HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1091 ZOA 04-04 - PDMC 25.56.195 Wall Heights Staff ReportREQUEST:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
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
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:
Se Smith
Planning Manager
Approval.
Homer Croy
ACM for Develo
(Wpdocs\tm\sr\zoa04-04.cc2 )
Department Head:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
Approval:
Carlo . Ortega
ent Services City Manager
CITY Of PM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578
TEL: 760 346-o6r
FAX: 76o 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 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 7' 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
�'}'P.`.
• .r•mr._ • •
•
�.
� 2
��
..::.t..� �tlifF.nT ,tll,el��:3�Ik
r'.'I� � IFY S� y��.
:'0� �' .i .F..i
-
4
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.
tLiLLL %LILLLLt.LtLL.tt
557 (Exhibit A) (part), 1988; Ord. 512 § 1, 1987; Ord.
128 § 7 (part), 1976: Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975; Exhibit A
§ 25.32-7.05)
25.56.195 Standards for walls and fences
within or adjacent to R-1
single-family zones.
A. Purpose. The following wall and fence development
standards specifying location, material and review proce-
dures 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. 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 set-
backs: •
a. Fences under forty-eight inches in height:
i. Location: may be located on property line but shall
be a minimum of seven feet from face of curb.
ii. Material: must be decorative material including
decorative blocks, stucco, wood split rail, open picket, or
wrought iron.
b. Fences forty-eight inches to seventy-two 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 twelve feet from face of curb. Site inspection shall insure
that visibility adjacent to driveways and street corners shall
not be impaired. (Reference: code Section 2536.200)
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:
419
25.56.190
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 fencing:
a. Retaining 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 the 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)
(Palm Desert 8-01)
25.56.200
25.56.200 Traffic sight obstructions.
On a comer lot, no fence, wall, hedge, structure or other
obstruction, except the natural grade of a site, within a
triangular area formed by the existing or future curblines
and a line connecting points on the existing or future
curblines a minimum of forty feet from the intersection
of the projection of the curblines, shall exceed a height
of three feet above established grade at the edge of the
street pavement or the existing pavement or traveled way.
(Ord. 524 § 2 (Exhibit A), 1987: Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975:
Exhibit A § 25.32-7.06)
2536.210 Projections into yards.
Architectural projections including eaves, awnings,
louvers, and similar shading devices; sills, belt courses,
cornices, and similar features; and flues and chimneys may
project not more than six feet into a required front yard,
rear yard, or side yard on the street side of a corner lot,
and not more than two feet into any other required yard;
provided, that the distance between an architectural projec-
tion and a side or rear property line shall not be less than
three feet- (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §
25.32-7.07(1))
2536.220 Oriel or bay windows.
Oriel or bay windows may project not more than three
feet into a required front yard, rear yard, or side yard on
the street side of a corner lot; provided, that the aggregate
width of oriel or bay windows shall not exceed fifty percent
of the length of the wall in which they are located and
the width of any individual oriel or bay window shall not
exceed ten feet. (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §
25.32-7.07(2))
2556.230 Porches and steps.
Unroofed porches, steps, and terraces may project not
more than six feet into a required front yard or side yard
on the street side of a corner lot, or to a point not closer
than three feet to an interior side or rear property line;
provided, that the height including railings shall not exceed
six feet above the grade of the ground at the property line.
(Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-7.07(3))
2556.240 Balconies over six feet above
ground.
Balconies, decks, terraces, and other similar unroofed
structures at a height including railing more than six feet
above the level at which a yard must be provided may
project not more than six feet into a required front yard
or rear yard and five feet into any other required yard;
provided, that they shall not reduce any yard to less than
five feet except on the street side of a corner lot. Such
structures shall be cantilevered or supported only by neces-
sary columns. A balcony or deck projecting from a higher
story may extend over a lower balcony or deck but shall
not in such case be deemed a roof for the lower balcony
or deck. (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §
25.32-7.07(4))
2556.250 Open stairways.
Open, unenclosed fire escapes and fireproof outside
stairways may project into any required yard not more than
four feet; provided, that no yard shall be reduced to less
than three feet. (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §
25.32-7.07(5))
2556.260 Covered patios.
Covered patios attached to a main structure may project
not more than eight feet into a required rear yard and five
feet into a required side yard within thirty-five feet of the
rear lot line; provided, that the required side yard shall
not be reduced to less than five feet and the covered patios
shall not cover more than fifty percent of the rear yard.
