The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMISC 14-081 - P.McElyea - 77750 Delaware Pl . . � � ��i• J�� G. M�i�x�� - � • May 5, 2014 � Palm Desert City Council and Honorable Mayor 73-510 Fred Waring Palm Desert, CA 92260 � � .r: '°-_+ RE: ¢ �� Council Meeting on 5/8/14 -� _�� Agenda Item # 14A, Case No. MISC 14-81 ci� N��n„ An Appeal of ARC's decision for a Wood Fence = �v,� =�ov Dear Council Member, � c�� I have been notified with a letter from the Planning Department that one of my � neighbors is appealing a decision by the Architectural Review Commission to deny an application for a new wood fence. I am willing to attend the meeting this Thursday but am hesitant to be pitted against my neighbor in a public forum on an issue such as this. This neighborhood where I reside has always been a bit of a mixed quality of development mainly because until fairly recently it had been a pocket of County land that did not have much enforcement when it came to zoning and architectural guidelines. Since the City of Palm Desert has annexed this area, there has been much more enforcement and a steady increase in property values and overall esthetic. However, there are still issues of code enforcement that are required to bring together a stronger sense of continuity in the neighborhood. This is why this wood fence issue is of concern to me and it would be a mistake to approve this request and go against the good judgment of the Architectural Review Commission. First of all I would like to say that it is a beautiful fence, there is no argument there. Unfortunately the zoning ordinance does not differentiate between beautiful and ugly wood fences, just no wood fences. This particular ordinance prohibiting wood fences was enacted for a reason; wood does not stand up very well in the harsh environment of our desert, especially wood fences. They soon become deteriorated and do not contribute to the long lasting beauty and quality of a neighborhood. Another strong issue is precedent. There is another case similar to this that the planning department is currently working on where a homeowner two doors down is appealing to have a wood fence. This particular one is not so nice, but clearly since there is no delineation of beautiful and ugly fences in the ordinance, the argument would surely be made that if you allowed the fence currently before you for appeal, then this not so nice fence would have to be allowed as well. P.O. Box 778, Palm Desert, CA 92261 Tel: (760) 346-6155 Fax: (760) 346-8842 73-995 EI Paseo, Ste 201, Palm Desert, CA 92260 ' ' / � ��i• J,�►f.� G. M��,�� - ��w� I am trusting that you are going to weigh your decision on the necessiry that there has to be consistency in all parts of the city when enforcing the ordinances that all the citizens of Palm Desert must abide by. It shouldn't matter what part of the City a neighborhood is in, whether it is Palm Desert Country Club or The Summit in South Palm Desert, all the neighborhoods deserve the same enforcement standards. Small decisions like this one wood fence issue all add up to the overall aesthetic of our community. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue further with you in person at your convenience, in order to provide you with additional information that can help you with your decision. / / Si rel , , _ ...... ______,,, , �� / � � � es tos r� , 7 47 ��I ware"Place Im Desert, CA 92211 P.O. Box 778, Palm Desert, CA 92261 Tel: (760) 346-6155 Fax: (760) 346-8842 73-995 EI Paseo, Ste 201, Palm Desert, CA 92260 Klassen, Rachelle From: Ceja, Eric Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 2:34 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: FW: RE: Palm Desert- Fence Appeal Hi Rachelle, Below is correspondence between myself and the applicant for NEW BUSINESS item A(Appeal MISC 14-081). Lauri asked that I pass this your way to see if it needs to be distributed to the Council. Thanks, Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Community Development Department eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org P: (760) 346-0611 F: (760) 776-6417 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 From: Ce'a Eric mailto:ece'a@ci of almdese _. _ ) , [ ) ty p rt.