Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal ARC MISC 04-68 - Haile 73350 CalliandraREQUEST: CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Consideration of: (A) An appeal to the January 11, 2005 decision of the Architectural Review Commission denying a six-foot high front yard wall seven feet from the curb at the residence located at 73-350 Calliandra Street. (B) A City Council request for review of the January 25, 2005 decision of the Architectural Review Commission approving a four -foot high stucco wall, seven feet from the curb or a five-foot high stucco wall, fifteen feet from the curb at the residence of 73-350 Calliandra Street. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager APPLICANT: Abdi Haile 73-350 Calliandra Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: MISC 04-68 DATE: February 24, 2005 CONTENTS: Architectural Review Commission Minutes of December 14, 2004, January 11, 2005 & January 25, 2005 Exhibits Appeal Staff Recommendation: By minute motion deny the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission action of January 11, 2005 and amend the Architectural Review Commission approval of January 25, 2005 to be consistent with the provision of the revised wall ordinance approving a 42-inch high stucco wall, seven from the curb or a five-foot high stucco wall, fifteen feet from the curb. Executive Summary: Mr. Haile wishes to construct a swimming pool and a wall in the front yard of his residence on Calliandra Street. Current code limits walls to four feet in height with a minimum setback of seven feet from curb. The revised wall ordinance, as recommended by Planning Commission, provides for a maximum 42" (3'/z ) high wall, seven feet from the curb. 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT MISC 04-68 FEBRUARY 24, 2005 January 11, 2005 Architectural Review Commission denied Mr. Haile's request for a six-foot high, tan, slump stone wall, seven feet from the curb. Architectural Review Commission determined that the property has ample room to accommodate a pool in either the front or rear yards without reducing wall setbacks and that no unusual circumstances exist to justify an exception to wall setback provisions (see minutes of January 11, 2005 Architectural Review Commission). January 25, 2005 Architectural Review Commission considered another request of the applicant for a four -foot high stucco wall, seven feet from the curb. The plans (copy included with date stamp January 18, 2005) included a pool with a second "pool enclosure" inside the four -foot high wall, nine feet from the curb. Architectural Review Commission was concerned that the "pool enclosure" would need to be a minimum of five feet high and would not comply with the setback limit of the code. Accordingly, Architectural Review Commission approved the request in a modified form as follows: (1) A 4' stucco wall, 7' from the curb with the understanding that the Architectural Review Commission will review the pool enclosure fencing at a future date. or (2) A stucco wall 15' from the curb at 5' in height. January 26, 2005 Mr. Haile filed this appeal to the January 11, 2005 Architectural Review Commission denial of his six-foot high tan slump stone wall, seven feet from the curb and requested approval of a five-foot high wall, seven feet from the curb. In his appeal, Mr. Haile states that he is being deprived of privileges enjoyed by others in his neighborhood and in the City. January 28, 2005 Mayor Crites filed a request for City Council review of the January 25, 2005 decision of the Architectural Review Commission. Discussion: After you sort through all the background, the issue comes down to Mr. Hailes' current request for approval of a five-foot high wall, seven feet from the curb. This request does not comply with current code or with the proposed code amendments (i.e. 4' or 31A' in height, seven feet from the curb). The only way to approve the current request is through the "exceptions" provision. Mr. Haile, in his appeal, states "strict/literal interpretation of section 25.56.195 deprives us of privileges enjoyed by others in his neighborhood and the City". 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT MISC 04-68 FEBRUARY 24, 2005 This is not a reason to grant an "exception". Staff concurs with the Architectural Review Commission findings in its January 11, 2005 decision where it stated: (1) The property is a large lot with open areas in the front and rear which would accommodate a pool without reducing the wall setback. (2) No unusual circumstances exist to justify an exception to the wall setback provision to the code. Accordingly, staff recommends that the appeal be denied. With respect to the "Request for City Council Review" the part of the approval granted by the Architectural Review Commission in its January 25, 2005 action relating to the four -foot high wall, seven feet from the curb be revised to 42" in height to comply with the proposed wall ordinance amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission. Submitted by: Sieve Smith Planning Manager Approved by: omer Cro Assistant Citager for Development Services SS/dq Department Head: Phil Drell Director of Community Development Approved by: Car os Ortega City Manager G:\PLANNING\DONNAQUAIVER\WPDOCS\SR\MISC 04-68.SS 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 AGENDA 8. CASE NO.: MISC 04-66 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EDWARD S. RICKTER, 74-123 Windflower Ct., Palm Desert, CA 92211-2903 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a second unit in the rear of a single-family residence. LOCATION: 74-123 Windflower Ct. ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 9. CASE NO.: SA 04-140 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KEVIN PARKER, 1384 E. 5th Street, Ontario, CA 91764 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised business signage. Fairfield Inn LOCATION: 72-322 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 10. CASE NO.: MISC 04-68 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ABDI HAILE, 73-350 Calliandra Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of front courtyard wall (4' stucco with 1' of wrought iron on top). LOCATION: 73-350 Calliandra Street G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 8 • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 AGENDA ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith showed the commission a series of photographs that were provided by the applicant. This is on the north side of Calliandra, which is off of Haystack. The applicant would like to do a combination wall at 7' from the curb. Commissioner Gregory stated that because of pool protection, this proposal won't work. It has to be constructed of 5' of non -interrupted material so that a child can't climb over it. It has to be one material from top to bottom, per the Riverside County Health Department. Mr. Drell suggested switching the spa to the other side which would give the applicant more access to it and also the wall could be moved back. He asked the applicant if the drawings were to scale. Mr. Haile stated that they are not to scale. Mr. Drell stated that if they're not to scale then we can't accept them. Drawings that are not to scale are virtually useless. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the applicant might be able to move the pool and spa back far enough so that the wall could be moved back. Mr. Drell stated that he might be able to move the wall to 12' from curb, but not 15'. The applicant has to have a compelling reason why he needs the wall at 12' from the curb in order for it to be approved. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that the applicant return with a scaled plan and see how far he can move the wall back to 12'- 15' from curb. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with scaled plans. Motion carried 7-0. 11. CASE NO.: SA 04-166 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ANTHONY KELLEY/AKC SERVICES, INC., 31681 Riverside Drive, #J, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage. Marriott Courtyard G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2005 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: CUP 03-22 * 3. APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NELBECK, LLC; DAVID NELSON, 72-595 Beavertail Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of architecture for single family residence in hillside. LOCATION: 47-625 Calle de Los Campesino ZONE: HPR Mr. Smith stated that the plans have been reviewed by the commission. There were no changes on the elevations. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it looks great. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded --by Commissioner Vuksic to add MISC 04-68 to the agenda. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. CASE NO.: MISC 04-68 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ABDI HAILE, 73-350 Calliandra Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised plans for a front courtyard wall. LOCATION: 73-350 Calliandra Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that this case was before the commission in December 2004. The applicant would like to put a pool in the front yard of a single-family residence on Calliandra Street. The proposal includes a 6' tan slump stone wall 7' from the curb. Code requires a 15' setback for a 6' wall. Copies of the ARC's last action were distributed to the commission. The last submittal showed the wall at 7' from the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050111.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2005 MINUTES curb. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the commission had asked the applicant to push the wall back. Mr. Smith stated that at the last meeting, the applicant did not have scaled drawings and he was asked to return with drawings that were to scale. The commission wanted to know how far the pool could be pushed back. Looking at the drawing that the applicant has provided, the wall is still shown at 7' from the curb. Commissioner Vuksic noted that the applicant has a lot of open space with grass and flower beds and wondered why they need so much space between the pool and the house. Mr. Haile stated that if he put the pool closer to the house, the jacuzzi would block the entry. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the jacuzzi could be moved somewhere else. Mr. Drell stated that it could go in the opposite corner. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they have a lot of room to move it. Mr. Drell stated that to grant an exception there has to be some sort of exceptional circumstance. We've done it when they've had trees that they had to go around or if people didn't physically have the room. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if he was set on the rectangular shape of the pool. Mr. Haile stated that it has to be a good size swimming pool because they want to swim for medical reasons. Commissioner Hanson noted that the applicant has a large rear yard. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Haile if he had thought of putting the pool in the backyard. Mr. Haile stated that he did think about it. The house is very small and it's located in the middle of the lot. There's an existing patio at the rear of the house and they want to add a room there. After the addition, they will have about 20' left in the rear yard. Also, we want our pets and our kids to have a place to hang out around the pool. Commissioner Vuksic commented that they could have a lap pool in the rear yard. If you opt to have the pool in the front, you're going to have to comply with the 15' setback because it looks like you have other options. Commissioner Hanson commented that the commission has been directed by the City Council not to approve walls that are close to the curb. They don't want to see that anymore. With the property that you have, whether you want to add an addition or not, the problem is that you have the space available to put the pool in the backyard. We understand your reasons for not doing it, but the problem is that you don't have enough good reasons or issues where you can't put it somewhere else or comply with the setback. Mr. Haile stated that he really wants to use his property. Adding a wall in the front yard would give us good use of our property. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they have room for a pool in the front yard. Mr. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin\AR050111.MIN 4 1 • • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2005 MINUTES Haile stated that he needs a really nice patio near the pool. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he'll have to work that out design -wise and get it to fit. The commission is saying that they're not going to approve anything that's going to be Tess than 15' from the curb because there's no mitigating reason to do that. You can move the wall back and still get the pool in there. Mr. Smith commented that the City Council will be considering four wall appeals at their next meeting on Thursday and recommended that the applicant attend the meeting to observe. Mr. Drell stated that the Council will also be discussing various ordinance amendments that may even make the 15' front yard setback requirement obsolete. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to deny the request for the following reasons: (1) The property is a large lot with open areas in the front and rear which would accommodate a pool without reducing the wall setback, and (2) no unusual circumstances exist to justify an exception to the wall setback provision to the code. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 04-35 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERNEST GOBLE, 1650 Zahker Road, #125, San Jose, CA 95122 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of two showroom buildings. LOCATION: 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD Mr. Urbina stated that the two proposed buildings are going to be behind the D'Mundo Tile building. Staff is not satisfied that the quality of the architecture is up to that of D'Mundo Tile and the two-story office building designed by Holt Architects toward Cook Street. This is before the ARC for feedback on the architecture. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050111.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 AGENDA internally illuminated letters. The current proposal for Wendy's shows channel letters on all four sides. Commissioner Lopez stated that when he first saw it, I thought that the size of the sign compared to the background looked fine. I know that the height of the sign is 42" but it doesn't seem that big in relation to the building. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if we know what the red is going to look like. Mr. Smith passed around a sample of the red for the commission to review. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she doesn't have a problem with it. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that his only concem is that there's so much signage on a small building. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambe!' for approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 3. CASE NO.: PP 03-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE EVANS COMPANY, 74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite H-2, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised elevations for The Village at University Park. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the case at the request of the applicant. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 04-68 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ABDI HAILE, 73-350 Calliandra Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050125.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised plans for a 4' high front courtyard wall, 7' from the curb. LOCATION: 73-350 Calliandra Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that this is a fence that basically complies with code. The gentleman was here two weeks ago with a previous application. He has reconsidered and has come back with revised plans. As I indicated to the commission earlier, the City Council has requested that all front yard walls come through this commission while the ordinance amendment is in process. Hence, the reason for this item being here. This is one of the few instances in the City where having a wall at 7' back from curb is still on private property. There are a handful of streets where the right-of-way is 7' beyond the curb and this is one of them. It's not an exception. It complies with current code at 7' back. In this instance, it does not need an encroachment permit. Commissioner Gregory stated that assuming that this wall is meant to serve to meet the requirements of the county for a pool, it has to be 5' tall. That might present a problem when you go to 5'. Commissioner Hanson commented that the applicant is indicating a pool enclosure separate from the 4' wall. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant is indicating a separate fence within the wall. Abdi Haile, applicant, was present and stated that the 5' fence will be just around the pool. Mr. Smith stated that the fence would have to be 5' in height to comply with code and it could not be temporary. It has to be permanent because it has to meet the swimming pool code. Commissioner Lambell stated that it will be a foot higher than the stucco wall and it will be visible. Commissioner Gregory stated that what if one day the applicant gets a wild idea to pull the 5' wall fence out and then he will be in violation of the county requirement with respect to preventing kids from drowning themselves. These could be neighbor kids who might climb over the fence. It would be very tempting someday to pull that fence out and when you do that, then you are open to liability. From an aesthetic perspective, he could plant bougainvillea on the front masonry wall and maybe it would screen the 5' wall. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it was okay to rely on landscaping to screen something that would otherwise not be appropriate. Commissioner Gregory stated that Mr. Haile has an unusual situation where he's putting the pool in the front yard. Could he go 5' and meet the City requirement? Mr. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050125.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES Smith stated that he can't go higher than 4' at 7' from the curb. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the only thing that he could do is depress that area around the pool. It could be depressed one foot lower inside his yard to screen the interior fence structure. Commissioner Gregory asked if he could depress it one foot on the outside, thus making his 4' wall essentially 5' to meet the county requirement so that the top of the wall is only 4' higher than the adjacent curb. It would be sloped down and then he could put in some kind of drainage accommodation and then he'll meet the spirit of the county requirement and we'll only have a 4' net high wall. Commissioner Van Vliet pointed out that he has an existing driveway where he'd have to make up the grade differential. Mr. Smith stated that we are putting a clause into the new wall standards requiring it to be measured from natural grade at the location of the wall. Commissioner Gregory suggested that as the wall approaches the driveway it starts to wrap up a little bit and we allow him to start ramping up so he always maintains the 5' height relative to adjacent finished grade and then along the driveway it's 5'. Mr. Smith suggested that the commission ignore the fact that the pool is there because we're not approving the pool. The applicant needs to come up with a concept for a solution for the pool that still meets the swimming pool enclosure requirement. The interior wall that's indicated on the plans don't show any details. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the result will be that we'll see a screen around the pool over the wall. Mr. Smith stated that he's going to need a permit for the 5' wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if he lived next door to this house and could see this fence it wouldn't be great to look at. Would it be fair to the neighbors? Mr. Haile stated that all you would see is one foot of metal pieces above the block wall. If we have landscape outside the wall in the future, you're not going to see anything and you're not going to be able to see any metal sticking up. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the pool fence will come back for approval because it's going to be visible. Mr. Smith stated that it would come back for approval. Any fence in the front yard will be coming to the commission for approval. Commissioner Vukic stated that he would like to make a motion to approve the 4' stucco wall with the understanding that the commission will be seeing the other fence at some point in the future if he ever proceeds with the pool. Mr. Haile commented that to his understanding, a pool enclosure is not a fence. This is just a 5' enclosure around the pool. We're not G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050125.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES proposing a whole fence in front to the house. If you want to interpret the ordinance more conservatively, maybe you can do that. Mr. Drell commented that he wanted it to be very clear that we're not approving a pool or any fencing inside. The applicant is simply asking for a 4' wall 7' back from the curb, which complies with code. Mr. Haile stated that they can approve the pool too. Mr. Drell stated that the Architectural Review Commission doesn't approve pools. Mr. Haile asked if he would have to go to the Planning Commission for approval of the pool. Mr. Drell stated that he'll have to go to the Building & Safety Department with his pool plans and they're going to ask about a 5' fence. Mr. Haile stated that he can deal with them but wanted to know if they will send him back to the ARC. Mr. Drell stated that they will send him back to ARC for the pool fence. The simple solution would be to move the pool. Commissioner Gregory stated that most pools are in backyards or in bigger front yards where it's possible. Mr. Drell stated that his front yard is plenty big but Mr. Haile has made a decision to make it as difficult as possible in terms of where it's located. That's the choice that the applicant is making. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the commission was very clear at their last meeting that the applicant should push the pool back and he's chosen not to do that. That's the applicant's choice. Mr. Haile stated that everything is about choice but I can say that this space is really important for us. As property owners, we're going to utilize our property nicely and we will comply with the commission. Commissioner Vuksic clarified to the applicant that the commission is going to be acting on the 4' wall. The 5' wall is something that can be seen from the front yard so the commission will have to treat that like another fence or wall to be approved so it has to look nice. At this point, we don't know what it looks like. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant drop the grade by one foot so that he could have the 5' wall, which meets county requirements and the wall is only 4' higher than existing finished grade. When you're standing at the base of the wall, it's 5' high but when you view it from the street it has the impact of a 4' wall. This way he doesn't have to build the inner wall. We're compromising but in a way, it's conforming to the various competing requirements. Mr. Drell stated that the wall can be 4' on the inside. Mr. Smith asked how he would come up against the adjacent property to the west. Commissioner G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\gmin\AR050125.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES Gregory stated that the wall would have to go to the corner where it would be 5'. Mr. Drell commented that the commission has the authority to approve that but a case has to be made to the City Council when all the walls get called up. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why the commission is trying to find a solution to a problem that's generated by not pushing the pool back. don't know why we're going through all these gyrations because he could solve the issue by pushing the pool back. Mr. Haile stated that he could do that but the pool would be against the window of his house. Commissioner Gregory stated that he was concerned that the motion is possibly cynical if the applicant thinks that this means that he has a chance to go forward with this pool and a separate fence and then he finds out that he'll be right back in front of the commission again for us to look at the second fence and then go through this again. Commissioner Hanson stated that the problem is that the applicant is not listening to what we're trying to tell him and help him. We understand his issues, however, it doesn't mean that we can just approve whatever we want to approve when we know that it will be denied further along so we're not helping him in that regard either. Mr. Haile stated that he's listening if they have a solution for him. Commissioner Hanson stated that the problem is that we're trying to tell you what will likely be approved in an expeditious manner, but you don't want to do it. We're sympathetic to that but we can't just arbitrarily approve something because it's convenient for you when you truly have other solutions available. Mr. Haile stated that if you don't think I have a good argument, then you can