HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: Objection to Approval of "Golf Cart Barn" "Work Shop" Structure REC"FIV D
AU6 2 8 2008
*AW ,OMMUNITY DEVELOPM FONT DEPARTMEW
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CA. 92260
PLANNING COMMISSION
"VARIANCE"
OBJECTION TO APPROVAL OF "GOLF CART BARN"
"WORK SHOP" STRUCTURE
46-020 Burroweed Lane, Palm Desert
Submitted by Suzanne Pride
46-040 Burroweed Lane
Palm Desert, Ca 92260
August 26, 2008
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Palm Desert Planning Commission;
Regarding :OBJECTION TO APPROVAL
Variance Application, (with—in set back code) 46-020 Burroweed Lane Palm
Desert, Ca. 92260
The Shadow Mountain Fairway Cottages on Burroweed Lane, Palm Desert were built in
1972, before the City of Palm Desert was incorporated. The Cottages are extraordinary
circumstance of homes, in which some of them share a common garage wall and others
share a common living room wall.
36 years ago,the developers of the Shadow Mt. Fairway Cottages had the Integrity and
Wisdom to maintain Legal Set Back Code standards of adjacent properties so as not to
interfere with privileges enjoyed of such properties in the same vicinity and under
identical zoning classification for Safety, Privacy Aesthetic and not to depreciate the
property value.
There are 2 sets of Cottage homes sharing a common garage wall, a total of 4 homes, of
which 11 is my home}. On the other side of the street, there are 8 sets of Cottage homes
sharing a common living room wall, a total of 16 homes.
All Cottage home owners on Burroweed Lane sharing a common wall have
privileges enjoyed and are not deprived of Safety, Privacy,Aesthetic and Property
Value,for the Legal Set back Code has been maintained and enforced.
Mr. Toia has submitted pictures of the shared common garage walls. He states: "where a
zero set back occurs with both units".{ 1 of which is my home}What he fails to show,
is the other side of the cottage homes, in which ALL HAVE LEGAL SET BACK
CODE ENFORCED, to shared a common wall on one side of your home and not have,
Legal Set&Eh Code on the other side of the home,would be detrimental to the
Safety and Welfare of the home,
My Cottage home is now, the only home on Burroweed Lane in the same vicinity and
under identical zoning classification not to have the privileges enjoyed for Safety,
Privacy,Aesthetic and Property Value.
Page-2
August 26, 2008
For all of the forgoing reasons I request that the Palm Desert Planning Commission
exercise the authority granted to it and deny Mr. Toia's Variance request for Golf Cart
Barn and Work Shop with in set back code.
Respectfully,
------------
Suzanne Pride
46-040 Burroweed Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
*MAILING ADDRESS*
PO Box 2688
Palm Desert, Ca. 92261
760-668-5444
40
CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
�. CASE NO. MISC 08-40
OBJECTION TO APPROVAL OF `GOLF CART BARN STRUCTURE'
AT 46-020 BURROWEED LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
I.
INTRODUCTION
Suzanne Pride (hereinafter"Pride") is the owner of the property located at 46-040 Burroweed
Lane, Palm Desert, California(the"Pride Property"). The Pride Property is bordered on the
north by the property owned by Michael and Marianne Toia(hereinafter"Applicant") at 46-020
Burroweed Lane. A `common' wall stands between the side-yard of the Pride Property and the
structure built by Applicant. No set-back exists in Applicant's side yard due to the structure
which has been erected virtually on top of the `common' wall between the properties, running a
distance of approximately 25 feet in length.
The pp
height of Applicant's structure exceeds the height of the `common' wall between the
g
properties. The roof of the structure is situated and constructed in such a manner so as to drain
directly onto the Pride Property. The structure is attached to the top of the `common' wall, as
well as being attached to both its north and south `faces' without Pride's permission or consent.
Applicant seeks `retroactive' approval by this Committee of the illegal, non-conforming structure
built in the side yard set-back. Pride objects to the approval sought by Applicant on numerous
grounds as set forth herein, and respectfully requests that this Commission deny Applicant's
request.
II.
HISTORY OF THE `PROJECT'
A review of the City of Palm Desert's (hereinafter the"City" or"City's") Building Department
files confirms that Applicant sought a permit to construct a `Gate Enclosure', with a stated value
of$1,000.00 in January of 2006. The permit was issued as requested based upon the plans and
drawings submitted to the City. The City's building inspection records indicate the"Gate
Enclosure"was inspected for `rough framing' and `lath nail' prior to undergoing and passing its
final building inspection.