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:17 AM To: peyton.mcelyea@gmail.com Cc: Bagato, Tony Subject: RE: Palm Desert - Fence Appeal Hi Peyton, It is standard procedure for us to review an application and provide the City Council a recommendation based on the facts and the code.These recommendations are made for public record transparency and the reports explain the facts related to the matter. Palm Desert is certainly not alone in making recommendations to the approving authority, e.g., City Council. The Municipal Code states that in order to approve exceptions to the City's fence and wall standards specific findings must be made, including the finding that, "unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance codified in this section." I can understand your frustration in paying for a non-conforming fence, and perhaps the City Council will as well, but the fact that you paid for the fence already is not an unusual circumstance. From our perspective, unusual circumstance are not financial in nature but rather physical hardships or circumstance which prohibit you from compliance with the code section.As the interpreters and enforcers of the code our recommendation is the same: that the fence material is prohibited. We also can't recommend an amortization of a permit as once a building permit is issued for the fence we would have no legal right to remove the fence. Thanks, 1 Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Community Development Department eceia@citvofpalmdesert.or� P: (760) 346-0611 F: (760j 776-6417 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 . .. ___ � .. _ From: Peyton McElyea [mailto:peyton.mcelyeaC�gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 11:48 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Bagato, Tony Subject: Re: Palm Desert - Fence Appeal Eric - How is it appropriate that there's already a motion drafted denying the appeal? Do you think I'm going to have a fair hearing on this when the Council's provided with a singular path forward? I have to take an unpaid vacation day and drive four hours round trip to be at this hearing. I deserve more than a predetermined outcome. Maybe this is standard procedure based on planning's recommendation, but it seems inappropriate. As for the recommendation, it's opining on the blanket approval of a variance to allow that wood fence in perpetuity. My appeal very specifically asks for a reasonable amount of time to amortize what's an honest mistake. The opinion letter is unreasonably biased against my position if it doesn't take that into account and analyze what that option entails (it's costless/victimless/etc.). I also reject the notion that no unusual circumstances exist that prohibit compliance. I would certainly call spending $SK on a perfectly good fence in an honest building mistake an unusual circumstance. Doubling that expenditure and/or unsuccessfully litigating against the GC to compel specific performance is absurd in the context of that sunk cost. There's no detriment to the city or my neighbors to allow me to keep that fence for any number of years in good repair. If anyone from the planning department is planning to speak on this Thursday I hope they will support that amortization period with a deadline for replacing the fence in the future. There's no justifiable reason for torturing myself and my young family over this. I've never experienced a less hospitable welcome to the neighborhood; no one should be poking me in the eye with a stick for revitalizing the ugliest home on the block - not my neighbors, and certainly not the City of Palm Desert. Best, Peyton On Monday, May 5, 2014, <eceia cr,cit�palmdesert.org>wrote: Hi Peyton, Attached is the staff report for your appeal to City Council regarding your existing wood fence. Staff is recommending that the Council uphold the Architectural Review Commission's decision and deny your appeal 2 as findings in support of your appeal cannot be made. This item will be considered by the Council at their meeting this Thursday, May 8, 2014. The meeting starts at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Thanks, Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Community Development Department eceja(a�citvofpalmdesert.org P: (760) 346-0611 F: (760) 776-6417 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 3 CITY Of FRIr PESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-0611 FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT CASE NO. MISC 14-081 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Community Development Department has received an appeal of the City's Architectural Review Commission's denial of an exception to the City's Fence and Wall standards to allow for a wood fence at the property at 77-750 Delaware Place, east of Latisha Lane. The City's fence and walls standards require block or wrought iron fencing when visible from the public street. