HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview ARC Decision MISC 05-14 - Tom Adler 45-875 Hedgehill Drive)CITY 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
APPLICANT: Tom Adler
666 Upas, #1501
San Diego, CA 92103
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.
III. 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:
24 -'
Ma,p ger
Services
Department Head:
�Q
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
Mai 04 05 09:46a Tom Adler 619 2999522 p.2
Tom Adler
Lawyer and Mediator (Ret.)
666 Upas Street Ste.1501 Tel: (619) 299-6W
San Diego, Ca. 92103 Fax: (619) 299-9522
maxyminocox.net
May 3, 2005
Palm Desert City Council
ATTN: Rachelle Klassen, Secty.
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
c7
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
>Mft �
-<
-�=0=
�-,
Re: Case No. MISC 05-14,
tn;n
Public Hearina Mav 12. 2005
a
_
n--n�
iCn
D h
Dear Ms. Klassen:
a'
M
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.
Received May-04-2005 08:55 From-619 2999522 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002
May 04 05 09:46a Tom Adler 619 2999522 P.3
Please advise me of the continued hearing date by calling me at (619) 8$6-
4592 or e-mailing me at maxvmin(a7cox.net. Many thanks for your attention
to this request.
Sincerely,
TOM ADLER
Received May-04-2005 06:55 From-619 2999522 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 003
I
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
DECISION OF THE: Architectural Review Commission
(Name of Determining Body)
Case No. MICS 05-14 Date of Decision: 4-12-05
Project Proponent: Tom Adler
Address: 45-875 Edgehill Drive
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.
COPYTd�` ►- PJIrJ
DATE +,16- n F�
Date Filed
Action Taken:
Date:
I
ouncil
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
+_ 15 — (--) K Received by: tFl)'k�_
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
r13 n
-a
C. _> <,
rn �1"_ t7l
00
N n -n
cn > Z3
a* M
W ACity TempialestCily WordPerfect Tempiates\cncl req for review -no lines.wpd 5121/03
CITY 0[ P 0 [ M 0 [ S I R I
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PAmm DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578
TEL: 760 346-o6i I
FAX: 760 341-7098
CITY OF PALIM,eDE ERT
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.
<W
i45.875 - —�
EDGEHILL DRIVE
No
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
I I Y 01 PRIM 01S�R1
7 3 — 5 1 o FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o6n
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-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.
63 "+"ro d ntmro rw
-� ram" *"° �!''?r� �.•!� IrCT Tr
ems- { . +,• , : S C
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'
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,
Vuksic for approval subject to having th
2. CASE NO.: MISC 05-14
e
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
G:Planning0onna Quaiverlwpdocs\Agmin1AR050412.MIN
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
APRIL 12, 2005 L
~ ' �JR:PFCT Tr
>;►: L ;; �". REVISION
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 I
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 Quaive6wpdocs\Agmin1AR050492.MIN 4
E
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SO T T TP
APRIL 12, 2005
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:Planning0onna Qualverlwpdocs\Agmin1AR050412.MIN 5
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ` SUP IFCT Tr
APRIL 12, 2005 i REVISION—'
MINUTES
4. CASE NO.: MISC 05-15
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BARBARA CLAUSS, 2781 W.
MacArthur B-224, Santa Ana, CA 92704
NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL 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 QuaiverNwpdocs\Agn*dn\AR050412.MIN 6
AL.
ri
k)
j *m Ao� OKI
&a 1) -MOWA-ML.
IW4 t .0
4t
TIC".
4v,,L a.
4L
tht 0%
.40
AL
hm x I—W 4 atf*
a � �
qti
N
-
zFi
1
� - rJ'�yi"
M'iRC::. �*'Jv.'..� µ .•,. �- .�"3 ',i>.- kLaaG•1
u. >. ..y'�
�4�y.
.e+> -S -�
�, •"Y0. atit�fx `+'.lr�u�f ^f'?+p�'�-S h _ .... [7
'd V � k x `WX•.-. 3e�+.'�:.� 4��}�`��,.,�p �` ..'�iFcE'x,- kxS'�Y �x�- - t+�s: rs��t", �����"'j ..._-�
�.tY.iY+�,�.",-'3�.tdt".�
?,M' Wx s1 ��,�a`k PyY 4
���,
�
� lam,
•f y �..T
r;
^� .'MAh.,i'' 't'��i.M1 �• 'T" I♦ "�.-r yr. 4�f'�K"
t� ,.
