HomeMy WebLinkAboutMISC 14-150 - Meyer-Adams - 77355 Minnesota Ave CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO ALLOW AN EXCEPTION TO
PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.40.080 FENCES
AND WALLS TO ALLOW A WOOD PICKET FENCE VISIBLE
FROM THE SURROUNDING ROADWAY AT 77-355 MINNESOTA
AVENUE
SUBMITTED BY: Eric Ceja, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: Ruth Meyer/Glenda Adams
12220 W. 31 St Street Place
Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
DATE: June 12, 2014
CONTENTS: Architectural Review Commission Minutes May 13, 2014
Exhibits and Photos Provided by Applicant
Legal Notice
Recommendation
Waive further reading and adopt Resolution 2014- 57 to uphold the
Architectural Review Commission's decision to allow an exception to Palm
Desert Municipal Code 25.40.080 Fences and Walls to allow a wood picket
fence visible from the surrounding roadway at 77-355 Minnesota Avenue.
Executive Summary
The Palm Desert Municipal Code contains provisions regulating the material and
placement of fences and walls on residential properties in the City. Exceptions to these
standards may be approved by the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The
City's ARC reviewed and approved the applicanYs request for an exception to the City's
fence and wall standards to allow an existing wood picket fence based on aesthetics
and maintenance of the fence. The picket fence is already in place and was installed
without Planning Department approval and without building permits.
Staff Report Resolution No. 2014-57
MISC 14-150 - Wood Picket Fence
June 12, 2014
Page 2 of 3
Analvsis
Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 25.40.080 Fences and Walls, contains standards
for wall placement, wall height, and permissible wall materials. These standards limit
wall material to decorative block, stucco or wrought iron when visible from the
surrounding public street. Wood fencing is permissible only when it is not visible from
the street. The applicant has stated that the wood picket fence has been in existence
for over a decade and was part of the home when they purchased the property in 2010.
The applicant is proposing to maintain the already installed wood picket fence that is
visible from Minnesota Avenue.
Exceptions to the City's fence and wall standards can be requested by the applicant for
consideration by the ARC. The Commission may approve an exception if:
• Unusual circumstances exist that make literal interpretation of the standards
impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance, and
• Approval of the exception does not result in damage to adjacent properties, and
• Staff notifies surrounding property owners of the applicant's exception request.
Staff did notify adjacent neighboring properties, and did not receive comments either in
favor or in opposition. The wood fence also does not damage other properties, is well
maintained, and enhances the overall quality of the property.
Exceptions can be granted if the code interpretation is contrary to the purpose of the
ordinance, and although the ordinance does not permit wood fencing that is visible from
the roadway, the purpose of the code section is to reconcile the often conflicting goals
of aesthetics and privacy. The fence, which has been in place for over a decade, is
currently well maintained, and complies with the height and setbacks standards of the
code section. Since decorative fences, such as picket fences, are not specifically
addressed in the code, and since this particular picket fence is of high quality and is
well maintained, staff recommended approval of an exception as the aesthetic quality of
the fence enhances the property and neighborhood.
Architectural Review Commission
The City's Architectural Review Commission reviewed the proposed wall exception
application at their meeting on May 13, 2014. The Commission discussed, at length, the
issues surrounding this proposal, including the fence material, the pre-existing condition
of the fence, and the aesthetic and decorative nature of the fence. The Commission
stated that although wood fencing is visible from the street, and it is not an allowed
fence material, this particular fence has some architectural merit, is well maintained and
may pre-date the current ordinance. The Commission approved the applicanYs request,
subject to minor modifications to the fence, by a vote of 6-0-0-1, with one abstention.
\�Srv-f12k3\groups\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\MISC\MISC 14-150 Meyers_Adams Wall Exception\MISC 14-150 CC Staff Report.doc
Staff Repo rt Resolution No. 2014-57
MISC 14-150 - Wood Picket Fence
June 12, 2014
Page 3 of 3
Environmental Review
According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff must determine
whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to
CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine
whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further
environmental review is necessary.
Staff has determined that the proposed fence and wall exception is exempt from CEQA
review because the proposed picket fence material is an accessory use to the home on
the property. Accessory structures, including walls and fences are listed as Class 3
(15303(e)) Categorical Exemptions under CEQA.
Fiscal Analvsis
There is no fiscal impact to the City for the consideration of this exception to the
Municipal Code. CITY COUNCIL�CTION
APPROVED � DENTED
RECEIVED OTHEIt p��
Submitted By: - �p,c��7
, MEETING DA • a' aal
• AYES: �Y) � i 'e r d TC�i�ile
.� �
Eric Ceja, Associ Planner ABSENT:
ARSTAIN:,��
VERIFIED BY: ?