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the proposed material at their meeting on March 25, 2014, where it was denied. The applicant has now appealed the Commission's decision to the City Council. This notice is being sent to you based on your property's proximity to the proposed wall exception. The appeal is scheduled for consideration by Palm Desert City Council at their meeting on Thursday, May 8, 2014, at 4:00 p.m. at the Palm Desert City Council Chambers. Should you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, by May 8, 2014, at the above address, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. anri 5•flfl n m Mnnr•iav thrni inh Fririav 1• a S,f .S', Resolution No. 2014-38 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE 25.40.080 FENCE AND WALLS SUBMITTED BY: Eric Ceja, Associate Planner APPLICANT: Peyton McElyea 77-750 Delaware Place Palm Desert, CA 92211 CASE NO: MISC 14-081 DATE: May 8, 2014 CONTENTS: Applicant's appeal letter Applicant provided exhibits Architectural Review Commission Minutes March 25, 2014 Legal Notice Photos Resolution 2014- 38 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2014- 38 denying an appeal and upholding the Architectural Review Commission's decision to deny a request for an exception to Palm Desert Municipal Code 25.40.080 Fences and Walls. 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) under certain findings. The City's Architectural Review Commission reviewed and denied the applicanYs request for an exception to the City's fence and wall standards as the findings for approval of the exception could not be made. The applicant has now appealed the ARC's decision; however, since no new facts have been presented, staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the ARC's decision and deny the applicant's appeal. Staff Report MISC 14-081 Page 2 of 3 May 8, 2014 Backqround The applicant has appealed the ARC's denial of his request for an exception to the City's fence and wall standards. The property was originally improved in 1964 with a single family home and a wood fence along the property's perimeter. The property has since been sold and the new owner is making several improvements to the rear yard including: adding a pool and spa, converting existing turF areas to desertscape, and adding patio space. During the construction of the pool a portion of the existing wood fence was damaged. In order to maintain site security and consistent design, the applicant removed both the damaged and non-damaged portions of the fence and replaced it with a new wood fence design. The new fence was installed without Planning Department approval and without building permits. The wood fence is in place, contains horizontal slats, and has been stained red. 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 not visible from the street. The applicant is proposing to maintain an already installed wood fence that is visible from Delaware Place. Exceptions to the City's fence and wall standards can be requested by the applicant for consideration by the City's ARC. The commission may approve an exception if: unusual circumstances exist that make literal interpretation of the standards impractical, and if approval of the exception does not result in damage to adjacent properties, and if staff notifies surrounding property owners of the applicanYs exception request. Although the wood fence does not damage other properties, no unusual circumstance exists that prohibit the applicant from complying with the City's fence and wall standards. In addition, staff did notify surrounding property owners and received two phone calls in opposition to the granting of the exception. Staff is not in favor of granting the applicant an exception to the City's fence and wall standards. Architectural Review Commission The City's Architectural Review Commission reviewed the proposed wall exception application at their meeting on March 25, 2014. The Commission did not find that any unusual circumstances exist to allow the homeowner to maintain the unpermitted and nonconforming fence. The Commission further stated that wood is not an allowed fence material because it does not hold up well in the desert and that approval of this fence would set precedence. The Commission denied the applicant's request by a vote of 6-0-1-1, with one absence and one abstention. 