Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview ARC Decision MISC 05-14 - Tom Adler 45875 Edgehill DriveCITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: City Council review of a decision of the Architectural Review Commission approving a 6' high brown vinyl chain -link fence matching existing chain - link fence at 45-875 Edgehill Drive. SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner one I° r,0 APPLICANT: Tom Adler GONTi.NUED TOa...�;r P. l'' 666 Upas, #1501 PASSED TO 2ND READING San Diego, CA 92103 x CASE NO: MISC. 05-14 DATE: May 12, 2005 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Background Architectural Review Notice of Action Architectural Review Minutes Plans & Exhibits Recommendation: That the City Council by minute motion affirm the action of the Architectural Review Commission dated April 12, 2005. Discussion: I. BACKGROUND: This is a request to allow the installation of 135' of brown vinyl coated chain link fencing to match 975' of existing fencing within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. The applicant's property is located on approximately one acre of land in Cahuilla Hills. The property shares borders with a church to the north, and another hillside home to the west (Fisher property). The existing 975' of fencing has been shared by the three properties for many years. Only a small portion between the Adler property and the Fisher property remained opened. Following a dispute between Adler and Fisher over the trimming of smoke trees located in the open area, Adler constructed the remaining 135' of brown vinyl chain link fencing to completely close off access between the two properties. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed this case on April 12, 2005. After testimony from both neighbors, the commission made several comments regarding the fencing. Commissioner Hanson stated, "These are really low lying lots in the hillside area. It's not as if you are looking up at these homes." Commissioner Vuksic also commented, "What Mr. Adler did was a reasonable thing to do. It would look really out of place to have a small section of solid wall when the rest is all chain link fencing." The Staff Report Adler, MISC. 05-14 Page 2 May 12, 2005 commission approved the additional chain link fencing because it matched the existing fencing surrounding the properties. Ili. ANALYSIS: Hillside Planned Residential Zone requires any architectural and/or landscape design to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC encourages architecture and landscaping that blends with the natural terrain to the greatest practical extent. The ARC made the finding that any material other than what existed would look out of place in such a small section of wall between the homes. They also stated that since these homes were hillside lots and mostly invisible to anyone in the City that they are not opposed to brown coated chain link in this area due to its ability to blend into the natural terrain. Since the ARC meeting on April 12, 2005 the animosity between the neighbors has subsided, both parties agreeing that the chain link fencing is the best solution. Staff recommends that the City Council by minute motion affirm the action of the ARC dated April 12, 2005. Submitted By: A& -- Ryan Stendell Assistant Planner Approval: go � ,/�7> Services Department Head: Phil Drell Director of Community Development 666 Upas Street Ste.1501 San Diego, Ca. 92103 Tom Adler Lawyer and Mediator (Ret.) May 3, 2005 Palm Desert City Council ATTN: Rachelle Klassen, Secty. 73 -5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260-2578 Re: Case No. MISC 05-14, Public Hearing- May 12. 2005 Dear Ms. Klassen: Tel: (619) 299-6845 Fax: (619)299-9522 maxymin@cox.net The City of Palm Desert has scheduled a public hearing on May 12, 2005, to review the unanimous decision of the Architectural Review Commission permitting me to maintain a connecting chain link fence on my property at 45-875 Edgehill. I am requesting this hearing be continued. I do not live in Palm Desert on a full-time basis, am disabled and unable to drive myself to the hearing. My wife who is employed full-time as a judge is not available to drive me to attend a hearing on that day. She maintains a regular court calendar and has a number of matters scheduled for that day and, indeed, for most Thursdays. Since it appears the City Council holds these hearings on Thursdays, the next available Thursday for which she would be able to drive me to attend a hearing are June 9 or June 16, 2005. I am asking to have the May 12, 2005, hearing postponed to one of those dates so that I'may attend and be heard. I waive any statutory limits on the City Council's review of the Architectural Review Commission decisions. Copy To DATE Please advise me of the continued hearing date by calling me at (619) 886- 4592 or e-mailing me at maxvminaa_,cox.net. Many thanks for your attention to this request. incerely, TOM ADLER CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW DECISION OF THE: (Name of Determining Body) Case No. MICS 05-14 Architectural Review Commission Project Proponent: Tom Adler Address: 45-875 Edgehill Drive Date of Decision: 4-12-05 Description of Application or Matter Considered: Exception to Section 25.56.195, standards for walls and fences, to allow approximately 135 feet of brown vinyl chain -link fencing to tie into existing chain - link fence. COPYTiT"\ 1014 nl 114 DATA= '- ' 1 6 in, FT Date Filed Action Taken: Date: ouncil FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY `-!'