mr. Gunderson said what he proposed to the City is the sound wall is supposed to be at eight feet coming around the corner and then 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 having it step down to six feet over to the driveway area and then continuing on around four feet on the Florida side. Chairperson Jonathan said that in his mind, those would be the kind of circumstances that would justify an exception. Hopefully he would be able to resolve that, but he was right, what he has in mind doesn't seem to fit under the ordinance, so it would have to go through the exceptions request process. Mr. Gunderson thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Lopez thought it was a good ordinance. He lives in a community where for whatever reason someone decided to put up a wall in the front and the next 14 homes decided to do the same thing. They all look different and he was very concerned about some of the landscaping, and some have no landscaping. He thought this was taking the right steps to formalize what should be done with these walls. He moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell concurred and seconded the motion. Commissioner Finerty also concurred. Commissioner Tschopp thought it was a good attempt to address an unsightly problem at times. He believed that the exception allowance was also needed and necessary. Chairperson Jonathan concurred and remarked that one of the things he liked about the revised ordinance is that it doesn't make a decision for a homeowner that he thought was a matter of personal preference, which is simply to have a front yard wall or not and instead seeks to create some standards that meet the aesthetic requirements of the city, yet can lend themselves to the requirements of the homeowner. Fundamentally he liked that. There were no other comments and he called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2322, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 04-04. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that it was informational. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty informed Commission that the meeting was tomorrow. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was informational. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Campbell asked what items were on the agenda for the next meeting because she might be absent. Mr. Smith said there were three or four items. Commissioner Campbell asked if Sacred Heart was one of them. Mr. Smith said yes. They would also be revisiting Sares Regis. They weren't adding units, they were adding property. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any other Commissioners who knew they might be absent on the 15th. There was no one else expecting to be absent. 17 �0 w z Ln '= o E d N O V O N Q a 0 c o a . N_ 'a N o ' Z � E (D O N nUU =a rn m N •c c o c �. L N a) as E r i.� s �pM r fi b � 'T • ` 1 �� +YS_ �� y L �� � p., x x. Y �� '7 �' } � i t � , ,�`,� ,:., :�. F �. :✓ }� � �,,[[^n f ' � to�� A 5 � R � t a •� �H�, . .:,,, ,� �`�� � ,. � �k1 ������� �;. ""� ?F.: �.�: �1 "�'. �_ r1: � `i � ..iR s r' �. \ V� _ _ '� '',/ ���� /.' . V � 1 �. 1' '� 1 1 -c.. �. : 1 3� . e j�a ->p 1 Y �,:x � �` _� ;�,' �. I t " s' I a r" . I- � t r 4 - i - I ' r i I ,Sty: Z� 4 ryL:.l f3* I e z \ r SI y' :' 5.. +� ♦.. .�..- 1 r _._ M >?�y._. s � 1 --: ,_^ f• 1� r +'-'/'� i f C q L �: A .t � ._ | � : � � } . � � , k - �, Vial ■ ] . � � ,r _ , : -"� -�,. : �. ,. ��__ �� 1_ �_ �_ { �� — l L 1 . + 4 .?r'L.- .- -, i _ Ii � � 'Y�i�• �� _. �� ^' �� �.Y 1 FTer�+r^_�. ._. �� c. _ �...i. ��,� - „- / . �: �. _�\ A, - I x ,. �. � � f . i0� �� � .� • - � .:, w , . ,, ..� a ;;� '..,..�. �'Y .� s r•.�' 1)�I ..; �x13 ��_Y i� � k F, w � + �q, .. ��� u.� Y .'� •� 1 i ��� ��I r .i ;,a '_ w. +K ,� /1 ' r r ` 1 + �,� ��^ � ■ t � � • s i. _ _ - F #� j ;�, r � FFv f_ ;� S � . � ,„ � A�w _ � yr; 1 - ' S ♦4�: k� c, s ,;r ' b , IJ ♦Pdl� �J, 1 M�J 1) u h d, 4 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 1 , 2005 CASE NO: ZOA 04-04 REQUEST: Approval of a zoning ordinance amendment as it relates to wall heights and locations in the R-1 and PR zone districts. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: January 13, 2005 City Council directed staff to process an ordinance amendment relating to walls in the front and street side yards of single family residences. Council was concerned that single family neighborhoods were becoming "Alamo" like as a result of people enclosing front and street side yard areas with solid walls. II. DISCUSSION: Current code provisions (Municipal Code Sections 25.56.195 and 25.56.200, copy enclosed) control the location, height and materials of walls as follows: A. Walls four (4) feet or less in height may be located on the property line, but must be at least seven (7) feet from the curb. B. Walls between four (4) feet and six (6) feet in height may be located within 15 feet of setback to the front and 12 feet of setback on a street side yard. C. Walls four (4) feet or less in height in a front or street side yard must be a decorative material including decorative blocks, stucco, wood split rail, open picket or wrought iron. D. Walls four (4) to six (6) feet in height in front or street side yards must be decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. E. On corner lots, walls within a triangular area at the intersection of the curblines are limited to a maximum height of three (3) feet. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 F. ARC may approve an "exception" to the above standards if it can make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance and that the exception shall not result in damage to adjacent properties. G. Section 25.56.195 B requires that all applications for walls be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval. With a view to addressing the City Council concern of creating a fortress-like look from the street, on November 30, 2004 staff presented a memo to the Landscape Beautification Committee (copy attached) wherein two suggested means of addressing the issue were presented as follows: A. That code be amended to limit the amount of the linear street frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron) at six (6) feet to 60%. B. Look at moving six (6) foot solid walls farther back from the street (i.e., five-foot high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb, but move six-foot high solid walls back to 20 feet from curb). The committee indicated that both suggestions had merit and should be reviewed further. Staff then reviewed the matter with Architectural Review Commission. ARC endorsed the modifications recommended by staff in this report. In our review of this matter other issues arose: A. How do we measure wall height when the grade rises or falls from the curb height? B. Why are walls in street side yards allowed a lesser setback than those in front yards? 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Staff reviewed the current code with a view to addressing the above questions and amending it to create less obtrusive, better designed street fronting walls. Accordingly, staff recommends the following amendments: A. Current code requires that six-foot high walls be setback 15 feet from front curb and 12 feet from the street side yard curb. This was allowed to create wider rear yards on corner lots. Staff recommends that the distinction between front yards and street side yards be eliminated and that they both be treated the same. This will reduce the impact of walls on the adjacent residence which is typically its front yard. B. That the provision allowing four-foot high walls at seven feet from curb be amended to a maximum of 42 inches in height and that it be allowed on the property line, but in no event with a setback of less than seven feet. The vast majority of city streets have 12-foot wide parkways from the curb to the property line so the majority of these walls will be 12 feet from the curb. C. Currently, walls between 48 inches and 72 inches in height may be located 15 feet from the front curb and 12 feet from the street side yard curb. Staff proposes to create two categories with different setbacks: 1 . Maximum height of a wall in a residential district is six feet. 2. Walls greater than 42 inches in height but less than 61 inches in height shall provide a minimum setback from curb of 15 feet. 3. Walls between 61 inches and 72 inches in height shall provide a minimum setback from curb of 20 feet. 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 D. Current code prescribes acceptable material types, but no specific design criteria. Staff recommends a section be added that solid walls at a minimum provide a step or undulation or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. The undulation or step will be at least 18 inches deep. The walls where they step may encroach up to 18 inches into the wall setback area. E. Current code does not require a landscape plan be submitted with a wall application. Staff recommends that a section be added which requires a formal landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Landscape Manager with all wall applications. F. Current code does not specify how or where the height of walls is measured. Staff recommends that a section be added requiring that wall height be measured from natural existing grade at the wall location. This will discourage the artificial raising of grade to get a higher wall. G. Current code requires that all wall applications be subject to a site visit by Community Development staff and a building inspection before approval. Given the staffing level in the department, it is difficult to achieve the "all" requirement. If it is decided to implement the "all" provision, then the cost of processing a wall permit, even those done over the counter, will increase in cost and time substantially. Currently the fee for those walls done "over the counter" is $20. A site visit to each location would result in fees of around $200 per application. Staff recommends that the code be amended to add language to allow the applicant to submit photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall might create. 