'J is<� r
-,;w�
j Y :.y � I'
3 '>
r P1�r R1Rh :�f`� ter•
' �.I.
tT
s
!
17
ti
17-1 F Y;, ,. `fly x} x'? 4 a " a'" �� 1( •2 4 i t�-lf k!
�:. -. ,. �: ,.��,: + .... _ i.. tv• r'i'�� a "'ti�'�� ;�,'S>, y�_ '45 �'W �� F'"f -} �c *•�t'�,� t�r : ,yR, Y
.. h s. ..- ,.. � .. .: .:. YQ-t'9.s"} 'lNw� 3 , �'".'�Tk `Y� 4f 4 7 i :. '�fi b' •�Gj'�` `' .+'; k tr. .,Gry:'
%Jf` ; �; ; i•, _ x"f a �pfi. �"���' 4'� •{� to �'�` �'.;? �-: i`t �;5�. ( ;� t�i,�„�.� Y6 (• f , ,:gyp r `; `" _ °'
7 ;.. ,�- ( ^ 5 ��fSMg i.� _`v"'3•Y�,,�s � Y a �,,Y�
`!�� � y • `
..
� +`� �kt !�' �>uFta���`i���iv"�i+ W��s•,r�. �'���Hrt a}'� l�ir*i"s 7 M�g""-;.+g',� �7• k- �, c � ,.s., � .�,
�., t• 6 �i�. iUyy',�""' aw S" a, "':. erg'': 't�,�� a f� � �, R� `��a.% � b'� �(�
u ' \ •'V Tg@r r
7'&,'""v T 3'v3'j'.•€';{�i,4."....c���� ��r.�E•" - - `�tx } a>p �1F.�ya�'^.:.z �• ' r "'
y1,t .y��}+ya E`. r 1 �} ^".c•H µ,c..
te, As
✓:.. �✓p � "1l1rf
.
1 rt�
�%�," x�C F�� C' �'.c'vr ,y.4 '+4ti.,;�x. «-' Sr�ty ,t��'�Y' #��t� �� „ �`i{� �'�,}a:`n`�s• �,'
�f
>`K
l W F v
«r
.z: ^h. R •� •, ... �, -r. h. ^Lf, X �.p�l`F �%• sL 4,. i� .x3�w,a- y'��;i`��;�.:..r�k�fi t,,•� u� ,. ? K. � '•(
K�.,sl'F- -. Y ky � u.�? k: 4( .,i �'s�lr •� "� 'X`i. -_� ,� �§_,`'�,y �r?�`,4.�3+VV5`�F 1 f } ii ! � y t ,a, }k � f
x '' _�Sf'"�' �.. a �}:?. �.'''�E.� ,e-; 'i.�Y ..� ar .(a�;r'�X'u�. '�n:�•s i<.,,� a�,��,�, y��,'�
�3P,y�'+': � �+' -. A� .,y't a' y {. t> i" �! ;, 1 x ro. f.�.g� �r���'•,1 �
'�2..`'7�t:ki�'
y+s3�Ldb"a�! `Y���...?",�'r: �'� ... d,.•.t . r �"`ct5.,3t'1:...,s���rca+1
k ` i - S •� r�r�, v3.v-.�i:�erf,.h;� t�r; s.� .
c (
II:
Renuest:
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. privacy. 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 chairs 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.
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 135 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
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 RECEIVED
45-835 Edgehill Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 285-3220
Dear Commission:
APR 0 h 2005
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. His property is open on a portion of the northeast side, his entire east
fide 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:
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-
ga.11on 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 corner 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 help
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,
U � -
isher & Francene Fisher
.(j
A t
+TrW Yk'�• q ri' �!+S�,.x.�uJ,'+i�a ,tt :.:i y
i �:
m
91
wF
`t
:{ham
a •�
m .
is
k
l;q?
a�
^t_J
x
H
a
H
H
tz
C,
z
t�
C
O
x
r7
H
t3J
t7
cn
1