Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview ARC Decision - MISC 04-65 - Charles Walford/Chris KellerREQUEST: SUBMITTED BY: APPLICANT: CASE NO: DATE: CONTENTS: CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Consideration of a City Council request for review of an action by the Architectural Review Commission approving .a five-foot front yard fence at a single family residence at 74-855 Fairway Drive. Steve Smith, Planning Manager Charles Walford / Chris Keller 74-855 Fairway Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 MISC 04-65 January 13, 2005 Staff Recommendation Discussion December 14, 2004 ARC Minutes Staff Recommendation: That by minute motion the City Council affirm the action of the Architectural Review Commission approving a five-foot high paneled wood fence at a minimum setback of 12 feet from the curb at 74-855 Fairway Drive, subject to conditions. Discussion: December 14, 2004 the ARC considered a request to install a six-foot high paneled wood fence setback 12 feet from the Fairway Drive curb and 15 feet from the Canterbury Court curb. The property is comprised of two Tots which were previously merged which extend along the south side of Fairway Drive between Fox Hills Court and Canterbury Court. The home is located toward the west end and faces Fairway Drive. The fence is proposed at the northeast corner of the property. Staff Report Case No. MISC 04-65 Page 2 January 13, 2005 The six-foot high fence as proposed complies with the current code provisions. Pursuant to the code, Canterbury Court is the front yard (i.e., shorter of the two frontages) and Fairway Drive is the "street side yard." Per code, maximum wall height on Fairway is limited to six feet with a setback of 12 feet from the curb and on Canterbury six feet in height with a setback of 15 feet. ARC considered the following issues in its deliberations: • The fence as proposed complies with the current code. • • . Conclusion: The proposed fence will occupy approximately 20% of the Fairway Drive frontage, whereas, the proposed code amendment anticipates a maximum limit of 40%. Locating the fence 12 feet from the Fairway Drive curb allows for preservation of a mature olive tree. The space available on the lot in which to locate a fenced in area for a dog is severely limited due to the orientation of the dwelling. The remainder of the Fairway Drive frontage is attractively landscaped in a Desert Willow style. ARC was concerned with the proposed six-foot high painted Douglas Fir fence, but in consideration of the above items, determined that it could be acceptable at a maximum height of five feet, subject to the applicant obtaining approval of a landscape plan for that perimeter area in front of the wall. Submitted by: Steve Smith Planning Manager Appro omer Croy ACM for Develo (W pd ocs\t m\s r\m i s c 0465. cc) ment Services Departmertt Head: PIiiI Drell Director of Community Development Approval: Carlos L. Orte City Manager ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 AGENDA LOCATION: 73-900 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: PP 04-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): T. MICHAEL Bonita, Sedona, AZ 86336 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: two -building office complex. LOCATION: 73-301 & 73-321 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: OP HADLEY, 25 Calle Final approval of a Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 04-65 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHARLES WOLFORD/CHRIS KELLER, 74-855 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 6' high Douglas fir fence with setbacks of 12' and 15' from the curb for a single-family residence. LOCATION: 74-855 Fairway Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the home is on The home is situated across two lots. is putting in a wall with a 12' setback from Canterbury Court. A picture of a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin1AR041214.MIN 5 the south side of Fairway Drive. What the applicant is requesting from Fairway and a 15' setback sample of the fencing was given ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2004 AGENDA to the commission to review. Street side yard setbacks on a corner lot is 12'. This is a unique situation because they really have two fronts. Charles Wolford, applicant, was present and stated that his neighbor across from Canterbury Court has a wall that faces Fairway and it has a 10' setback . I'd like to have a 12' setback to avoid cutting into an olive tree. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that a bigger concern is the fencing material. Are you proposing to use wood? Mr. Wolford stated that he is proposing to use wood, which is not common. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it's an approved material. Mr. Drell stated that it's not an approved material in the front. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the applicant has done some great things to the house with some nice decorative block work in the front. He asked Mr. Wolford if he could use the block material for the wall. Mr. Wolford stated that it is rather expensive. I've chosen wood because it's the most affordable option and architecturally it would be very interesting. You see a lot of wood fences in Palm Springs. There will be landscaping around it to make sure that it looks good. It'll be 1' x 8' Douglas fir, primed, painted and water sealed. Mr. Drell stated that from a public visibility point of view, the Fairway elevation is more prominent. If there was a spot where we would rather have a 15' setback it would be on Fairway. Mr. Wolford stated that he's trying to avoid losing a large olive tree and is asking for a 12' setback. Commissioner Hanson commented that she wouldn't want the tree to be cut down. Mr. Drell stated that he could put the tree on the inside or the outside of the fence. He asked for a landscape plan for the front of the fence. Mr. Wolford commented that there is existing landscaping but he will add more landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there are other houses in the neighborhood with fences closer to the curb. Mr. Smith commented that the property in question is basically an island because he has cul- de-sacs on each end of the property. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there are a few other houses in the neighborhood with front yard walls. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval of location and material with the fence at 5' in height, subject to landscape plans being submitted and approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs1Agmin\AR041214.MIN 6 -7q -Ecki124/1477 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW RECEIVED DECISION OF THE 77 Da: 2 2004 (Name of Determining Body) COMMUNITY DUET CPMENT DEPARTMENT CITv OF PAL'SERI Case No. viliSC Date of Decision: IM D Project Proponent: Address: to_r be4 Z 1.114 C, :I ..^ > ...< C, 1— Application or Matter Considered: 6. / X; 7-X 1:74).-0-e .2.__ el rri --r 0 70 ro c'rnO ....4 ,....4)rn to,r Description of COPY T DATE /3 V) C) rla "el er of the City Council Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen City Clerk C:NS/VINDOVVS \Temporary Internet Files 101.K62E31 \cnd req for rev.wpd 5/21/03