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 dealing with the triangular area H. Staff recommends that the code sections g g at the intersections, "exceptions", and acceptable construction materials be retained as currently provided. IV. CONCLUSION: While these proposed amendments do not specifically implement the maximum 40% solid wall and 60% maximum open fencing provisions, staff feels that with the increased setbacks and the lower permitted walls this code amendment will address the concern expressed by City Council. Specifically, it requires a landscape plan be submitted and approved, lowers the maximum height of walls at current setback limits and treats all sides of corner lots equally. V. CEQA REVIEW: The proposed amendment is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for the purpose of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary. VI. RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Case No. ZOA 04-04. VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Municipal Code Sections 25.56.195 and 25.56.200 5 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 FEBRUARY 1, 2005 E. November 30, 2004 memo to the Landscape Beautification Committee F. January 13, 2005 City Council Minutes G. January 25, 2005 Draft ARC Minutes Reviewed and Prepared by: Approved by: Steve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Review Von, Homer Cr ACM for D6vqrbpment Services AM 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 25.56.195 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR WALLS AND FENCES FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE R-1 AND PR ZONE DISTRICTS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of February, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 25.56.195 relating to wall and fence standards for single family dwellings in the R-1 and PR zone districts; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its recommendation as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit 'A' to amend Municipal code Section 25.56.195. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1 st day of February, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT `A' That Municipal Code Section 25.56.195 be amended to read as follows: 25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences for single family residential lots in the R-1 and PR zone districts. A. Purpose. The following wall and fence development standards specifying location, material and review procedures are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve consistency throughout the city. The objective is to protect and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, privacy, security, view sight lines and drainage. B. Review Procedures. All applications for fences and walls shall be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval by both the Department of Community Development and Building and Safety, unless the applicant submits photographs of the subject and adjacent properties sufficient to demonstrate any impacts the wall(s) may create. In addition, retaining walls will require approval by the Department of Public Works. C. Wall Requirement--New Residential Construction. All new residential construction shall include walls or fences of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and interior side yards. D. Development Standards. 1. Walls and fences within front and street side setbacks: a. Fences forty-two inches in height or less: i. Location: may be located on property line, but in no event less than a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. May not be located in public right-of-way. ii. Material: must be decorative material including decorative blocks, stucco, wood split rail, open picket, or wrought iron. b. Fences greater than 42-inches in height, but less than 61 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street, minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco, or wrought iron. C. Fences 61 inches in height to 72 inches in height: i. Location: within front yard setback must be a minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Within street side yards or rear yards fronting on a public 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. street, minimum of twenty feet from face of curb. Site inspection or photos shall insure that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall not be impaired. (Reference: Municipal Code Section 25.56.200) ii. Material: decorative block, stucco or wrought iron. 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to a maximum of seventy-two inches in height: a. Side yard tie-in fences, interior side yard and rear yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: Materials: i. Decorative block; ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; iii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iv. Wrought iron. b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way: Materials: i. Block--all types; ii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; iii. Wrought iron. 3. Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and wrought iron fences: a. Retaining walls and combination walls located on a rear or interior side property line associated with a cut slope shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from the highest adjoining grade. Material standards in subsection (D) (1) of this section shall apply. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to a maximum of six feet in height.of solid wall material as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. A combination of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent grade. The maximum combination fence height measured from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet. In addition, the Department of Public Works shall refer to Ordinance 514 amending Title 27 (the grading ordinance) as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill conditions. C. Where a fill slope retaining wall is proposed adjacent to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the city's grading ordinance, the city engineer shall determine the lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the grade elevation drainage requirements. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted to preserve a quality appearance. Major structural repairs or replacement shall be required to conform to be above location and material standards. 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject to a conditional use permit. E. Exceptions Procedures. Requests for exceptions to the above standards may be brought before the Palm Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be approved, the architectural commission must make a finding that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this section and that the exception shall not result in damage to adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the proposed exception shall be informed of the application at least ten days prior to the architectural commission meeting. (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) F. Measuring Wall Height. Wall height shall be measured from natural grade at the wall location. G. Landscape Plan Required. A formal landscape plan shall be required to be submitted and approved by the landscape manager prior to the approval of any application for a wall adjacent to a public street. H. Undulation of Walls. All walls adjacent to a public street shall be designed to provide undulation (offset of at least 18 inches) or pilaster at least every 30 feet of linear extent of the wall. Undulating walls may encroach up to 18 inches into required wall setbacks. H 5 CITY OE P0LM 9ES � 01 73-510 FREO WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92v6o—e578 TEL: 760 346-0611 FAX: 760 341-7098 info@p.lm-dnert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to wall heights and locations in single family districts. SAID public hearing will Ire held on Tuesday, February 1, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or. prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary January.20, 2005 Palm Desert Planning Commission Page 1 of 1 Smith Steve From: Greenwood, Mark Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:03 PM To: Smith, Steve Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment- Front Yard Walls Steve, I understand that you are processing a zoning ordinance amendment regarding front yard walls in residential areas. The code currently allows walls within T of the curbline, while the public right of way generally extends to 10'-12' behind curbline. This results in numerous requests for encroachment permits and a great deal of frustration and confusion to residents. It doesn't seem appropriate for the City to acquire right of way only to allow encroachment in some cases and not others. Of course construction of a wall in the right of way renders that part of the right of way useless to the public. It is requested that the zoning ordinance amendment include prohibition of any walls or fences within the public right of way. It would also be helpful if this section of the code referred to section 25.56.200 regarding sight distance at street intersections. Please let me know if there any questions. Mark Greenwood, P.E. City Engineer 1/21/2005 y 25.56.190 1� 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988; Ord. 512 § 1, 1987; Ord, Materials: 128 § 7 (part), 1976:Ord. 98 §_1 (part), 1975;Exhibit A i. Block—all types; § 25.32-7.05) ii. Redwood,cedar or other approved decay-resistant wood product; 00 25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences iii. Wrought iron. within or adjacent to R-1 3. Retaining walls and combinations of retaining and single-family zones. wrought iron fencing: A. purpose.The following wall and fence development a. Retaining and combination walls located on a rear standards specifying location,material and review proce- or interior side property line associated with a cut slope dures are designed to remove all ambiguity and achieve shall be a maximum of six feet in height measured from W0 consistency throughout the city.The objective is to protect the highest adjoining grade.Material standards in subsection i00 and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics, (D) (1) of this section shall apply. privacy, security, view sight lines and drainage. b. Retaining and combination wall or rear or interior 010 B. Review Procedures.All applications for fences and side yards associated with a fill slope shall be limited to walls shall be subject to on-site inspection prior to approval a maximum of six feet in height of solid wall material as by both the department of community development and measured from the lowest adjacent grade.A combination building and safety.In addition,retaining walls will require of solid and open wrought iron fencing shall not exceed approval by the department of public works. nine feet in height as measured from the lower adjacent C. Wall Requirement—New Residential Construction. grade.The maximum combination fence height measured All new residential construction shall include walls or fences from the higher adjacent grade shall not exceed six feet. of a minimum of five feet in height enclosing rear and In addition,the department of public works shall refer to interior side yards. Ord inance amending 514 din Title 27(the grading ordinance) D. Development Standards. as it applies to mitigating adverse impacts of fill conditions. 