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. G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case FilesIMISC\MISC 14-81 McElyea Wall Exception\MISC 14-081-CC Staff Report.docx Staff Report MISC 14-081 Page 3 of 3 May 8, 2014 Staff has determined that the proposed fence and wall exception is exempt from CEQA review because the proposed wall material is of new construction and 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 Impact There is no fiscal impact to the City associated with adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Submitted By: 1 �ti Eric Ceja, Associa Planner � Department Head: ',,.,---�-�.� �-i Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development A roval: M. Wohlmuth, City Manager CITY COUNC1Lv�ION APPROVED DFNTF,'D R IVED OTHER � � , MEET G D �" - - AYES�- `' ,' NOES: ABSENT: '� ABSTAIN: V�RtFIED BY: � � Original on File with City 1 rk's Office G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\MISC\MISC 14-81 McElyea Wall Exception\MISC 14-081-CC Staff Report.docx � �;,,_- �� CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFOR�tI�PR'9 k�� S''.'�' ��°`�'P�+� APPLICATIQN TO APPEAL � �� "� `"'`"`��r4"'y'✓ DECISION OF THE �K �- -- _ ___—._____._. ` (Name of Deterrnining Body) Case No �°/�SCJ ��< Date of Decision �� <��5 " ;�� y - Name of Appellant /`"E' ��n_��L-L,l -� Phone _ - Address �_��50 _ ..I��CI(,vCtY� �1�GCCe� -- — -..._._.._ _._... ..__----- - . _ City, State Zip ��C��l`Y�_ l�-QS��'�-- � �'� � ,�,��/ I �-mail ,r'�E,�s��ij.�tioi� af AF��I��;��tir��r� or M��tter C�c�nsi��er�ed: ��-� CX�C�CG7-�c� Re�son for Appeal (attacl� additional sheets if necessary): ---._.__...... S eE C.?�QC�� _._ _ _- --- — ._._._----- ..._.._,.. ---...__.�..__�—._ .__. ,�, lc�nn�n,�,�,,,,,,_ � -- ___ _ �� I��AM I � ........._ 5�:�- ��7�t��?L�� 8t@ .»��,��...�... _..---------- _.._..._..._.__ — .,....._.---- (Signat��ie of AE�pellant) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY {_ - _� .... FE'.F' f��F'CN:',fVe�CI� �✓ ��Cy- C)�31F, ,';p�.ir�,tl I �Ir;r9 O�-C tjZ(}/� Treasurer s E2ecefpt No. �_��__ Received b ��C�S _ _ y ---- -- .___ D�ie of Consideratior� by City Council or City OfficiaL _ Actian Taken: �� Date — _.__—�._�------. Rachelle D. Klassen, City Cierk __.._.......�._.__.._-----..._.._.__._ i � � _� � ., _ �, ��,._ Peyton McElyea 77750 Delaware Pl Palm Desert, CA 9221 l April 8, 2014 City Clerk City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr Palm Desert, CA 92260 � -5.�r, � 7:��,n �� RE: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission Decision (Case MISC 14-81) ` � City Clerk: The decision by the Architectural Review Commission to deny the approval of a wall exception for a wood fence is simply unreasonable at best, and an abhorrent example of cronyism within a municipal government at worst. I ask that you thoroughly review the context of the situation that required my petitioning for a wall exception in the first place, overturn the decision of the Architectural Review Commission, and establish a framework that allows me to peaceably amortize the sunk cost of this stunning fence over a reasonable useful life. My wife and I purchased the property at 77750 Delaware Pl in Palm Desert in November 2013. With the purchase, we inherited a decades-old wood fence well beyond its useful life that was structurally unsound, aesthetically unpleasing, and not tall enough to permit for the construction of a pool in our backyard for the benefit of our newborn son. This decrepit fence was further impaired by the removal of a 40'jacaranda tree that came down onto the fence and dislodged several panels from the rotten structure. We hired a licensed general contractor from Bermuda Dunes, Dave Addington,to retrofit the fence and replace the rotten vertical pickets with beautiful redwood slats arranged horizontally—a striking but miniinalist design, architecturally significant and characteristic of some the most beautiful contemporary fences in California. Redwood is known to stay flat and straight with minimal warping, cupping or checking in exterior uses. Further, Redwood has grown-in resistance to decay and insects, and absorbs and retains protective finishes extremely welL Unfortunately what might have been a limited retrofit project became a total structural replacement of the existing fence in the same footprint—I didn't feel it made sense to throw good money after a bad fence to band-aid over a structural problem temporarily. Unaware of the zoning code myself, I was completely unaware that wood fencing was prohibited in the desert. My licensed GC had pulled