After passing final inspection, Applicant inexplicably and in direct violation of multiple
1
provisions of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (hereinafter the "Code"), undertook additional
NOW non-permitted construction in the area of the "Gate Enclosure". There is no indication in the
City's file that Applicant sought or received approval from any City department for the additional
construction. Thus, without benefit of approved plans, a building permit, a survey of the
property boundary, or building inspections, Applicant `re-modeled' the "Gate Enclosure" into a
workshop and `Golf Cart Barn' for which approval is now sought, and for which construction has
been ongoing as evidenced by the photographs submitted herewith as Exhibits `A' through `I'.
III.
THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
Palm Desert's Comprehensive General Plan(hereinafter the "Plan") contains both Housing
Elements and Community Design Elements which were adopted by the City on or about March
15, 2004. The Plan's Housing Element sets forth at p. III-101 that current `development
standards in the City do not represent an over-restrictive condition', further stating that the City
enforces the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and `cannot adopt standards that are less stringent
than the UBC'.
The Community Design Elements are enumerated beginning at p. III-135 of the Plan. The Plan
quotes California Government Code §65302 which requires in pertinent part that the Plan set
forth a statement of policies including objectives, principles and standards for community design
and development. The City is responsible for compliance with its Plan by `implementing the
essential goals and policies of the Community Design Element' (Plan p. III-136). Although the
Plan recognizes the need for both `flexibility and sensitive design evaluation, it further mandates
that `unsatisfactory development proposals should not be approved', going on to state that the
principles of unity and stability to the community can be maintained through adherence to quality
land and site planning and architectural styles. (Plan p. III-140.)
The Plan makes clear that planning and design criteria assist in determining a project's
compatibility with the surrounding area, specifically stating that building and structural
setbacks are part of the criteria to be used in determining whether a project should be approved
(Plan p. III-141, emphasis added.) The Community Design Element of the Plan considers its
`most effective instrument' to be the Zoning Ordinance and associated development codes and
guidelines establishing specific standards, design parameters and guidelines for site planning,
building and landscaping. (Plan p. 11I-151.)
A complete review of the Plan and its objectives leaves no room for doubt that `aesthetic
blending with the existing home and surrounding community' is only one small factor to be
considered in determining whether or not to approve a plan, or in this case a structure. Building
and structural setbacks, health and safety considerations, and the rights of adjacent property
owners must also be carefully considered before allowing the integrity of the Plan to be
r
2
compromised or violated for the convenience of a select few such as Applicant who `build first
1%W and permit later'.
IV.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JURISDICTION AND OBJECTIVES
Title 25, Chapter 25.70, §25.70.010 of the City's Municipal Code (the "Code") provides for
establishment of the City's Architectural Review Commission, and sets forth the objectives of
the Commission. Specifically the Code gives this Commission the right to deny projects such as
Applicant's which are not in conformance with the City's building guidelines. In order to
approve an application, §2.25.70.090 requires the Commission to find the following:
A. That the proposed development conforms to any legally adopted development
standards;
B. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the
desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; and that it will not unreasonably
interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or proposed developments and that
it will not create traffic hazards or congestion;
C. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and
attractive development contemplated by this title and the general plan of the City;
D. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors and that it is aesthetically of good
composition, materials, textures and colors;
E. The proposed use must conform to all the requirements of the zone in which it is
located and all other applicable requirements;
F. The overall development of the land shall be designed to ensure the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare. (Ord. 326 (part), 1983)
As set forth herein, and as shown in the attached photographs, Applicant's structure fails to
comply with a number of the required findings. The structure was built without a permit, in the
side yard set-back, without the benefit of required building inspections. It exceeds the height of
the `common' wall, is attached to the `common' wall, drains onto the neighboring property, is
shoddily constructed, and is causing damage to neighboring property. The Application must be
denied, and this Commission is well within its power to deny it.
3
0
V.
THE STRUCTURE AS LOCATED AND BUILT CANNOT BE APPROVED
Pride alleges Applicant's structure violates numerous provisions of the City Code as well as the
LJBC as currently located and built. These violations include but are not limited to the following:
1. The structure encroaches on the minimum side yard set-backs established
for both R-1 and R-2 zones in the City. The structure has no setback whatsoever along
approximately 25 feet of the south wall of the side yard property line in direct violation of Code
§25.18.070 C requiring a side yard set-back of not less than five(5)feet.Applicant's request to
this Committee contains Applicant's admission that the structure is built within the required side
yard set-back, leaving a mere four(4)feet between Applicant's structure and the windows and
sliding glass doors located on the north side of Pride's home.