Department Head , Original on File with City lerk's Offece
�—� * 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No.
'�~ `' 2014-57, upholding the Architectural Review
�, _ -
�- l�'" Commission's decision to allow an exception to
Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Develop Deset Municipal Code Section 25.40.080 -
Fences and Walls - to allow a wood picket fence
visible from the surrounding roadway at 77355
Minnesota Avenue.
A oval: 2) By Minute Motion; a} Direct that a subcommittee be
f.ormed, including appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Weber
and Mayor Tanner, two members of Architectural Review
Commission, one mpmber of the Plannin� Commission, and
J n M. Wohlmuth, City Manager two at- arge indusfir.y profPssionalG to rPvi.ew the
existing prohibition on wooden fences and wall� and
recomtnend a m�dificati�n to the Code to all�w them,
subject to c�ndi_ti.ons; b) suspend any Code Enforcement
activity �r w��den fencPs and wal.ls while thP issue
is undPr study. 5--0
\\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\MISC\MISC 14-150 Meyers_Adams Wall Exception\MISC 14-150 CC Staff Report.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2014- 5�
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO ALLOW AN EXCEPTION TO PALM
DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.40.080 FENCES AND WALLS
TO ALLOW A WOOD PICKET FENCE VISIBLE FROM THE
SURROUNDING ROADWAY AT 77-355 MINNESOTA AVENUE
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 13�' day of May, 2014, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the request by Ms. Ruth Meyer and Ms. Glenda Adams for an exception to the City's fence
and wall ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission made the required findings in
accordance with Section 25.40.080.F of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and approved
the applicant's request for an exception to the fence and wall ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the decorative nature, aesthetic quality, and pre-existing conditions of
the fence make the literal interpretation of the standards set in Section 25.40.080 of the
Palm Desert Municipal Code contrary with the purpose of the City's fence and wall
standards; and
WHEREAS, this item was called up by the City Council for further discussion and
review and has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2014-41, the
Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed action qualifies as
a Class 3 (15303(e)) categorically exemption under CEQA, and is not subject to further
environmental review.
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 upholding the Architectural
Review Commission's decision to allow for an exception to the City's Fences and Wall
Ordinance:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 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 the City Council does hereby uphold the Architectural Review
Commission's decision to grant an exception to the City's fence and wall
ordinance.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014- 57
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the day of 2014, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
VAN G. TANNER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
\\srv-fi12k3\groups\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\MISC\MISC 14-150 Meyers_Adams Wall Exception\MISC 14-150 CC R2 S OI.Ut 10ri.C�O CX
2
�,�-� CITY OF PALM DESERT
� � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER
_.:,,..: .
FROM: TONY BAGATO, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DATE: MAY 14, 2014
SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF MAY 13, 2014 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION ACTIONS
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS RECEIVED FINAL APPROVAL AND ARE SUBJECT TO
APPEAL UNTIL MAY 28. 2014.
1. CASE NO: MISC 14-150
� APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: RUTH MEYER/GLENDA ADAMS, 12220 W. 31St
Street Place, Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of an exception
to allow a wood picket fence visible from the surrounding roadway.
LOCATION: 77-355 Minnesota Avenue
ZONE: R-1 9,000
ACTION: Granted approval subject to: 1) removal of the extended portions on
the fence that extend to the sidewalk; and 2) keeping fence at a straight line
parallel to the street. Motion carried 7-1-0 with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin,
McAuliffe, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Mclntosh voting NO.
2. CASE NO: MISC 14-152
APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: KATHLEEN O'BRIEN, 77-275 Minnesota
Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of an exception
to allow a white vinyl picket fence located within the right-of-way of the front yard.
LOCATION: 77-275 Minnesota Avenue
ZONE: R-1 9,000
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES May 13, 2014
V. CASES:
A. Final Drawings:
1. CASE NO: MISC 14-150
APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: RUTH MEYER/GLENDA ADAMS,
12220 W. 31S Street Place, Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of
an exception to allow a wood picket fence visible from the
surrounding roadway.
LOCATION: 77-355 Minnesota Avenue
ZONE: R-1 9,000
Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, said this is for an exception to
allow an existing wood picket fence that complies with the height
and setback requirements. The owner purchased the home in 2010
and the fence was already in place prior to the purchase. The fence
and wall exception procedure in the municipal code allows the
Architecture Review Commission (ARC) to make exceptions to the
code for fences and walls. In this case, this isn't a new fence even
though it was never permitted and staff feels that because of the
overall design and the pride that the property owner takes in
maintaining it, staff is recommending approval for this material.