— Received by: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk WACity Templates\City WordPerfect Templateslcnd req for review -no lines.wpd 5/21/03 0(TY 0 1 P 9 1 M 0 1 S I R I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CAI. IFORNIA 9226c-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6i I FAX: 76o 341-7098 CITY OF PALM'DEtERT PUBLIC NOTICE CASE NO. MISC 05-14 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by TOM ADLER for review of architectural design within the Hillside Planned Residential Zone, to allow a approximately 135 feet of brown vinyl chain -link fencing to tie into existing chain -link fence. The property is known as 45- 875 Edgehill Drive. I45.875 EDGEHILL DRIVE 1\ e •LU�Vi.'-7' � I SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 12, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers 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 Palm Desert City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. RACHELLE KLASSEN, SECRETARY , Palm Desert City Council April 12, 2005 f I Y ar M DES R1 73-51 o FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-6611 FAX: 760 341-7098 info@paim-desert.org ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO.: MISC 05-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS); TOM ADLER, 666 Upas, #1501, San Diego, CA 92103 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a perimeter chain -link fence at a single-family residence in the hillside. LOCATION: 45-875 Edgehill ZONE: HPRD Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and hearing testimony from the applicant and adjacent property owner, the Architectural Review Commission granted approval of additional chain -link because it matches the existing fencing. Date of Action: April 12, 2005 Vote: Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted not later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. Cj� MOD ON MCIEUD RIM► ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION W APRIL 12, 2005 MINUTES The applicant was directed to work with staff. Commissioner Vuksic stated that you don't want it to look too small or it would look out of scale. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to having the applicant work with staff to reduce overall square footage of signage so that it complies with the City ordinance. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 05-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOM ADLER, 666 Upas, #1501, San Diego, CA 92103 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a perimeter chain -link fence at a single-family residence in the hillside. LOCATION: 45-875 Edgehill ZONE: HPRD Mr. Bagato stated that a written request from the applicant was included in the commissioner's packets, as well as written comments from a neighbor. The property is located off Edgehill and is a hillside lot next to the Baptist Church and a few residential lots. There is existing chain -link fencing around the church and most of Mr. Adler's property, which was installed before the City had an ordinance opposed to chain -link fencing. Mr. Adler added 135 feet to enclose a portion of his property without a permit. He's here asking for an exception from our code because we don't allow chain -link fencing. Mr. Drell stated that the property owner wanted a fence that he could still look through. Photos were distributed for the commissioners to review. A notice was sent to the neighbors ten days before the meeting. Mr. Adler, applicant, stated that his neighbor, Mr. Fisher, pruned his smoke tree. I didn't want to have my smoke tree trimmed and he came over and did it anyway. I tried to work out the problem with him and since the fence was 6' high and matched the existing fence, I told the fence company to enclose my property and they said that I didn't need a permit. After I learned from Mr. Fisher's attorney that i was supposed to get a permit, I decided that the codes did not apply. I was concerned G91anning0onna QuaiverlwpdocsWgminWR050412.MIN 3 SUBJECT T ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 I� L L �' RrEVISION MINUTES that Mr. Fisher might come back on my property and do more damage to the property so I went ahead and had the fence put up. The chain - link fence matches Mr. Fisher's fence exactly so that it would be as unobtrusive as possible for that area. This is a very unique area. There are only three houses in this area and a church and all the fencing is chain -link. I was mainly