The proximity of the structure to the Pride Property is also violative of Section 1613.7 of
Chapter 16 of the 2007 California Uniform Building Code requiring minimum distances for
building separations and set backs.
2. Applicant's building permit for a'gate enclosure'with a cost of$1,000
was issued by the City on or about January,2006.Final inspection of the'gate enclosure'was
made by the City's Building Department on or about January 23,2006. (Please see Exhibits T
and W.)As of February 22, 2008, construction continues on the structure, and construction
materials were being stored on the roof of both Applicant's home and the structure in violation of
Title 8,Chapter 8.70,§8.7.080 of the Code which prohibits storage of building materials on
any portion of the premises visible from adjacent properties except during construction
conducted pursuant to an active building permit. The City's records do not contain any record of
a valid and current building permit having been issued for Applicant's Property,yet construction
continues even while this Commission's proceedings are ongoing. Such actions by Applicant not
only violate Code,but demonstrate Applicant's continuing bad faith in its dealings with the City,
by utterly failing and refusing to abide by the required protocol.
3. The structure is in an'unreasonable state of partial construction' as
defined in§§ 8.70.040 and 8.20.020 of the Code.A structure in such a state is classified as an
'unlawful property nuisance'under§8.20.020 A if'any partially constructed building or
structure,the building permits for which have expired, substantially detracts from the appearance
of the immediate neighborhood,or reduces the property values in the immediate neighborhood'
(Please see Exhibit taken on February 22, 2008.)
4. Storage of construction materials on Applicant's roof creates the potential
for serious injury to adjacent properties,their owners and guests. Such storage is also an
unlawful property nuisance under§8.20.020 E of the Code. (Please See Exhibit'L'.)
4
is
5. Applicant has also failed to comply with Title 8 Chapter
8.70&8.70.150
of the Code,by failing to maintain the structure in reasonable consistency and compatibility with
the maintenance standards of adjacent properties so as not to interfere with the reasonable
or to depreciate their aesthetic or property values. The structure ha;
enjoyment of such properties ep p perty
been both poorly constructed and poorly maintained. The defects in the structure are readily
apparent even to the untrained eye.Tiles are being stored on the roof,the flashing is loose and
coming away from the structure,and exposed cables and pvc pipe protrude through the roof.
I These defects are clearly visible from the interior of Pride's home as well as the rear and side
yards,depreciating both her enjoyment of the home, and the home's value. (Please see Exhibits
'E' and T)
i It further appears the structure was built by using the'common'wall between the
properties as'supporf for the structure, clearly endangering Pride's property should the wall be
'i unable to support the weight of the structure, or in case of an earthquake. Without appropriate
set-backs being maintained,there is nothing to stop the entire wall and the structure attached to it
from collapsing onto Pride's Property; causing serious property damage and/or personal injury.
Without the benefit of compliance with all appropriate pre-construction requirements and
construction standards,the structure as is violates multiple sections of Title 8 and Title 15 of the
Code as well as numerous provisions of the 2007 UBC.
6. Section J109.5.3 of the 2007 UBC requires that drainage devices be
constructed to convey drainage to an established private watercourse....,and shall be designed to
prevent erosion. Pride's Property is not an established private watercourse,yet the structure is
located, designed and constructed so as to ensure all drainage flows to the Pride Property. The
drainage pours from the roof onto Pride's side of the'common'wall pooling in Pride's yard.
This drainage is causing both damage to the Pride Property and its landscaping,and creates a
health and safety hazard (Please see Exhibits'F', V and'IT.)
The structure is built directly on the'common'wall between Applicant's property and the Pride
Property.The structure is approximately 25 feet long,yet less than five(5)feet separate the
southern wall of the structure from Pride's home. The roof of the structure exceeds the height of
the wall separating the two properties.The structure encroaches into the minimal space between it
�I and the Pride residence, and the'commod wall is being used as support for the structure built by
Applicant. There is exposed flashing on both the front and sides of the structure,and both
�II
5
i
flashing and other construction materials have been attached to the top and side of the `common'
wall; clearly visible from both inside and outside the Pride Property, (Exhibits `M' and `N')
causing a diminution in value to the property, as well as creating an obstacle to its transferability,
and the issuance of a title insurance policy upon a desired sale by Pride. These multiple
violations of both public law and private property rights cannot and should not be encouraged or
rewarded by the City or this Commission, and Applicant's request should be denied.