Commissioner Clark asked if this was installed prior to City
annexation and Mr. Ceja said he could not find anything on the
City's end that it was permitted prior to the annexation in 1994.
Commissioner Levin asked if the section of the fence that comes
down to the sidewalk was within the right-of-way. Mr. Ceja said it
was and explained that Public Works has taken a new stance that
they will allow certain improvements in the right-of-way including
landscape, landscape holders, and some types of materials.
Commissioner Vuksic asked how this came up. Mr. Ceja said Code
Compliance received a list of homes from a resident in the Palm
Desert Country Club (PDCC) regarding fences that were never
permitted, Staff investigated and found several of these types of
fences. He informed the Commission that a legal notice was mailed
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES May 13, 2014
and asked if there was anyone in attendance who was in favor of or
in opposition for this request.
Ms. Kathleen O'Brien, introduced herself as the representative for
the owners, Ruth Meyers and Glenda Adams, and informed the
Commission that the fence has been there for at least 8 years.
Commissioner Levin asked staff if this needed HOA approval. Mr.
Bagato said HOA approval was a separate issue and the City
technically doesn't need it and he wasn't aware if the HOA is willing
to approve wood.
Commissioner Vuksic said one of the reasons for the ordinance is
because of the way wood behaves here in the desert. Wood is
difficult to maintain to keep it looking good. He asked if we allow
this what kind of precedence does it set. And in this case, if we
don't allow this what kind of precedence does it set because there
are probably a lot of wood fences out there that have been there for
a long time. He asked if staff would be going to everyone who
bought homes with fences that are completely unaware of this
ordinance and make them take down their wood fence. It seems
like it could get pretty nasty. Chair Van Vliet said it would probably
take an ordinance change to address this.
Commissioner Clark said he drove up and down Minnesota Avenue
and noted that picket fences are not common in Palm Desert
Country Club. Most of the homes have an open front yard and he
would be concerned with setting a precedent here.
The Commission discussed the possibility of an ordinance change
regarding picket fences and the precedence it may set. They talked
about the homes that have had wood fences for many years prior to
the annexation and asked if these fences could be grandfathered.
Mr. Bagato explained that if something has never been permitted it
cannot be grandfathered. Even if it was done through the County
prior to the annexation and there is no evidence of a permit, it is not
considered legal. This would have to be something staff would
evaluate as brand new.
Ms. O'Brien said there are so many wood fences throughout the
City. She explained that the applicants for this wood fence are
impeccable and maintain it. She thought the PDCC allowed wood
fences on the sides with wooden gates just not in the front yard. Mr.
Swartz said the City allows for interior and rear wood fences but
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES May 13, 2014
anything facing the street has to be either wrought iron or block,
however there is an exception where the ARC can approve them.
Commissioner Lambetl said this becomes very subjective on when
it goes over the point that it needs to be replaced or maintained.
Ms. O'Brien said there are a lot of wooden fences but there are also
many ugly brick walls that are peeling and falling apart.
Commissioner McAuliffe said the precedence here is not that we
are approving a new wooden fence, but a pre-existing fence that
has been well maintained. He feels that the precedence is pre-
existing and if the applicants came to this Commission for a brand
new installation the precedent is no; this would not be an allowable
material.
Chair Van Vliet felt this will open a Pandora's Box. Once this is
approved, it will allow people to put up wood fencing. Mr. Bagato
said we would have to set the precedent on whether this is design
worthy or not. We have to be willing to look at each fence on its
own merit and be willing to approve it as a new fence based on
aesthetics.
Commissioner Clark asked what the aesthetics are on this fence
that staff feels makes it extraordinary. Mr. Bagato said from a code
standpoint a picket fence has more aesthetic merit. Commissioner
Levin said this fence looks good. You see in, you see the front yard
and the house, and it enhances the front yard as opposed to putting
in a block wall that would make it look more contained.
The Commission and staff discussed the intent of the code. Mr.
Bagato said the code doesn't allow us to grant a variance or an
exception based on it being a non-permitted fence 10 years ago
and is still standing. It has to have more of an aesthetic appeal
versus age and appearance. Commissioner Lambell felt the
applicants were trying to bring some interest to the front of the
home. She agrees that age does play a factor but this is a pre-
existing fence that has architectural merit.
Mr. Bagato explained that in 2001 wood fencing was allowed as a
tie-in to the side of the house, but not beyond. It also allowed picket
fences and open split-rail. Then when the code changed about
eight years ago to increase the setback, the Council voted on
removing all wood visible from the street or the public right-of-way.