1. Walls and fences within front and street side set- c. Where a fill slope retaining wall is proposed adjacent to a vacant lot which does not currently meet the city's backs: ordinance, the i engineer shall determine the inches in height: grading o city g a. Fences under forty-eightg i. Location:may be located on property line but shall lower adjacent grade based upon an assessment of the be a minimum of seven feet from face of curb. minimum grade required on that vacant lot to meet the ii. Material: must be decorative material including grade elevation drainage requirements. decorative blocks,stucco,wood split rail,open picket,or 4. Maintenance of nonconforming fences: Normal wrought iron. maintenance of nonconforming fences shall be permitted b. Fences forty-eight inches to seventy-two inches to preserve a quality appearance.Major structural repairs in height: or replacement shall be required to conform to the above i. Location: within front yard setback must be a location and material standards, minimum of fifteen feet from face of curb.Within street 5. The construction of tennis court fencing greater side yards or rear yards fronting on a public street minimum than six feet in height or use of chain link shall be subject of twelve feet from face of curb.Site inspection shall insure to a conditional use permit. that visibility adjacent to driveways and street comers shall E. Exceptions Procedures- Requests for exceptions not be impaired. (Reference: code Section 25.56.200) to the above standards may be brought before the Palm ii. Material:decorative block,stucco,or wrought iron. Desert architectural commission. For an exception to be 2. Wall and fences at or behind building setbacks to approved,the architectural commission must make a finding a maximum of seventy-two inches in height: that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal a. Side yard tie-in fences,interior side yard and rear interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical yard fences visible from a public right-of-way: or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this Materials: section and that the exception shall not result in damage i. Decorative block; to adjacent properties. Property owners adjacent to the ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house; proposed exception shall be informed of the application iii. Redwood,cedar or other approved decay-resistant at least ten days prior to the architectural commission wood product; meeting. (Ord. 557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988) iv. Wrought iron. b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way: 419 (Palm mc$W 8-00 n 25.56.200 structures shall be cantilevered or supported only by neces- 25.56.200 T fence,wall,hedge,structure or other sa columns.A balcony or deck projecting from a higher On acomer lotra Traffic ffic sight obstructions ryut ,no ay obstruction, except the natural grade of a site,or future c within in a not in story ttsuch extend case be deemed a roof for the owerbbalcony triangular area formed by a art 1975: Exhibit A § and a line connecting points on the existing or future or deck. (Ord- 98 § 1 (part), curblines a minimum of forty feet from the intersection 25.32-7.07(4)) of the projection of the curblines, shall exceed a height Open stairways. of three feet above established grade at the edge of the 25.56.250unendosed fire escapes and fireproof outside street pavement or the existing pavement or traveled way. pro ect into any required yard not more than stairways may(Ord.524§2(Exhibit A),1997:Ord.98§ 1 (part),1975: fofeet-,provided,that no yard shall be reduced to less Exhibit A§ 25.32-7.06) than three feet. (Ord. 98 § I (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 2556.210 Projections into yards. 25.32-7.07(5)) Architectural projections including eaves, awnings, 2556.260 Covered patios' , louvers,and similar shading devices; sills,belt courses. Covered patios attached to a main stricture may project cornices,and similar features;and flues and chimneys may not more than eight feet into a required rear yard and five ' project not more than six feet into a required front Yard, feet into a required side yard within thirty-five feet of the ' rear yard,or side yard on the street side of a comer lot, rear lot line; provided, that the required side yard shall and not more than two feet into any other required yard; not reduced to less than five feet and the covered Patios ' an arotutecttual Prof shall not cover more than fifty percent of the rear yard. provided,that the distance between Lion and a side or rear property line shall not be less than § a covered patio not attached to a main structure is deemed three feet. (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A an accessory structure.(Ord.98§1 (paart)),, 19 1975:Exhibit � 25.32-7.07(1)) A § 25.32-7.07(6)) 2556.220 Oriel or bay windows. Z5.56.270 Underground structures ' Oriel or bay windows may project not more than three Underground structures(Pools)may Project without limit feet into a required front Yard,rear Yard or side yard on into any required yards;provided,that they shall not have the street side of a corner lot;provided,that the aggregate a height of more than two and a half feet and are not closer width of oriel or bay windows shall not exceed fifty Ptxceri t than five feet to any property lure•(Ord.98§ (part),1975: of the length of the wall in which they are located and the width of any individual oriel or bay window shall not Exhibit A § 25.32-7.07(7)) III exceed ten feet. (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 2556.280 Detached accessory buildings. 25.32-7.07(2)) Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by Porches and steps- this chapter shall be subject to the following regulations: 2556.230 A Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected {: Unroofed porches,steps,and terraces may project not many required Yam except a tear yard.Accessory buildings !!! more than six feet into a required front Yard or side yard not located in any required Yard shall not be subject to on the street side of a comer lot or to a point not closer e; this section. than three feet to an interior side or rear Property B. On lots having twelve thousand square feet of lot provided,that the height including railings shall not exceed six feet above the grade of the ground at the property line area or more detached accessory bill of a maybe located (Ord. l a § 1 (Part), de Of Exhibit A § 25.32-7.07(3)) in a required rear Yard upon approval roe conditional use i pertnit by planning commission and approval s ry building at review commission.Said detached accessory building 2556.240 Balconies over six feet above shall not exceed one story or fourteen feet in height and ground. not occupy more than twenty-five percent of the Balconies,decks,terraces,and other similar unroofed may P and shall beset back from the property structures at a height including railing more than six feet required ines distance equal to its height above the level at which a yard must be provided may thousand square feet of lot area fired front yard On lots having forty project not more than six feet into a rhea yard; or more. the maximum height shall be one story and or rear yard and five feet into any other required Y eighteen feet provided the structure is set back from Proper- provided,that they shall not reduce any yard to less than gline a distance equal to its height. J five feet except on the street side of a comer lot Such ty 420 (Paim Devi 6-01) CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Landscape Beautification Committee FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 30, 2004 SUBJECT: Walls in Single Family Residential Districts Presently code permits walls in R-1 districts to enclose 100% of the front yard area where the applicant chooses to gate the driveway. Six foot high walls must be setback 15 feet and 12 feet on the street side of corner lots. Councilman Ferguson expressed concern that front yards are being totally enclosed creating a fortress-type look from the street. Suggested means to address the issue: 1. That code be amended to limit the amount of the linear frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron) at six feet to 60%. Or 2. Look at moving six (6) foot solid walls farther back from the street (i.e. 5' high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb but move 6' high solid walls back to 20' from curb. No new regulation is proposed for four foot or lower walls. The committee may wish to conduct a tour of the City to further assess the situation. SS/dq CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of initiation of zoning ordinance amendment with respect to wall heights/locations in single family districts. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 04-04 DATE: January 13, 2005 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Discussion November 30, 2004 Memo December 1 , 2004 Landscape Beautification Committee Minutes Staff Recommendation: That by minute motion the City Council direct staff to process a zoning ordinance amendment as it relates to perimeter wall height / locations in single family districts. Discussion: Over the past few months the City Council has indicated an interest in amending the present code as it relates to walls in the front and street side yards of single family residences. November 30, 2004 staff presented a memo to the Landscape Beautification Committee (copy attached) wherein two suggested means of addressing the issue were presented as follows: 1 . That code be amended to limit the amount of the linear street frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron) at six feet to 60%. Staff Report Case No. ZOA 04-04 Page 2 January 13, 2005 2. Look at moving six (6) foot solid walls farther back from the street (i.e., 5-foot high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb, but move 6-foot high solid walls back to 20 feet from curb. The committee indicted that both suggestions had merit and should be reviewed further. December 13, 2004 a meeting of the City Council Subcommittee, which was appointed to address this matter, was held. At that meeting Councilman Kelly suggested to staff that the City consider limiting any solid walls in front yards to a maximum height of three feet, but to permit up to a total height of six (6) feet if the top section is wrought iron. If City Council directs staff to process this amendment, it is staff's intention to schedule it for public hearing at Planning Commission on February 1, 2005 and tentatively to schedule it for public hearing before City Council February 24, 2005. Submitted by: Department Head: Stev6 Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development Approva . Approval: H er Cr Carlos L. Orte ACM for Deyblopment Services City Manager * Approved the recommendation and directed CITY COUNCIL ACTION: staff to/tffocess all future applications for APPROVED ✓ r` DENIED walls in single family districts through the RECEIVED OTHER Architectural Review Commission during the subject Zoning Ordinance Amendment case MEETI DATE - - review. 4-0 (Spiegel ABSENT) AYES' NOES ABSENT• ABSTAIN (WpdocsVm%sdzoa04-04.cc) JERIFIED BY• '`r.iginal on Fil w c h City Clerk' s e Offibe Landscape BeautifiCL i Committee Minutes Page 2 of 4 December 1, 2004 Sheila G. asked how many gift boxes would be distributed. Spencer K. responded several thousand and noted that the dates are being held in cold storage. Sheila G. commented that the dates could be sold at the Visitors Center for a nominal amount. Kristy K. added that it could cover some the costs for labeling and packaging. Spencer K. asked if the Committee approved the label. The committee decided the word "real' should be deleted from the label. Action: Delete the word "real' from the label. B. RILLINGTON COMMUNITIES (TT 31071) Tony B. presented .the perimeter landscaping for Gateway and Gerald Ford Drive at Rillington Communities. He stated that City Council had a discussion. of widening the landscaping area. Tony B. said that staff recommended going 50 ft. from the corner. Phil D. also mentioned the Planning Department discussed that there is 12 ft. between the curb and the sidewalk to add a tree so that there are some trees closer to the street. Councilmember Crites asked if staff was happy with the landscaping material. Diane H. responded that staff has been working with the landscape architect on some changes. Phil D. mentioned that they are working on a palette for the appropriate trees. The landscape architect named some of the different trees that they plan on planting. The Committee also gave him some recommendations for trees. C. WALL CONSTRUCTION Residential Wall Construction Spencer K. reported that there are two issues with wall construction. First is with residential wall construction. The concern is not to have tall walls that can create a fortress or Alamo look. Phil D. distributed a copy of the current code for single-family homes and a memorandum with suggestions to address the concerns. He explained what the code presently permits. Phil D. suggested to amend the code to limit the amount of linear feet that can be enclosed by a solid six foot wall or look at moving a six foot wall farther back from the street. He last suggested for the committee to take a tour of the City to look at good and bad examples of walls. 2 G1Ofy GeAWareen B.nharditre nM/e Guid.lSamWe M(nWes W-O Marks Landscape Beautific i Committee Minutes Page 3 of 4 December 1, 2004 Cindy F. asked if staff was referring to residential and homeowner associations. Phil D. replied that it was mainly for single-family homes. Cindy F. asked if landscape is required in front of the wall. Phil D. responded yes. Phil D. stated that another issue with walls is the minimum distance between columns or other decorative features, and does the City want to require a decorative feature if the wall runs more than 20 feet. The Committee agreed that columns or other decorative features should be required. It was commented that residents want six-foot walls for security and privacy. Action: Amend code to combine both suggestions for six-foot high walls. Move the distance farther back from the curb and limit the front enclosure, include some vertical relief every 60 feet. Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Wall Design Spencer K. reported that staff has been talking to some landscape architects requesting proposals for a group of conceptual ideas on how to treat capitol improvement project walls. Once staff receives some designs, staff will request the City Council to review the conceptual designs then choose three to four treatments to be used on a regular basis for projects. There also will be treatments that can be applied to existing walls. Spencer K. asked if there should be an informational item added to the.December City Council agenda or wait until January. Carlos O. responded that if a member from City Council. requests information, he will let Council know that the Landscape Beautification Committee discussed CIP wall designs, and a proposed policy will come back for their review. D. SAFETY ISSUE-WATER RUN-OFF Spencer K. explained the safety issue along the walkway in front of the Council Chamber adjacent to the driveway, which is caused by water run- off from the turf. He asked the Committee for direction if the landscape in front of the Council Chamber should be redone. Phil D. asked if the idea of an atrium has been completely abandoned. He commented that if an atrium is not going to be put in then the there should be new landscaping. 3 G:101y Cle*Worem 9ouchardWareenl$lyle GuldelSamAle Minutes W-O Marks PRELIMINARY MINUT=a REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2005 XV. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 30342 (SGH Partners, L.P., Applicant) (Continued from the meetings of November 18, and December 9, 2004). Mayor Crites said staffs recommendation was to continue this matter. Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson moved to continue this matter indefinitely. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Spiegel ABSENT. XVI. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OF A TELEVISION COMMERCIAL AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS TO PROMOTE RECYCLING EFFORTS IN THE CITY (CONTRACT NO. C22030). Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson stated for the record that due to his representation of Waste Management, he would be abstaining on this matter, and in accordance with State law, he recused himself from the Chamber prior to any discussion or action. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1)Authorize the Mayor to enter into the subject agreement with Lawrence Company, Santa Monica, California, in an amount not to exceed $132,040 for the development and production of a television commercial, a Recycle Grab Game (on CD), a coloring book, and other recycling related materials designed to promote the City's recycling programs; 2)authorize the expenditure for airtime coverage of said commercial in an amount not to exceed $16,000; 3)appropriate funds in the amount of $148,040 from Account No. 236-4195-454-3090 for this purpose. Councilmember Benson seconded the motion, commenting that she hoped this effort would be carried into the schools, and it carried by a 3-0 vote, with Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson and Councilman Spiegel ABSENT. B. CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO WALL HEIGHTS/LOCATIONS IN SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS Case No. ZOA 04-04 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Mayor Crites stated he felt this item should be taken out of order, as it will impact City Council action on items under New Business dealing with Architectural Review Commission decisions. Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report, including the three suggested means of addressing the issue of walls in the front and street side yards of single-family residences: 1) limiting the amount of linear street 20 PRELIMINARY MINUTts REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2005 frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six-foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron)at six feet to 60%;2)moving six-foot solid walls farther back from the street(i.e., five-foot high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb, but move six-foot high solid walls back to 20 feet from curb); 3) limiting solid walls in front yards to a maximum height of three feet, but allow up to a total height of six feet if the top section is wrought iron. Staff was requesting Council direction to begin the normal Zoning Ordinance Amendment process, scheduling a public hearing before the Planning Commission, with input from the Architectural Review Commission, and ultimately a public hearing before the City Council. He said staff did have an ongoing processing concern in that while Councilmembers do see notices of action from Architectural Review Commission, they do not get noticed on the items processed by staff over the counter. During this amendment process, Council may wish to direct that any fences that fall into the categories being reviewed be directed through the Architectural Review Commission. He offered to answer any questions. Upon question by Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson, Mr. Smith responded that this would apply to street side yard walls as well as front yard walls but not interior side walls, unless Council wanted staff to look at those as well. Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson noted that he had visited the properties for all three applications before Council under New Business and could see there are very bona fide privacy interests on side yards because the back yards were where homeowners wanted their privacy. He said a concern it raised was the possibility of having solid six-foot walls along entire streets instead of single-family homes, which is what the City had envisioned in its residential communities. Councilman Kelly said it was his suggestion to limit the solid walls in front yards to a maximum of three feet while permitting up to a total height of six feet if the top section of the wall is wrought iron. He said there were cases where people also need privacy in their front yards if, for instance,they have their pools in the front yard rather than the back. He said he felt there should be significant enough setback so that there can be landscaping that keeps it from looking like just a row of walls. After reconsidering his suggestion, he said his preference now was to allow walls up to six feet with setbacks to allow landscaping and have landscaping be a requirement. This way residents and the City could both have what they need, privacy for residents and ambiance in the neighborhoods. Upon question by Councilmember Benson as to whether his suggestion to allow six-foot walls in the front was only if the residents could not have their privacy in the back, Councilman Kelly responded that this was not necessarily the case. He said he agreed with the recommendation for 15-foot setbacks forfive-foot solid walls and 20- foot setbacks for six-foot solid walls was a good idea as long as homeowners who want the six-foot walls will abide by the 20-foot setback requirement and install landscaping in that setback area. 21 ` PRELIMINARY MINUTt6 REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2005 Councilmember Benson said she would be in favor of allowing the six-foot solid wall in front if they could not do it in the back yard. Although, she expressed concern with allowing them in the front as a rule. Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson stated there are situations where homeowners do not have back yards or they have reverse footprint houses where the front of the houses have courtyards. He said he liked the idea of having open style fencing above three feet. He noted the neighbor across the street from his home, who does have a reverse footprint home and open style fencing, has landscaped the area with bougainvillea and other types of plants that grow among the wrought iron. They get the coverage they want without the big setback, and the neighborhood ends up getting a beautiful wall as opposed to just a flat wall. He said he felt this meets both the property owner's and the City's interests. He liked staffs idea about the setbacks and Councilman Kelly's idea about the three-foot wall, and he would like to see an exception process so that if someone has an irregular shaped lot or there are some compelling reasons, architecturally or otherwise, the City can deviate from that rule if needed, while the general rule would be open-style fencing. Mayor Crites stated another possible suggestion would be to have both the Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission look at this ,'menu"of ideas, with direction that the City Council does not want to turn the R-1 neighborhoods into series of street side walls that make every home look like a gated community. Given that as a starting spot, they could use their expertise to draft an ordinance they feel best suits the needs of homeowners and aesthetic values for the community. In the meantime,during the subject Zoning Ordinance Amendment process, future applications for walls in single-family districts would be processed through the Architectural Review Commission. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Direct staff to process a Zoning Ordinance Amendment as it relates to perimeter wall height/locations in single family districts; 2) direct staff to process all future applications for walls in single family districts through the Architectural Review Commission during the subject Zoning Ordinance Amendment case review. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Spiegel ABSENT. 22 s r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SUBJECT Tr �y � JANUARY 25, 2005 REVISION MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of elevations for model homes, site plan and landscape plans. LOCATION: 37-970 Shephard Lane ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: SA 04-115 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANTA CURSON INVESTMENTS, 42-185 Washington Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of proposed solutions for issues regarding wall, business signage, and exterior colors for Hand Car Wash of Palm Desert. LOCATION: 42-185 Washington Street ZONE: P.C. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request and advised the applicant to meet with staff and an architect and return with a solution to create an elevation identical to the rendering or an equivalent alternative. Motion carried 7- 0. 2. Commission comments regarding amendment to wall setback standards in residential districts. Mr. Smith stated that the City Council has directed staff to process an amendment for front yard walls. They want to get away from the "Alamo" look. What we're looking at doing thusfar, and we're certainly open to suggestions, direction and comments from the commission. The 48" walls that we currently allow at 7' from curb, which happen very infrequently because we don't have a lot of 7' parkways (10' or 12' is G91anning0onna QuaiveAwpdocs%AgminWR050125.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION as�BJECTTR JANUARY 25, 2005 L19 REVISION MINUTES more the norm with 90% at 12'). We're going to lower those walls from 48" to 42". Previously, we had a category above 48"-72" and now we're going to split that and create an area between 43"-5' at the current setback of 15'. We're also going to do away with the special provision for street side yards. They'll both be treated the same. It's a problem because it takes away from backyards, however, it protects the lot next door. Mr. Drell commented that the side is really the front for the person next door. Mr. Smith stated that walls from 61"-72" would be 20' on both sides from the curb. We're looking at inserting a provision clarifying that walls are measured from natural grade at the location of the wall and also a provision requiring that every 30' in a wall we have at least a pilaster or a significant horizontal step or undulation. We are inserting a requirement that a formal landscape plan for the parkway area be provided and approved by the Landscape Manager's office. Mr. Drell stated that it must include irrigation. Mr. Smith stated that this must be done before a permit could be issued for a wall. They will not get a permit without approval of a landscape plan. We're looking at a provision to give some relief to swimming pool enclosures where they choose to use an open-style wall (i.e. wrought iron) so that it needs to be 5' in height and could be 12' from the curb. Commissioner Gregory asked if it would be straight wrought iron or a combination of wrought iron next to masonry sections. Mr. Smith stated that the way they have it now it would need to be open for the area between 12' and 15'. Any solid portion of the wall would have to meet the above criteria. We're putting the incentive on open systems and they'll be required to landscape in front of the fence. Mr. Drell stated that they could put a hedge in front of a fence, but it's still softer than a masonry wall. Commissioner Gregory asked about what happens when the hedging grows up 6' tall or 100' tall. Mr. Drell commented that we don't regulate the height of hedges. We had also suggested at one time, limitation on the percentage of frontage that you could enclose. You could not enclose your entire front yard. You could only enclose a certain percentage of it. Commissioner Gregory asked about the person at the corner of Ironwood and Burroweed (Stan Smith). His wall essentially incorporates the entire side and front yard. Mr. Smith stated that his front on Ironwood complies with current code. It would not meet the proposed amended code. Mr. Drell stated that there still might be council members who do not want entire front yards enclosed. I actually don't like wrought iron fencing. It creates more of a prison look. Commissioner Hanson stated that you would see all of their ugly lawn furniture. I would prefer to see a solid wall with some landscaping in front of it. Commissioner Gregory asked if we really want open fencing. I don't see anything neat about it. Commissioner GRanning\Donna Quaiverlwpdocs\Agmin1AR050125.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION am SUBJECT Tr L JANUARY 25, 2005 REVISION MINUTES Hanson stated that dogs rush up to the fence and bark a lot with an open fence. Since you made a provision for other fencing that has to have pilasters every so often and then we don't like the wrought iron and that doesn't have any pilasters because you can't have them at 12' so it's almost like we're getting the worst of the worst. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that we wouldn't want wrought iron without pilasters anyway. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would look better with pilasters. Mr. Smith clarified by saying that wrought iron would be acceptable with pilasters at 20'. Mr. Drell asked if the commission felt that wrought iron is a more superior surface than a masonry wall. The commission agreed that wrought iron was not a superior fence material and felt that it was actually inferior. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would be nicer to have more landscaping in front of a masonry wall. I would rather have a wrought iron fence further back and require the pilasters every so often. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he never had a problem with the "Alamo" concept. Although, on the house on Ironwood that we reviewed recently, you drive by that place and it looks like they just built it to code. It's just one huge, long, straight wall at the setback. Commissioner Gregory stated that the new rule would require some type of undulation or articulation every so often. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was even wondering about requiring a pilaster every 30' is what we want to say. Then we're going to end up with a whole bunch of walls that are just these long, straight walls and every 30' they've got their pilaster. Mr. Smith stated that they're calling for some form of undulation. Commissioner Gregory asked if they could come out a foot and then go in a foot or two feet. Mr. Drell stated that basically it would go from 18'-22'. Commissioner Hanson commented that she likes that. Mr. Drell stated that in reality, in terms of functional space on the inside it's set by the closest. TheWpart that's undulating out doesn't really help them that much. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't penalize them either. Commissioner Gregory commented that it would look better. Commissioner Lopez stated that the homeowners will then landscape the wall and hide the articulation. Desert Willow has beautiful pilasters, but you can't see them because of the landscaping. Commissioner Gregory asked about a house on Ironwood on the north side and it has the worst wall that I've ever seen. Commissioner Hanson commented that the people who are doing half of the stuff that we hate are people who don't have a clue. They hire some "yahoo' contractor to do it and they don't know. It's almost if you have 8 '/2" x 11" examples of concepts of ideas which will at least give them some information so that it helps them along and makes our process easier. A picture is worth a thousand words. Commissioner G91anning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin\AR050125.MIN 8 SUBJECT Tr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION go REVISION JANUARY 25, 2005 URW MINUTES out doesn't really help them that much. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't penalize them either. Commissioner Gregory commented that it would look better. Commissioner Lopez stated that the homeowners will then landscape the wall and hide the articulation. Desert Willow has beautiful pilasters, but you can't see them because of the landscaping. Commissioner Gregory asked about a house on Ironwood on the north side and it has the worst wall that I've ever seen. Commissioner Hanson commented that the people who are doing half of the stuff that we hate are people who don't have a clue. They hire some "yahoo" contractor to do it and they don't know. It's almost if you have 8 '/2" x 11" examples of concepts of ideas which will at least give them some information so that it helps them along and makes our process easier. A picture is worth a thousand words. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it would be like a design guideline that you would get at a country club. A wrought iron detail with a pilaster option or something to show people as good examples. Mr. Drell stated that our landscape department is in the process of putting together something that shows design typicals of doing landscaping and maybe we could add walls to that. Walls are really a part of the landscape. Commissioner Hanson stated that she felt that this would be really important and it would make everybody's job a lot easier. Commissioner Vuksic stated that a number of the commissioners deal with design guidelines all the time. They have lots of pictures of examples. It's funny that the City doesn't have something like this. I think that it would be a good idea because they really help. Commissioner Lambel asked about the decision on wrought iron. Mr. Drell stated that wrought iron won't be encouraged, therefore, we're not going to give it a break in terms of setbacks. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they can still use wrought iron, but it has to be at 20'. Commissioner Hanson stated that it also needs pilasters every so often. Mr. Drell asked if they should be every 15'. Commissioner Gregory stated that they should not give a specific number because someone might have a really cool idea and shouldn't be limited to a set number. Mr. Drell commented that we're still going to have an exception section. People can always propose interesting things, it's just that they have to be real exceptions. I think that we need a conservative minimum distance between pilasters. Are the panels 8'? Maybe they should require a pilaster every 16'. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the wall materials are going to change. Mr. Drell stated that they still have to have a decorative finish with decorative block or decorative stucco. Commissioner Van Vliet G:Planning\Donna QuaiveiAwpdocs\Agmin\AR050125.MIN 9 SUBJECT TO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION i d REVIS103 JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES length. Mr. Drell stated that a typical lot in South Palm Desert on a 10,000 square foot lot has about 70' feet of frontage. Mr. Smith stated that a wall of more than 60' in length shall require undulation. Mr. Drell commented that what we need to say is a general statement that we make a design judgement on. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes the idea of adding architecture every 30'. It can't just be an average of 20' because somebody will find a loop-hole in that and make part of it 12'. Mr. Drell stated that there would be a minimum where if the wall were undulating they could go to 18'. Action: Commissioner Lambel moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to endorse in concept the revised wall standards. Motion carried 7-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna QuaiverlwpdoosWgminWR050125.MIN 10 El CITY CLERK SEOFFICE PALM DESERT, CA ?.00S JAN 28 AM 9= 20 PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Sta1iip (2015.5.C.C.P) RECEIVED JAN 2 8 2005 COMMUN ITY DEVELOPM ENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside .' I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of I Proof of Publication of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen -, ..No.0891 ,years,anll?OOt a party to Or interested 111 the -_ ' CITY OF PALM DESERT . . . . ...;above-eniitled matter..I yam the principal clerk of a- 1 LEGAL eoncE .. . ',printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING `;COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, CASE No. zoo oa•oa printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, ` NOTICE a HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing P P ty will be held before the Palm Desert Planning County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to wall heights and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the locations in single family districts. Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of SAID public hearin will be held on Tuesday,Feb- California under the date of March 24,1988.Case be atry liheO05 Palm tDeseri Oivic Cent Council 10 Fred Number 191236;that the notice,of which the =ngand Drive, Palm Desen, California, at which time place all interested persons are invited annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller to attend and be heard. written comments con- cerningall items covered by this public hearing than Dan panel,has been published In each regular 'notice shall be accepted up to the date of the and entire issue of said news a er and not in an hearing. Information concerning the proposed P P y project and/or negative declaration is swells ]a for supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: preview in the Department of Community Develop- ment at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. IIf you challenge the proposed actions in court, January 20i6 you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing dascribed in this notice, or in written correspon- dence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing, PHILIP DRELL. Secretary All in the year 2005 Palm.Desert Planning Commission Tanya Monroe . or declare)under Dal of perjury that the city of Palm Desert I certify( Pe penalty P rj ry Department of Community Development foregoing is true and correct. 73-so Fred warm99 Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 760 346-0611, Ext. 484 Dated at Palm Springs,California this-210—day 9u : January_20, 2005 of—•••January—,2005 . Signature CITY M DESERI 73-5io FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6i I FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 04-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to wall heights and locations in single family districts. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 1 , 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary January 20, 2005 Palm Desert Planning Commission Page 1 of 1 Monroe, Tonya From: Flake, Debbie [DFLAKE@palmspri.gannett.com) Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:00 AM To: Monroe, Tonya Subject: RE: Legal Notice for Publication Thank you, (Debbie ZYake -----Original Message----- From: tmonroe@ci.palm-desert.ca.us [mailto:tmonroe@ci.palm-desert.ca.usj Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:53 AM To: Debbie@TheDesertSun.com Subject: Legal Notice for Publication Please let me know if there's any trouble with getting this published. Thanks, Debbie! CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.ZOA 04-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to wall heights and locations in single family districts. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 1, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary January 20, 2005 Palm Desert Planning Commission ✓`1cr r /tlaitxae City of Palm Desert Department of Community Development 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 (760)346-0611, Ext. 484 05/16/2005 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES of the colors. Mr. Drell suggested getting rid of the stripes. Commissioner Gregory stated that a new architect should take the colors into account. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that she felt that the applicant doesn't necessarily have to come back to get as close as they can to the original drawings and if there's some other solution, then that should be their option. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request and advised the applicant to meet with staff and an architect and return with a solution to create an elevation identical to the rendering or an equivalent alternative. Motion carried 7- 0. 