HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview of ARC Action MISC 04-65 - Charles Walford/Chris Keller 74-855 Fairway Drive* Continued the matter indefinitely during
processing of Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Case No. 04-04
REQUEST:
CITY OF PALM DESE
MEETING DATE 1-13-05 *
® COKINUEDT5 The Matter i;defjni1P1y
RID PASSED TO 2ND READING
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.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: Charles Walford / Chris Keller
74-855 Fairway Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
CASE NO: MISC 04-65
DATE: January 13, 2005
CONTENTS:
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 lots 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.
•
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.
Conclusion:
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 pdocs\tm\sr\misc0465.cc)
ment Services
Department Head:
PHiI 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 HADLEY, 25 Calle
Bonita, Sedona, AZ 86336
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a
two -building office complex.
LOCATION: 73-301 & 73-321 Fred Waring Drive
ZONE: OP
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 south side of Fairway Drive.
The home is situated across two lots. What the applicant is requesting
is putting in a wall with a 12' setback from Fairway and a 15' setback
from Canterbury Court. A picture of a sample of the fencing was given
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN 5
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\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041214.MIN
6
7-( FcA4.1v47
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Al
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
Et Et 7 ED
DECISION OF THE
(Name of Determining Body)
Case No. 7/7/CC
Date of Decision:
EVF DEPARTMENT
-.SERT
(4,
L
Address: -/iP a r-_.1. bf4, ccNi id/rXr> ''?.1:tiZetv/,--
Project Proponent:
? • . (")
Ca
0 -72 11
..r.- A ...<
CI Application or Matter Considered: G / X I y-X r--P...re e___ rri -r 033
• _,
rs3 Om 0
...i ,....urn
Description of
of
a1:1 tek
rn
0 el
con
er of the City Council
DATE
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
C:\WINDOWS\Ternporary Internet Files \OLK6281 \mei req for rev.wpd
5/21/03
CITY Of PALffi DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 340-0574
info@palm-desert. org
January 19, 2005
Mr. Charles Walford
Mr. Chris Keller
74-855 Fairway Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr. Walford and Mr. Keller:
Subject: Consideration of City Council Request for Review of an
Architectural Review Commission Decision, Approving a
5-Foot Front Yard Fence at a Single Family Residence Located
at 74-855 Fairway Drive (Case No. MISC 04-65)
At its regular meeting of January 13, 2005, the Palm Desert City Council considered the
subject case and took the following action:
By Minute Motion, continued the matter indefinitely during processing of
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Case No. 04-04.
A copy of the staff report with City Council action stamp affixed thereto is enclosed for
your records. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do
not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CMC
CITY CLERK
RDK:mgm
Enclosure (as noted)
cc: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
G:\CityClrk\Gloria Martinez\Leders\23-ARC Appeals\MISC 04-65 - Charles Walford - Chris Keller.doc
tr) HONIED ON IEEYEIEO PAPER
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARy 13, 2005
C. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF AN
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECISION, APPROVING A
5-FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 74-855 FAIRWAY DRIVE Case No. MISC 04-65
(Charles Walford/Chris Keller, Applicants).
Planning Manager Steve Smith reviewed the staff report and
recommendation, noting that this proposal falls within both the current
ordinance and what is being considered under the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment. Staff recommended approval with the conditions of the
Architectural Review Commission.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson stated the he had visited the property earlier that
day. The elevation of the stakes that he saw there were approximately two
feet above the top of curb, which would in essence make this a seven -foot
wall 12 feet from the face of curb. He questioned whether the longest lineal
frontage on the double lot was being called a side yard, with the little part of
the circle where the property owner's driveway goes into the garage and his
air conditioning is located is being called the front yard for the purposes of
applying this ordinance. Mr. Smith responded that this was per direction in
the Code. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson stated if the property owner had been
in the audience at this meeting, he would have wanted to see if the City
could work with him on doing something off of the court and preserve what
is otherwise a spectacular looking house.
Mr. Smith suggested perhaps continuing this matter and allowing the
applicant to appear before the Council; in the meantime, staff can go out and
do some measurements to see how much space there is.
Councilman Kelly stated that with the proposed ordinance amendment, he
was going to support a restriction on wooden fences and, therefore, this
particular fence would not fit with the new ordinance. He felt wooden fences
deteriorate too quickly and end up looking terrible.
Mayor Crites said his suggestion would be that wooden fences that are
visible from the public right-of-way would not be allowed. If someone wanted
a wooden fence in an area where no one could see it, that would be
acceptable. Councilman Kelly agreed.
Mr. Smith stated that one of the reasons this particular matter was referred
to Architectural Review Commission was that it was not an approved
material, and that was part of their reasoning for reducing the height.
Councilmember Benson moved to continue this matter indefinitely during processing
of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Case No. 04-04. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and
carried by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Spiegel ABSENT.
15