Commissioner Lambell asked if the applicant runs the risk of
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES May 13, 2014
Council denying this and then it will have to come down. Mr. Bagato
said yes. He explained that whatever action the ARC takes, Council
can call it up.
Commissioner Vuksic said if the applicant was coming in with this
design for a new fence he would be okay with it because it is light,
airy, low, and has architectural interest. If it was 6' high, he wouldn't
be okay with it. With it being low it makes a huge difference;
however he did not understand the protrusions coming out to the
sidewalk and did not find them acceptable.
Commissioner Colombini made a motion to approve the picket
fence subject to: 1) removal of the extended portions on the fence
that extend to the sidewalk; and 2) keeping fence at a straight line
parallel to the street. Commissioner Vuksic made the second.
Commissioner Clark said he was in support of that motion, but
stated he had a lot of trouble with this because there is the potential
for precedent, but it probably pre-dates the ordinance and the
quality of the landscaping is very good. He also agrees that the side
fences projecting out towards the sidewalk should be removed.
Chair Van Vliet said if this was permitted at the time it was built it
would add some credence to it.
ACTION:
Commissioner Colombini moved to approve picket fence subject to: 1)
removal of the extended portions on the fence that extend to the sidewalk;
and 2) keeping fence at a straight line parallel to the street. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by a 7-1-0 vote, with
Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting
YES and Mclntosh voting NO.
.� C11Y OF l �l � ES � R �
�� 73-5�0 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 922G0-2575
TEL: 760 346—o6►t
Fn�c: 760 34i-7oq8
i nfo@palm-desert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Palm Desert City Council has calied up application MISC 14-150 for review.
The property owner filed the application for an exception to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.40.080 Fence
and Wall to allow for the placement of a wood picket fence in the front yard at 77-355 Minnesota Avenue, west of
Wamer Trail. The City's Architectural Review Commission considered and approved the exception to the fence
and wall standards at their meeting on May 13, 2014.
The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that the proposed project is exempt under Article 19
Section 15303(e) (Class 3) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures under the CEQA, and
therefore no further environmental review is necessary.
Project Location/ Description:
Proiect Location: 77-355 Minnesota Avenue
--M1NiNESfl��1-A1/ENIi
�Lt�
77-355 Minnesota Avenue 'p�
r�
Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the City Council either uphold the Architectural Review
Commission's decision for approval of the decorative fence, and; that the City Council provide staff direction on
how to address future requests for decorative fencing.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the City Council on June 12, 201�4, at 4:00 pm. in the
City Council Chambers.
Comment Period: The public comment period is from the date of this letter to June 12, 2014.
Public Review: The application and related documents are available for public review daily at City Hall. Please
submit written comments to the Planning Departmen#. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised
may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence at, or prior to the City Council hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to:
Eric Ceja, Associate Planner
�,...`T�,.� CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
/ �
� REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
DECISION OF THE �� C N i rt�rc-'P-A �- ����''iE w.� Co r���r�i s s io n�
(Name of Determining Body)
Case No. ����� l�-/�� Date ofi Decision: ���y l�,� a�'�7�
Project Proponent:
Address: �7 .3ss Mintne'�sorA A�°�n,TUt
Description of
Application or Matter Considered: �i�s�cl er�u��n c{� an �k��,�fr ov� � c l�Q��I
�a ��n�c,1 /����k ,� f ;�eo�c�. �'r���`l�le �iorr� -fh� S�c.�✓ro���tdi�nc ,^�,adr.v�-�c�l.
��, � �
•�C . � ;��L'�--�"
� '
W.�� = Member of t ity Council
.��� _ O.
�p
' �_ � FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
y-'' _
Q
►.,p�#e l�d: ,_,,,�—���� Received by:
Date of Consideration by City Council: ���
(�- �� .
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
H:\rklassenlW PdatalW PDOCS\FORMSIcncl req for rev.wpd 5/21/03
To Whom It May Concern,
We purchased the home at 77355 Minnesota Ave.,Palm Desert,CA,in the fall of
2010. The wooden fence was in place at that time and has been here for the last
10-12 years. We are actually the third owners of this home to have the fence.
Our fence is well maintained. Last year it was totally repainted and repairs were
made where necessary. The fence has 22 posts set in concrete and is very sturdy.
We take pride in the appearance of our home and the landscaping which surrounds
it.
We are aslang the committee's consideration to allow the fence to remain.
Sincerely,
��
uth Meyer(co-o er)
,yV
�1, i�
Glenda Adams (co-owner