2. Commission comments regarding amendment to wall setback standards in residential districts. Mr. Smith stated that the City Council has directed staff to process an amendment for front yard walls. They want to get away from the "Alamo" look. What we're looking at doing thus far, and we're certainly open to suggestions, direction and comments from the commission is making the following changes to the current code: The 48" walls that we currently allow at 7' from curb, which happen very infrequently because we don't have a lot of 7' parkways (10' or 12' is more the norm with 90% at 12') would be lowered f rom 48" to 42". Previously, we had a category above 48"-72" and now we're going to split that and create an area between 43"-5' at the current setback of 15'. We're also going to do away with the special provision for street side yards. They'll both be treated the same. It's a problem because it takes away from backyards, however, it protects the lot next door. Mr. Drell commented that the side is really the front for the person next door. Mr. Smith stated that walls from 61"-72" would be 20' on both sides from the curb. We're looking at inserting a provision clarifying that walls are measured from natural grade at the location of the wall and also a provision requiring that every 30' in a wall we have at least a pilaster or a significant horizontal step or undulation. We are inserting a requirement that a formal landscape plan for the parkway area be provided and approved by the Landscape Manager's office. Mr. Drell stated that it must include irrigation. Mr. Smith stated that this must be done before a permit could be issued for a wall. They will not get a permit without approval of a landscape plan. We're looking at a provision to give some relief to swimming pool enclosures where they choose to use an open-style wall (i.e. wrought iron) so that it needs to be 5' in height and could be 12' from the curb. Commissioner Gregory asked if it would be straight wrought iron or a combination of wrought iron next to masonry sections. Mr. Smith stated that the way they have G:Planning0onnaQu2iverlwpdoc \Agm1MAR050125.MIN 17 w ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES it now it would need to be open for the area between 12' and 15'. Any solid portion of the wall would have to meet the above criteria. We're putting the incentive on open systems and they'll be required to landscape in front of the fence. Mr. Drell stated that they could put a hedge in front of a fence, but it's still softer than a masonry wall. Commissioner Gregory asked about what happens when the hedging grows up 6' tall or 100' tall. Mr. Drell commented that we don't regulate the height of hedges. We had also suggested at one time, limitation on the percentage of frontage that you could enclose. You could not enclose your entire front yard. You could only enclose a certain percentage of it. Commissioner Gregory asked about the person at the corner of Ironwood and Burroweed (Stan Smith). His wall essentially incorporates the entire side and front yard. Mr. Smith stated that his front on Ironwood complies with current code. It would not meet the proposed amended code. Mr. Drell stated that there still might be council members who do not want entire front yards enclosed. I actually don't like wrought iron fencing. It creates more of a prison look. Commissioner Hanson stated that you would see all of their ugly lawn furniture. I would prefer to see a solid wall with some landscaping in front of it. Commissioner Gregory asked if we really want open fencing. I don't see anything neat about it. Commissioner Hanson stated that dogs rush up to the fence and bark a lot with an open fence. Since you made a provision for other fencing that has to have pilasters every so often and then we don't like the wrought iron and that doesn't have any pilasters because you can't have them at 12' so it's almost like we're getting the worst of the worst. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that we wouldn't want wrought iron without pilasters anyway. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would look better with pilasters. Mr. Smith clarified by saying that wrought iron would be acceptable with pilasters at 20'. Mr. Drell asked if the commission felt that wrought iron is a more superior surface than a masonry wall. The commission agreed that wrought iron was not a superior fence material and felt that it was actually inferior. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would be nicer to have more landscaping in front of a masonry wall. I would rather have a wrought iron fence further back and require the pilasters every so often. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he never had a problem with the "Alamo" concept. Although, on the house on Ironwood that we reviewed recently, you drive by that place and it looks like they just built it to code. It's just one huge, long, straight wall at the setback. Commissioner Gregory stated that the new rule would require some type of undulation or articulation every so often. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was even wondering about requiring a pilaster every 30' is what we want to say. Then we're going to end up with a whole bunch of walls that are just these long, straight walls and every 30' they've got their pilaster. Mr. Smith stated that G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdoc \AgminVAR050125.MIN i 8 0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES they're calling for some form of undulation. Commissioner Gregory asked if they could come out a foot and then go in a foot or two feet. Mr. Drell stated that basically it would go from 18'-22'. Commissioner Hanson commented that she likes that. Mr. Drell stated that in reality, in terms of functional space on the inside it's set by the closest. They part that's undulating out doesn't really help them that much. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't penalize them either. Commissioner Gregory commented that it would look better. Commissioner Lopez stated that the homeowners will then landscape the wall and hide the articulation. Desert Willow has beautiful pilasters, but you can't see them because of the landscaping. Commissioner Gregory asked about a house on Ironwood on the north side and it has the worst wall that I've ever seen. Commissioner Hanson commented that the people who are doing half of the stuff that we hate are people who don't have a clue. They hire some "yahoo" contractor to do it and they don't know. It's almost if you have 8 Yz' x 11" examples of concepts of ideas which will at least give them some information so that it helps them along and makes our process easier. A picture is worth a thousand words. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it would be like a design guideline that you would get at a country club. A wrought iron detail with a pilaster option or something to show people as good examples. Mr. Drell stated that our landscape department is in the process of putting together something that shows design typicals of doing landscaping and maybe we could add walls to that. Walls are really a part of the landscape. Commissioner Hanson stated that she felt that this would be really important and it would make everybody's job a lot easier. Commissioner Vuksic stated that a number of the commissioners deal with design guidelines all the time. They have lots of pictures of examples. It's funny that the City doesn't have something like this. I think that it would be a good idea because they really help. Commissioner Lambell asked about the decision on wrought iron. Mr. Drell stated that wrought iron won't be encouraged, therefore, we're not going to give it a break in terms of setbacks. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they can still use wrought iron, but it has to be at 20'. Commissioner Hanson stated that it also needs pilasters every so often. Mr. Drell asked if they should be every 15'. Commissioner Gregory stated that they should not give a specific number because someone might have a really cool idea and shouldn't be limited to a set number. Mr. Drell commented that we're still going to have an exception section. People can always propose interesting things, it's just that they have to be real exceptions. I think that we need a conservative minimum distance between pilasters. Are the panels 8'? Maybe they should require a pilaster every 16'. G:PlanningTonna Quaiver%wpdocs\Agmin1AR050125.MIN 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the wall materials are going to change. Mr. Drell stated that they still have to have a decorative finish with decorative block or decorative stucco. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about wood. Mr. Drell stated that the only wood that I would think would be acceptable would be on the 42" walls, which could be a picket fence or split rail. No dog-eared cedar plank fencing. Sometimes people come in with vinyl fencing. I try to get them to use a tan color because the white fencing looks hokey. Commissioner Hanson commented that vinyl melts. Vinyl windows melt here. Commissioner Gregory suggested making the distance for pilasters on a wrought iron fence be three times the height (i.e. if the height is 5' then the pilasters would be every 15'). Mr. Drell suggested that they have at least three pilasters. Commissioner Gregory suggested that they don't specify the amount of undulation and just say that undulation will be averaged in front and behind the wall on walls over a certain length. Mr. Drell stated that a typical lot in South Palm Desert on a 10,000 square foot lot has about 70' feet of frontage. Mr. Smith stated that a wall of more than 60' in length shall require undulation. Mr. Drell commented that what we need to say is a general statement that we make a design judgement on. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes the idea of adding architecture every 30'. It can't just be an average of 20' because somebody will find a loop-hole in that and make part of it 12'. Mr. Drell stated that there would be a minimum where if the wall were undulating they could go to 18'. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to endorse in concept the revised wall standards. Motion carried 7-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsAgmin\AR050125.MIN 20 A } CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of initiation of zoning ordinance amendment with respect to wall heights/locations in single family districts. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 04-04 DATE: January 13, 2005 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Discussion November 30, 2004 Memo December 1, 2004 Landscape Beautification Committee Minutes Staff Recommendation: That by minute motion the City Council direct staff to process a zoning ordinance amendment as it relates to perimeter wall height / locations in single family districts. Discussion: Over the past few months the City Council has indicated an interest in amending the present code as .it relates to walls in the front and street side yards of single family residences. November 30, 2004 staff presented a memo to the Landscape Beautification Committee (copy attached) wherein two suggested means of addressing the issue were presented as follows: 1 . That code be amended to limit the amount of the linear street frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron) at six feet to 60%. A Staff Report Case No. ZOA 04-04 Page 2 January 13, 2005 2. Look at moving six (6) foot solid walls farther back from the street (i.e., 5-foot high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb, but move 6-foot high solid walls back to 20 feet from curb. The committee indicted that both suggestions had merit and should be reviewed further. December 13, 2004 a meeting of the City Council Subcommittee, which was appointed to address this matter, was held. At that meeting Councilman Kelly suggested to staff that the City consider limiting any solid walls in front yards to a maximum height of three feet, but to permit up to a total height of six (6) feet if the top section is wrought iron. If City Council directs staff to process this amendment, it is staff's intention to schedule it for public hearing at Planning Commission on February 1 , 2005 and tentatively to schedule it for public hearing before City Council February 24, 2005. Submitted by: Department Head: Stev6 Smith Phil Drell �— Planning Manager Director of Community Development Z Approval: / O—W* H er Cr Carlos L. Orte ACM for De lopment Services City Manager * Approved the recommendation and directed CITY COUNCIL CTION: staff to/tWocess all future applications for # walls in single family districts through the APPROVED DENIED Architectural Review Commission during RECEIVED OTHER the subject Zoning Ordinance Amendment case review. 4-0 (Spiegel ABSENT) MEETI DATE - - AYES HOES ABSENT• ABSTAIN: (wPaocsum�sruoa04-04.a) VERIFIED BY: 'original on File with City Cler 'B Of Ce A i CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Landscape Beautification Committee FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 30, 2004 SUBJECT: Walls in Single Family Residential Districts Presently code permits walls in R-1 districts to enclose 100% of the front yard area where the applicant chooses to gate the driveway. Six foot high walls must be setback 15 feet and 12 feet on the street side of comer lots. Councilman Ferguson expressed concern that front yards are being totally enclosed creating a fortress-type look from the street. Suggested means to address the issue: 1. That code be amended to limit the amount of the linear frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron) at six feet to 60%. Or 2. Look at moving six (6) foot solid walls farther back from the street (i.e. 5' high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb but move 6' high solid walls back to 20' from curb. No new regulation is proposed for four foot or lower walls. The committee may wish to conduct a tour of the City to further assess the situation. SS/dq 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE MINUTES December 1, 2004 at 11:30 a.m. Public Works Conference Room I. CALL TO ORDER Spencer Knight convened the meeting at 11:39 a.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Buford Crites, Councilmember Carlos Ortega, City Manager Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Cindy Finerty, Planning Commissioner Absent: Richard S. Kelly, Councilmember Also Present: Sheila Gilligan, ACM for Community Services Kristy Kneiding, Marketing Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Monica Loredo, Administrative Secretary III. COMMENTS - None IV. ITEMS OF BUSINESS A. DATE LABEL DESIGN Spencer K. circulated a sample of the date label for the Committee to review. He noted the font size for "Palm Desert" was increased. Sheila G. asked if the date boxes would be given out as gifts or would they be sold. Spencer responded that they are going to be gifts. A bar code will be on the label, if in the future staff decides to place the dates on the market. 1 Landscape Beautificat., .i Committee y Minutes Page 2 of 4 December 1, 2004 Sheila G. asked how many gift boxes would be distributed. Spencer K. responded several thousand and noted that the dates are being held in cold storage. Sheila G. commented that the dates could be sold at the Visitors Center for a nominal amount. Kristy K. added that it could cover some the costs for labeling and packaging. Spencer K. asked if the Committee approved the label. The committee decided the word "real' should be deleted from the label. Action: Delete the word "real' from the label. B. RILLINGTON COMMUNITIES ITT 31071) Tony B. presented.the perimeter landscaping for Gateway and Gerald Ford Drive at Rillington Communities. He stated that City Council had a discussion. of widening the landscaping area. Tony B. said that staff recommended going 50 ft. from the corner. Phil D. also mentioned the Planning Department discussed that there is 12 ft. between the curb and the sidewalk to add a tree so that there are some trees closer to the street. Councilmember Crites asked if staff was happy with the landscaping material. Diane H. responded that staff has been working with the landscape architect on some changes. Phil D. mentioned that they are working on a palette for the appropriate trees. The landscape architect named some of the different trees that they plan on planting. The Committee also gave him some recommendations for trees. C. WALL CONSTRUCTION Residential Wall Construction Spencer K. reported that there are two issues with wall construction. First is with residential wall construction. The concern is not to have tall walls that can create a fortress or Alamo look. Phil D. distributed a copy of the current code for single-family homes and a memorandum with suggestions to address the concerns. He explained what the code presently permits. Phil D. suggested to amend the code to limit the amount of linear feet that can be enclosed by a solid six foot wall or look at moving a six foot wall farther back from the street. He last suggested for the committee to take a tour of the City to look at good and bad examples of walls. 2 GJGify CIerkWO/Pen BouchardMd nOyle GuidelSamAle Minutes W.O Marks Landscape Beautifica 1 Committee Minutes Page 3 of 4 December 1, 2004 Cindy F. asked if staff was referring to residential and homeowner associations. Phil D. replied that it was mainly for single-family homes. Cindy F. asked if landscape is required in front of the wall. Phil D. responded yes. Phil D. stated that another issue with walls is the minimum distance between columns or other decorative features, and does the City want to require a decorative feature if the wall runs more than 20 feet. The Committee agreed that columns or other decorative features should be required. It was commented that residents want six-foot walls for security and privacy. Action: Amend code to combine both suggestions for six-foot high walls. Move the distance farther back from the curb and limit the front enclosure, include some vertical relief every 60 feet. Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Wall Design Spencer K. reported that staff has been talking to some landscape architects requesting proposals for a group of conceptual ideas on how to treat capitol improvement project walls. Once staff receives some designs, staff will request the City Council to review the conceptual designs then choose three to four treatments to be used on a regular basis for projects. There also will be treatments that can be applied to existing walls. Spencer K. asked if there should be an informational item added to the December City Council agenda or wait until January. Carlos O. responded that if a member from City Council requests information, he will let Council know that the Landscape Beautification Committee discussed CIP wall designs, and a proposed policy will come back for their review. D. SAFETY ISSUE-WATER RUN-OFF Spencer K. explained the safety issue along the walkway in front of the Council Chamber adjacent to the driveway, which is caused by water run- off from the turf. He asked the Committee for direction if the landscape in front of the Council Chamber should be redone. Phil D. asked if the idea of an atrium has been completely abandoned. He commented that if an atrium is not going to be put in then the there should be new landscaping. G.IGty ClerkWveen 30u aro)NmenlS(Ne Gu eiSample Minutes W-O Marks 3 CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Landscape Beautification Committee FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 30, 2004 SUBJECT: Walls in Single Family Residential Districts Presently code permits walls in R-1 districts to enclose 100% of the front yard area where the applicant chooses to gate the driveway. Six foot high walls must be setback 15 feet and 12 feet on the street side of comer lots. Councilman Ferguson expressed concern that front yards are being totally enclosed creating a fortress-type look from the street. Suggested means to address the issue: 1. That code be amended to limit the amount of the linear frontage that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall to 40% and open fencing (wrought iron) at six feet to 60%. Or 2. Look at moving six (6) foot solid walls farther back from the street (i.e. 5' high solid walls leave at 15 feet from curb but move 6' high solid walls back to 20' from curb. No new regulation is proposed for four foot or lower walls. The committee may wish to conduct a tour of the City to further assess the situation. SS/dq