VI.
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, Suzanne Pride requests that this Commission exercise the
authority granted to it and deny Applicant's request. Although the structure may not be
objectionable to the legion of neighbors who signed the petition presented by Applicant, those
neighbors have not seen or considered the impact of the structure on Pride's Property. The
appearance of the structure from Burroweed Lane does not accurately reflect the appearance of
the structure from the Pride home or side yard, and in any event, the appearance of the structure
as set forth herein, is only the `tip of the iceberg'. As the neighbor most affected by Applicant's
structure, Pride's legitimate concerns should be carefully considered by this Commission and the
City, and the structure should not be approved.
DATE: March 10, 2008
Respectfully Submitted,
Debbie Harris Sherman,
Attorney for Suzanne Pride
6
46-020 Burroweed Lane 46-040 Burroweed Lane
"Applicant Property" "Pride Property"
• Front views of 46-020 and 46-040 Burroweed Lane
• Exposed, unpainted flashing and loose roof tiles on Applicant Property visible
from both Burroweed Lane and Pride Property
EXHIBITS "A" & "B"
4
Architectural Review Commission Case#MISC 0840
Objection submitted by:Suzanne Pride—46-040 Burroweed Lane
F_ 1
..........
AIL
• View of structure from Pride Property side yard
• "Construction"ongoing as of February 22, 2008
• Applicant's Structure built on common wall
• No side yard setback, as required by Code,on Applicant Southern property line
Tit
• Flashing on Applicant structure is not properly attached, creating sharp metal
edges along the block wall making it unsightly and dangerous
EXHIBITS "C" & "D"
E-2
i
_ .....
a
• View of structure from rear of Pride Property side yard
• Shoddy construction and loose materials pose health and safety hazards to Pride
Property
�`
y
r
• View of structure from Pride Property side yard
• Applicant's structure exceeds wall height;roof drains onto Pride Property causing
pooling of water and property damage
\r
EXHIBITS "E" & "F"
T-3
• View of common wall from Pride Property front yard
• Note: Drainage onto Pride Property from Applicant's Structure
• Note: Please compare to Exhibits J &K; down spouts no longer in place
Now
�s
-' JEW OW
L
i
i
• View of common wall from Pride Property front yard
• Drainage from Applicant's structure flows off the roof and down the wall onto
Pride Property
EXHIBITS "G" & "H"
F•4
4
1
v`
r
a.
• View from inside Pride residence
• Exposed PVC pipe and miscellaneous cables/wires protruding from Applicant's
Structure are visible from Burroweed Lane and Pride Property
EXHIBIT "I"
E-5
•uuntber . , 5/25/06
t ss, date C ,4 PLMD
• 4f�2t�' � FAN
der.. • ,} FAMILY
RES ML SINGLE
* D/ALTER RESIDENTIAL (OWNER/
. ,. . .•
a . wd by: BG
0
To • ��
/ . NO
tits
x 110�!!es
w t
• � id law 3.va1 ca�c• - ---
On 1-23-06-Mr. Mike Neely, City of Palm Desert Building60 Hefsigned ety the Final
t. came o
the home of 46-020 Burroweed Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 922
01 NM CH
Inspection of the Job Card for ;Gaue Encl)sure C tuc BAR all T } To a and
Wall ONLY} Mr.Toia the year of 08 added
Le al Document Mr Neely did not see or sign.
,-
r r wry+ a� r y
fit, �Y ' � A•�l�t��a� r,��L7! � - -
ice` y„ ..+'« a.. -�, :d`I� '�,L • ...
tfL
Cx
�i ,k�rr, 5r�v'+•'��I�$ � �'!. �N%- ..y.,'-�...'•.ice+•.,ti; .': _ , •
if
`- '���� y},��'p.t..M?rf67.Tr VR#iVL•iW'i i•✓.I=vw
No
t
..l _•y t a .:AYj�yyla.ilJ.IMJ..'{�.�^I[. �..r.
t.•
l r 4
� ;
i
; 1
a
{
r �,F
z a t RY ti
iY
7
i
i+t
r rr`
A►
EA ���► �ts