interested in protecting my property. All I did was connect the end of Mr. Fisher's fence to the fence that runs parallel to the church parking lot to close that off so that Mr. Fisher couldn't come onto my property. Mr. Greg Fisher, 45-835 Edgehill Drive, neighbor, was present to address the commission. The objections that I have for this fence is that Mr. Adler knowingly violated the codes of the City of Palm Desert. It sets a non -conforming precedent for future chain -link fencing on Mr. Adler's property. The enclosed portion of the existing chain -link is around the rear of my property. My total footage of chain -link fencing is 475 feet, not 975 feet, which may have been a typo. The new chain - link section is an eye -sore, in my opinion, and it devalues both of our homes. My front view from the courtyard faces this fence. My intention in the future is to remove the only chain -link fencing that I have on my property because I think that having a home of this value that the chain -link is an eye -sore, therefore, I would like to remove all of my chain -link fencing and.come up with an alternative to still get the same purpose and objective that I need for the fence by working with the City. I would really like to work this out. The only chain -link fencing on Mr. Adler's property is that section on my side and his north side. His complete south side is open and his complete east side is open. By approving this, I would assume that in the future the chain -link fencing could not be added so that is an issue. In regards to any discussion on the history of the smoke tree, that's on my property that blocks the telephone pole. That tree has grown back quite a bit. At my own expense, I've spent $700.-$800. for an acacia tree that was in a 36" box to go in front of the telephone pole to help placate Mr. Adler to try to work this out. My proposed resolution is to not approve this chain - link fence. This has not been approved. He did just put this up with a permit and it is an eye -sore. I think that something else should be worked out. Mr. Adler stated that he would be very happy to tear down the chain - link fence as soon as Mr. Fisher builds a block wall. The fence that put up only blocks Mr. Fisher from, coming onto my property. I didn't want to put u,p a fence in this location. G:Planning0onna Quaiverlwpdocs\Agmin\AR050412.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION f a SUDI .0 APRIL 12, 2005 t• y 110 fi' i4$1: AGENDA Mr. Drell stated that this is an exception to the materials section of the ordinance. Anything that happens in the hillside is subject to Architectural Review. Commissioner Hanson stated that these are really low lying lots in the hillside area. It's not like you're looking up at them. Commissioner Vuksic commented that what Mr. Adler did was a reasonable thing to do. It would look really out of place to have a small section of solid wall when the rest is already chain link. Commissioner Hanson stated that ultimately if the goal is to provide block walls between and .around the properties, that's fine. Since Mr. Adler said that he's willing to make that change when, and if, the neighbor does it, it would be a fair thing to do. I don't think it's fair for a small section of chain -link that's basically closing off somebody's property, it doesn't make sense to make that out of a different material. Mr. Fisher stated that it's closing off his property, not Mr. Adler's property. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's the property line between your properties so it's also his property. It seems like it would impact Mr. Fisher a lot more if it was a 6' block wall. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval of additional chain -link because it matches the existing fencing. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO.: TT 30438 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 74-001 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of gatehouse, pavilion building and comfort stations at Stone Eagle. LOCATION: 48-099 Highway 74 ZONE: HPRD Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. G:Planning0anna QuaiverWpdocslAgmin1AR050412.MIN 5 177 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2005 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: MISC 05-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BARBARA CLAUSS, 2781 W. MacArthur B-224, Santa Ana, CA 92704 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of side entry carport at 16'6" from the curb, stuccoed and painted to match existing house. LOCATION: 45-896 San Luis Rey ZONE: R-3 Mr. Bagato stated that our code allows side -entry garages 16' from the curb so the applicant is in conformance, but it requires ARC approval. Mr. Drell stated that the side of the garage that faces the street looks like a blank wall. Typically, you can get some architecture on side -entry garages instead of just a garage door. They could put windows in it or something so that it doesn't look like just a blank wall. Commissioner Hanson asked the representative, Al Robinson, if he intended to stucco the inside of the garage. Mr. Robinson ' stated that he hadn't planned on it. There will be greenery on the outside so you won't see the inside. Commissioner Vuksic asked to see photos of the existing house. No photos were available. The only way that this could be approved is if it matched the existing house. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would like to have this request continued so that she could go to the site and look at the existing house. Commissioner Lambell asked to see a landscape plan. No plans were available. . Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to (1) return with photos of existing house and (2) submit landscape plan. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 04-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALFRED COOK/BRIAN GOTTLIEB, 45-120 San Pablo, 2C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 25,000 square foot professional office building. G91anning0onna QuaiveAwpdocs\Agmin\AR050412.MIN 6 EM Mow ,will ft I 19 a] '�.<. '�i';; y v f n i 3 4 4 N> 3". �Ti y ,bn<: w � y s 9 �v S rgi. Kb. 9� ? S)' L' 'ti' ^w tt r� f .a i r. , , , > } vieika- t v J: rp ,P� .. ,:'u; - •Tn qi,'; s%"l �' �,�; ,.7L *.'"';rG".:5'.: ..:,-t .;.{x.z,1�,.'�Y..y�*�i•: >"dt .may - 3YT t* Yr .r ��n „< y5< ✓ e. t; �f H_ a °d+, ,a c;u^' 4 s` ,N •3Ta /y. iec, „s e <{ Gu F ray '�✓r r - ? M4: k% w� y <7: r, jv ic 1 ^ t a a.. ... .. .. .,,, ma <✓r:;, yes .,�".,.< r° •,�./ 1. „ M < e q' y , t' -F. "N + 4: o- Y. .4 h < e «r ` .t; r , -, ..:. .... ..✓<„ ., ,. ,-e ..- .. .. a:.: tea., ;". ... ,n5 ..N'.'iY<^ x < i �fi [ r� rp �i- t > :,✓,<. 'w%(`: Yya£�.'d �x ow,µ "., °'S:"W L, <t l i{. ar "t" �• Ff v: i � '�. ,�r sir " ., rrY N..., .t Ls. ..., ;. d.'. w n " .P 'k J�ti? bri p' d..,� < : r , ^ e. < ,=1 J 3' , Ne % t ,t✓ ' s 1 .y f }} < K r , !rs >F« ^, s . ^'ice''° ,.;�:«`° :: xn � '. <h!�.,,,;,.; ..r ;• .. .. N �H�.��'`�✓, st aK F-r/ e i .•. ' µ ate,.!•• }%,� . , y ,.+�> � i ce: DF tg— i�'.: ,, .-tom«-`_�:if;.�.•; y'.^,.6, � �K a(: .� .5'a"v: '�: :d �j"'i 4h'`�. �'''✓'wdapTi-`.,,.� �•� :�... �' j aR z<'I(i•,::, [,,.. p:�-: �.:s.,?"•�:,Hx.«��:r'. j t.�i sn s �j �N d44 ,"�f;:' vi>,". �.�: ' x^u'x..'•kim :tM '.w.'�'R.:��;%a, xw�:�y. r l ¢" . �y. td' fir✓`/h Yf � J/x ' I' / t Ch cc h � a f i� %5i r. ,x - 9.yx 4 NEW�M6 Request: This is a request by the owner ( hereinafter Adler) for an exception to the Palm Desert fencing ordinance and standards based on the fact that the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards would be impractical or contrary to the ordinances which in relevant part seek to "protect the public health and safety" (5.04.010) and to "achieve consistency. throughout the city" and to "protect and reconcile the often conflicting goals of aesthetics. vrivacv, security, view sight lines and drainage" (15.04.030 emphasis added). The Adler's property sits on approximately one acre of rural property which was originally a five acre parcel now divided into three home sites and a church property in an isolated part of the City of Palm Desert (Cahuilla Hills). No other development is possible in the surrounding area due to the development which has already occurred on the surrounding properties which are all five acre parcels. To the knowledge of the applicant the surrounding parcels are already built on or are owned by the City of Palm Desert and held as parkland. The specific request is for approval of approximately 135 feet of brown vinyl chain link fence that was installed as a connection to match an existing brown vinyl chain link approximately 975 feet long which has been in place prior to the enactment of the present ordinances. Of the existing 975 feet of fence, approximately 800 feet surrounds the complaining neighbor's (hereinafter Fisher) property. The remaining 175 feet of brown chain link separates the Adler and Fisher properties from the church parking lot (See diagram attached hereto as Exhibit B). Pictures of the existing fence, the new fence and the surrounding area are Exhibits B-1 through B-7. There is no process by which the City could require the removal of 975 feet of existing fence. The only way to achieve the City's stated goal of consistency in this clearly separate and isolated part of the City is to approve of the conforming fencing. Any other type of fencing would look out of place since it is basically an extension of the fencing already in place. Additionally, brown chain link is, given the area, a very unobtrusive material which blends in well with the surrounding desert and is barely noticeable given the obscure area in which it exists. 1 Legal Obiections: The applicant does not agree that this administrative agency has jurisdiction over this matter and is submitting to this process in order to exhaust his administrative remedies. Specifically the following objections are made: l/ The ordinances under which this application is required by the City are unconstitutional on their face and as applied. 