A covered patio not attached to a main structure is deemed
an accessory structure. (Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit
A § 25.32-7.07(6))
25.56.270 Underground structures.
Underground structures (pools) may project without limit
into any required yards; provided, that they shall not have
a height of more than two and a half feet and are not closer
than five feet to any property line. (Ord. 98 § I (part), 1975:
Exhibit A § 25.32-7.07(7))
25.56.280 Detached accessory buildings.
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by
this chapter shall be subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected
in any required yard except a rear yard. Accessory buildings
not located in any required yard shall not be subject to
this section.
B. On lots having twelve thousand square feet of lot
area or more detached accessory buildings may be located
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
shall not exceed one story or fourteen feet in height and
may not occupy more than twenty-five percent of the
required rear yard and shall be set back from the property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots having forty thousand square feet of lot area
or more, the maximum height shall be one story and
eighteen feet provided the structure is set back from proper-
ty line a distance equal to its height_
(Palm Desert 8-01)
420
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,
ORDINANCE NO. 1o9i
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
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
day of , 2005, by the following
2
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
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 Tots
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:
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
rig ht-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:
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:
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:
Decorative block;
ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house;
iii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay -resistant wood
product;
right-of-way:
product;
iv. Wrought iron.
b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public
Materials:
Block --all types;
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. 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 Zink 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
�22
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 inendment 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 Tess 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 Tess 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 Tess 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
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 25.56.195 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:
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
Review : nd Con
Homer Cr
ACM for D
/tm
opment Services
6
Reviewed and Approved by:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
MINUTES
SUBJECT 7:
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
Tots 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
SUBJEtt
REVISION
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
uG
J✓i6
MINUTES
SUBJECT TA
REVtSlUra
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
T SUBJE
'w° REVIS►.:,k
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, Tess 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
FLI SUBJECT T.
w REVISIu;4
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
F: r, SUBJECT
'm REVISIG,d
F B RUARY 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
FT
SUBJECT
REVISIOi.v
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 th.e 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
REQUEST:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPLI CANT:
CASE NO:
DATE:
CONTENTS:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Consideration of initiation of zoning ordinance amendment with
respect to wall heights/locations in single family districts.
Steve Smith, Planning Manager
City of Palm Desert
ZOA 04-04
January 13, 2005
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
amending the present code as it relates to walls in
yards of single family residences.
November 30, 2004 staff presented a memo to the
Committee (copy attached) wherein two suggested
issue were presented as follows:
1 . That code be amended to limit the amount of
that can be enclosed by a solid six (6) foot wall
(wrought iron) at six feet to 60%.
indicated an interest in
the front and street side
Landscape Beautification
means of addressing the
the linear street frontage
to 40% and open fencing
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:
Stev Smith
Planning Manager
Approva
H: er Cr
ACM for De - lopment Services
* Approved the recommendation and directed
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. 4-0 (Spiegel ABSENT)
Department Head:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
Approval:
Carlos L. Ort
City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ION:
APPROVED DENIED
RECEIVED OTHER
MEETING DATE
AYES:
NOES: /V(
ABSENT
ABSTAIN:
(W pdocs\tm\s r\zoa04-04.cc)
VERIFIED BY:
AW �r. ictinal on File w h City Clerk' a Qff%se
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:
./LL12,t
PHILIP DRELL,%Secrgtat:14 ...--
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
SAB , Chairperson
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:
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:
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:
Decorative block;
ii. Precision block stuccoed or painted to match house;
iii. Redwood, cedar or other approved decay -resistant wood
product;
right-of-way:
product;
iv. Wrought iron.
b. Interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public
Materials:
Block --all types;
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
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 Zink 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
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 Tem 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 Tem
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 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-theArchite„+tural R
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 Tem 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 concem 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 1 5-foot setbacks for five-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 Tem 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
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 tum 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
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:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050125.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. 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:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\4gmin\AR050125.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 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 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 Tots
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:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050125.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\wpdocs'Agmin\AR050125.MIN
20
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 Laredo, Administrative Secretary
III. COMMENTS - None
IV. ITEMS OF BUSINESS
A. DATE LABEL DESIGN
Spencer K. circulated a sample of the date Zabel 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 Beautificati..,t 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 "reap' 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
G:ICity ClerkWoreen BouchardWoreen\Style GuidelSample Minutes W-O Marks
Landscape Beautifica.
Minutes
Page 3 of 4
December 1, 2004
I Committee
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:ICity C1erkWoreen BouchardWoreenlStyle Guide\Sample Minutes W-O Marks