deny me but we need this space. You've done it before and you can do it again. Commissioner Hanson stated that this is the part that you're not listening to. We may have the authority to do it, but when you go further on, which you will have to do, it will most likely be denied. In the past, it may not have been the case. Mr. Haile stated that there's no law like this in the books right now. Mr. Drell stated that an approval of the 4' wall moves him no closer to getting a swimming pool in his front yard. Commissioner Gregory stated that he could possibly move the wall back another 8' and legally put in a 5' high wall but that wall actually serves as a retaining wall so your pool abuts that wall and that way the pool only comes back just a few feet from where it is now. It won't be as long as it is now. This wouldn't be just a standard garden wall. Commissioner Vuksic drew a diagram on the white board of the conference room to illustrate the wall detail. The wall would be 15' from G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050125.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2005 MINUTES the curb and 5' high. There would be a raised planter between the pool and the wall so that the pool wouldn't just be right against the wall. We do this all the time, especially in confined situations because you're giving up having a deck on the back side of the pool. Mr. Haile would lose a few feet with this plan, but it would be totally legal. Mr. Haile stated that he would really like it if the commission would show him some mercy and allow him some space. Eight or ten feet is fine but fifteen feet is the standard. I'm asking for mercy from the standard. Commissioner Gregory stated that mercy is no longer an option because the Council has decided that they don't like walls in the front yard. Mr. Drell stated that to prove an exception there has to be an exceptional circumstance so that this body could at least retain a little shred of credibility on these actions going to Council. If they can't identify an exceptional circumstance, which there isn't in this case, then they really have no ability to approve an exception. Mr. Haile stated that he understands that the Council has a concern about brick walls, not necessarily the space into the land. They are concerned about the look of the "fortress" wall. I'm willing to use any landscape using wood, trees or anything to make this commission comfortable to give me more space than the standard space. That's all I'm asking. I'm willing to spend money. Commissioner Gregory stated that we expect landscaping in front of a wall. Mr. Haile stated that the commission has told him that he hasn't proposed a compelling reason for this. You are the commission and you make your own judgement. Mr. Drell stated that we're far more lenient and liberal in that interpretation than anyone else. Mr. Haile commented that the commission has previously approved a wall like this and for reasons that are less compelling than mine. I just want to tell you right now that you can easily approve this but you cannot find in your own thinking what is compelling is interpretation. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. You have approved walls on this street. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval of two options: (1) a 4' stucco wall, 7' from the curb with the understanding that the Architectural Review Commission will review the pool enclosure fencing at a future date, or (2) a stucco wall 15' from the curb at 5' in height. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\gmin\R050125.MIN 8 Case No. /'1/S'c OC2t'- Go g Name of Appellants "Mb/ /1/4/ F Address 733 ��) CA L, L., /A DRA Description of Application or Matter Considered: R 6 Q (/ES T/AI 7`yf .5 FR© r Gv'A LL w/r&. 7s/ 7 ' 72 C1< RECEIVE CITY CLERK'SMF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA PALM DESERT, CA ?O05 JAN 26 AM APPLICATION TO APPEAL . DECISION OF THE 2C i��'C7,��{L V ,eL.''-ki/ 0/11Wi /D/V (Name of Determining Body) Date of Decision: 'A -A/ !/, 2.00 y Phone 760 - gq3? p41..firi b cam` .4,0.4wo VA L, o F Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessary): S T/ i T/L..' rc �.� t�_ //iCrF/2p,9/ 7 177 0,f/ OF St cDo c! Z � 6. 19,5- D-Ep/z vs OF pre/ v /1 F (D E S EA/7 yEb y D71/gs /VE/4,9:gi lool> A.Arp /4/ 7 YE C..! Ty (Signature of Appellant) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Appeal Filed: 1 -� (o— 05 Fee Received: $ 1q11, Treasurer's Receipt No. 3 6950 3 Received by: 1 Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: T 4 Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk COPY TO 19laA43 De 91 HArklassen\WPdaW\WPDOCS\FORMS\appl to appeal.wpd DATE / -- -65 Rev 6/29/02 CITYERxsEojTY OE 'AEill DESERT PALM DESERT, CA 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE 005 JAN 26 AM 9- . 