2/ The ordinances which attempt to regulate the construction of fences which are six feet or under constitute an unlawful attempt to amend the California Building Code (see CBC 15.040.030). 3/ The ordinance(s) which attempt to regulate the fence in question are unconstitutional on their face and/or as applied in this case. 4/ The ordinances(s) which are being invoked in this case to require approval of the fence in question are inapplicable on their face to the fence in question. 5/ Neither the City of Palm Desert nor Fisher has standing to complain under the Palm Desert ordinances since the fence in question is not subject to public view from a position on public property and there is no evidence that it constitutes a danger to the public nor does it reflect negatively on the aesthetics of the city Necessitv: Adler is absent from his home for long periods of time. Sometime in 2002 or 2003 Fisher trespassed onto Adler's property by way of the 13 5 feet of opening between the chain link. Fisher wanted a better view of the valley and commenced to start to "trim" Adler's smoke tree. Adler happened to be home and stopped the trimming but agreed to allow some trimming that afternoon but wanted to be present since it was his tree and it hid sight of a power pole on Fisher's land. Without waiting for Adler to be present, Fisher had his workers start the trimming which was caught and stopped by Adler. 2 M In November 2004 while Adler was out of the City, Fisher again knowingly trespassed and maliciously and unlawfully "severely" trimmed the smoke tree knowing that it was on Adler's property (see Exhibits C and D) thus giving Fisher a much nicer valley view and Adler a full view of the power pole that had previously been totally hidden from Adler's view. After several months of attempting to unsuccessfully work out a resolution of the problem with Fisher and becoming increasingly uncomfortable with his property so readily accessible to Fisher, Adler erected the fence at a cost of over $2000. Conclusion This is a unique situation, unlikely to be repeated in any other part of the City. The area is isolated and there is a large amount of brown 'chain link fence which actually sets the aesthetic standard for this small area. Any other type of fencing used to connect the existing fencing would be inconsistent for the area. A strict or literal interpretation of the fencing regulations would be inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance and it is clear that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that do not apply generally to other properties in the City. Furthermore, a strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the regulations would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. 3 April 5, 2005 To: City of Palm Desert Architectural Planning Commission From: Greg and Francene Fisher 45-835 Edgehill Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 285-3220 Dear Commission: eye COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT The purpose of this letter is to request the denial of the issuance of a permit for the exception to the City of Palm Desert fencing ordinance and standards requested by Mr. Tom Adler residing at 45-875 Edgehill Drive. OBJECTIONS: 1. The 135' feet of chain link fence was constructed by Mr. Adler knowing it violated Palm Desert City Code requirements. 2. It sets a non -conforming precedent for future chain link fencing on Mr. Adlers property. 3. My house faces kitty corner to the front of the lot and the front of the house faces the chain link fence. 4. The fence is an eyesore. See Exhibit (A). 5. It devalues both of our home values for potential future sales 6. My intention in the future is to remove the chain link fence around the rear of my home and replace it with a type of fencing that blends in aesthetically and meets current City of Palm Desert codes and standards. I have approximately 475 feet of chain link fence on my property. If Mr. Adlers chain link fence permit is approved it is permanent. When I upgrade my fence, I will have the problem of Mr. Adlers 135' of non -conforming chain link fence that would stick out. I would like to point out that the new chain link fence on the west side of Mr. Adlers property along with a,portion of this north property line are the only two areas he has chain link fencing. fiis property is open on a portion of the northeast side, his entire east §ide and south side. If Mr. Adler is approved for a "variance" for the portion now an issue, presumably his next step is to build a "now approved" similar non -conforming chain link fence on the remaining open three quarters of his property. BACKGROUND: 1. When the Adlers built their home, we were told they did not want one of the two smoke trees, which is on our property to be cut. It helped to block their view of a power pole on my property approximately 250 feet away from his patio. When I made landscaping improvements to my home, I ran my own irrigation lines to the two smoke trees. In addition, I installed up lighting to one of the smoke trees, which I recently discovered again when one of the large broken limbs was removed from laying on the ground. 2. We have respected this request over the years, until the tree became top-heavy and overgrown. We contacted Mr. Adler, and asked that he be present when our gardener cut the tree in order to be "neighborly". (We flatly deny his statement that he "caught us" trimming the tree") Additionally, this tree has only been trimmed twice in the last ten years. 3. Due to the high windstorms we experienced in the fall, a large branch of the tree broke. In October of 2004, I had fifteen trees on my property pruned. Since the branch of the smoke tree was in the way, the gardener cut away the broken branches and properly pruned the tree. (See Exhibit B) 4. When Mr. Adler arrived in the desert last fall, he contacted us and made several unfounded accusations. In a letter he wrote to me, he threatened to have me arrested for trespassing. In order to placate Mr. Adler, we agreed to his request that we plant a tree in front of the power pole. We planted a 36- gallon Acacia tree. He requested this type of tree because he has a similar one on his property, which blocks another power pole on the Northeast comer of his property. We complied with this request, at our expense, in order to put the situation to rest. (In the meantime, the pruned tree has almost grown back to its former condition. 5. After I planted the tree Mr. Adler was still not satisfied. He took affirmative action by having an attorney send me a threatening demand letter. Despite our numerous attempts to be neighborly, plant another tree on our property to Delp block his view of the power pole, we cannot satisfy the Adlers. 6. I believe that Mr. Adler built his non -conforming fence to spite me and The City of Palm Desert. DISCUSSION. - Mr. Adler and his wife, the Honorable Judge Louise Adler put up 135' of 6' high chain link fence without a permit from the City of Palm Desert. The Adlers were well aware that the fence did not meet current codes and made the clear choice to put it up anyway. In addition, prior to the installation of the chain link fence, Mr. Adler visited the planning department to inquire'about getting a permit for his chain link fence. He was informed that the City was no longer issuing permits for chain link fences. The Adlers knowingly put the fence up after City hall denied a permit and explained the process to obtain an exception to the fencing ordinance. After being informed by City Hall he sent an e-mail to me requesting that I write: "A simple statement to the effect that you have no objection to the construction of the fence as described and that you will not cause any complaint to be made to any official regarding the installation of the fence without a permit. " In response to Mr. Adler's request I wrote a letter dated February 28, 2005. I requested that ANY fence built on his property be built in accordance with City fence codes. Specifically, I said, "If you are suggesting I agree to something that is not allowed under present code requirements, this is not acceptable. I will not be part of agreeing to your fence plan that breaks City of Palm Desert fencing codes. I do not wish and do not agree to the building of a chain linkfence. Please build your fence in accordance with current City of Palm Desert code requirements. " PROPOSED RESOLUTION: 1. Mr. Adler shares the boundary survey he claims to have. I will have it reviewed to see if it is accurate. This will determine once and for all the proper location of a fence as well as the ownership of the two smoke trees involved. To date, Mr. Adler has refused to provide his survey to the City and me unless I pay him money. 2. If Mr. Adler is not willing to work with me and the City as I propose to put in a conforming fence, I request that his application for a variance be denied and he be ordered to remove the non -conforming fence. CONCLUSION: My intention in the next year or two is to remove the existing chain link fencing on my property and replace it with a conforming fence that meets City standards. The chain link fence that Mr. Adler and his wife, the Honorable Judge Louise Adler constructed was put up knowingly aware of the fact it violated the City fencing code. Tom Adler is a retired attorney and well aware of the proper channels to follow for approval of an exception to the City ordinances. I request the commission deny Mr. Adler's request for an exception to the fencing ordinance. Thank you for your consideration and we are open to your suggestions to help resolve this issue while complying to all codes and aesthetics of the City. Best regards, fisher & Francene Fisher EXHIBIT (A) BEFORE CHAIN LINK FENCE "Mg "RN Wym �.W 'V v .......... J� �g A f, " a - - . v,°-, � � f IVA J o-� moo XIM a, � +s nr 7' ii ✓ K Y � � �y t� b tz bd C3 z t-d tZI bi -jN nil Alm w"s —21 W"—VIM 0 Arn .A Ramp , go lot Aw 001—assn's F- lilt , NW, sm" Ril� A 7 R'