09M DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL FAX: 760 340-0574 info@palm-desert.org January 11, 2005 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO.: MISC 04-68 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ABDI HAILE, 73-350 Calliandra Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised plans for a front courtyard wall. LOCATION: 73-350 Calliandra Street ZONE: R-1 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission denied the request for the following reasons: (1) The property is a large lot with open areas in the front and rear which would accommodate a pool without reducing the wall setback, and (2) no unusual circumstances exist to justify an exception to the wall setback provision to the code. Date of Action: January 11, 2005 Vote: Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted not later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW DECISION OF THE (Name of Determining Body) Case No. ,- 7'Sc O '( - Date of Decision: Project Proponent: e v ,� / 4•z ,' �P Address: Description of Application or Matter Considered: C--0 /"7 7 CI 0 ocC cC Lai :tCOPY TO (PLAN! f\I om 0 Lao _ >-Q a co CV .cc DATE 1 ember of the City Council FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Filed: —©�j Received by: Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6281\cncl req for rev.wpd 5/21 /03 December 6, 2004 SUBJECT: Application for Front Courtyard Wall & Pool Construction, 73350 Calliandra Street, Palm Desert. Dear Committee Members: Enclosed are two versions of a design plan for your review and approval. We believe our proposal is in full compliance with the spirit of the Palm Desert City Ordinances — Enhance the beauty and the desirability of the city. It will also add value to our property as well as the neighborhood. We also believe the green belt that is situated in front of our property alleviates some of the concerns the Committee may have about obstructing neighborhood view. We have spoken to many of our neighbors about our plan and they all have expressed their support. So, if it is going to persuade the Committee, we are willing to collect their signatures in support of this project. Plan A — 7 Ft Setback with 5 Ft Stucco Wall Plan A is our first choice. We will happily welcome and comply with any recommendations or modification by the Committee to facilitate the approval of this project with one exemption: The setback cannot be more than 7 Feet as there won't be enough space left for a pool. We understand that the Committee has a full discretion in relation to setbacks from the curb and has in the past afforded others in the neighborhood a variance from the standard city ordinance (pictures enclosed for your reference.) Therefore, we are kindly requesting that the Committee takes our predicament into consideration when reviewing the subject application. We are under the impression that the planning department does not like block walls for aesthetic reasons. In that regard, we are willing to camouflage the wall by covering it with desert shrubs or decorate it as the Committee chooses. Plan B — 7 Ft Setback with 4 Ft Stucco Wall Current Palm Desert City Ordinance allows the construction of a 4 Ft front wall with a 7 Ft - setback. However, staff with the public safety department advised us if we want to construct a front courtyard pool, the enclosure wall or fence must be at least 5 Ft high, which puts us in a "catch 22" situation. Complying with the public safety requirements (5 Ft high fence) will trigger the planning department requirement (15 Ft setback for a front wall), which is not doable in our case due to a lack of space. When we inquired about the specific ordinance requiring the pool fence to be 5 Ft or higher, the public safety staff referred us to an ordinance that does not corroborate their position. So, to say the least, we are confused about this requirement. However, we understand the Committee has the full authority to override it if they choose to do so. In conclusion, we are raising two potential future Olympic swimmers whose chances of success could be enhanced by your approval. They love to swim and we want to encourage them. Also, our orthopedic doctor recommended that we pick swimming as our choice of exercise because we (the adults) both suffer from arthritis. Sincerely, 'Abdi 0 4 .0 BEL AIR RD City of Palm Desert GOLDFLOWER ST SALT CEDAR ST DESERT ROS CALLIANDRA ST HAYSTACK RD SUNNY TRL SIESTA TRL SUN LN 1111 J I J SILVER MOON TRL LITTLE BEND TRL 1-1--1 1 1 LOCATOR MAP APN 630- 3- 116 Date: 11 AMIR DR W E S 0 150 300 Feet CITY OF PALCI lESERJ 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061 r FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-deserr.org CITY OF PALM DESERT NOTICE CASE NO. MISC 04-68 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal to a decision of the Architectural Review Commission denying an exception for a six-foot high front courtyard wall seven feet from the curb at the residence located at 73-350 Calliandra Street. a a' o' Z DESERT HOLLY ST W'v 0 U O * OMr4 0 ' m 'aa 1 (v O 4 n� O W ,o SUBJECT •F PROPERTY J DESERT ROS CALLIANDRA ST HAYSTACK RD AMIR Di I SIESTA TRL SUNNY— TRL Z I pp SUN LN > If SILVER MOON TRL SAID 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 hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project 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 hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the hearing. Rachelle Klassen Palm Desert City Clerk Z J Z O' 0