numerous permits for block walls and wrought iron fences that were new projects, but had never ' City Clerk April 8, 2014 Page 2 pulled a permit for the repair of an existing wood fence himself, nor was he aware of the strict prohibition on wood fencing in the City of Palm Desert. I'm not trying to lie to the City and suggest the fence is simply a repair. The fence is a full structural replacement(a stunning one at that), and had I known this might somehow 1)be deemed a new project, and 2) be constructed in an area with an ordinance strictly prohibiting new wood fences, I would have gladly pulled permits and spent the additional $10 per linear foot to erect a block wall. The fact of the matter remains that I've already spent $60 per linear foot for the perfectly good fence (unfinished), and another$15 per linear foot between the two City appeal fees and finishing the wood. It is unconscionable to ask a young family to throw away $5,000 spent to date, and invest another$5,000 to fix an honest mistake that resulted in nothing more than a very beautiful fence. While I was unable to attend the Architectural Review Commission meeting on March 25, 2014 in person, I have reviewed a video of the hearing and find the process fatally biased. One of my neighbors across the street on Delaware Place, Jim Mclntosh, sits on the Commission. While Jim recused himself from voting on the matter, he was the first and only person to stand up and denigrate the fence as a"neighbor."Jim's speech was greeted with great fanfare and a warm hearted chuckle from several of his fellow members on the Committee. This is no laughing matter for me and my young family, and my plea for an exception deserved more than mocking cronyism from appointed officials. I ask that the City grant me some reasonable time period over which to amortize the cost of this beautiful fence. I don't have the limitless resources required to tear this fence down and start over, and my contractor has not suggested he has any ability to absorb the honest mistake himself and correct it without my coming out of pocket further. I now understand why wood is viewed as a sub- optimal fencing material in the desert and am willing to take steps to correct the error over time. Fannie Mae recommends a useful life for wood fencing of anywhere from 10-20-years in high traffic, commercial projects with significant wear and tear.I'm willing to concede to a shortened 10-year sunset on the useful life of this fence given the desert location and will commit to replacing it with a decorative block wall at that time—if the fence falis into disrepair prior to the 10-year sunset,l will replace it then. If the City would draft a covenanted agreement to capture that concept and include a provision stating I won't convey title to the property in a sale prior to remediating the issue, I will gladly pay to record this on title. I am open to other reasonable suggestions including landscaping in front of the fence that would mitigate concern over it falling into disrepair. Sincerely, Peyton McElyea ��$ � j(� _ _ _ . � -- � � _��-, ��; C�o�� o� p�a�� Dc��c�� r� �� '��` 73-510 FRED WARING DR. • PALM DESERT, CA 92260 � DATE ��` �% TREASURER'S RECEIPT AMOUNT�� RECEIVED F OM: �� I CC�1 . � � '� ' ` ��-`" FOR: ��tS�- /��. ��5 C. ! �`—CSrI �� C• � 'E�C.,L.. � "7 7�SC,� ��ll�..�...��, �''/. t��/,� ��f � � Project • • ' • Number: FUND DEPT DIV ELEM/OBJ � • � • � -- RECEIVED FOR THE CITY TREASUF � ltl� oaoc� ��1 ��a� �� -, , � � � ' ' / , -�r ; � BY: � � � � � ' � i INANCE EPARTME USE ON � i i i i i � i i i i i i i i j CHECKS ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO BANK CLEAFl .._._.. ._._..__.. .__..... Y� ....� �Z,'�.aC�_F _._ J .Ti£'-a' _ ,.f-3� xs::� ��=3�. r-_ �al`3Z�r e ...�G�3� ' �s.�L�Y_..a lY38.:� G�^�_"� .,_.:.—,,:��3= _.- _�f�:':y£ ..:YfY-. _.a.i.1i,..�e2i._. . .t � . ..... �' .. 'i..._ .... ....__ -- I� Ii '`�� Dirigo Capitai Group Ll.0 1019 �; },, � 2724 Reynier Ave 90-7162;3222 L.os Angeles,CA 90034 /� � DATE �I � � �' �; „ M� i �� (� � rj �9C� 1��,To T+�E �, a� �0.X� ��2,.�� I �..�t� � ,. 3 ORDEf�OF t � � O�,'� OLLARS � ' �� JpMorgan Chase 8ank,N.A. �� i $E18 W 6ih 8t i L.Us Angel�s,C;A 90t)17 �; �,,+� � I .,.� ,.._.. ._ ._.._... _ .!!'p ':. �� FOR___ ._ ._ __ .__.., .... � �"'""�,..�_ __. _ �_____ __._.... . _..�._. r.._.._.-�....,-r,_.... �'�' i.�3..... .r. �::��+]r ......��' .,<�3.3-..;:c..,.,. ..�i:Zu. _.as..7.3� �.:'- Lr£'bc.:y-i� .r�_2_- .xt ._.:t.+? .,..�_:' C�F3�x _a': •8�_Bt:- i „n':�'3_�t-ix'v��i.�E•-9£ '�3?F?i?J£ ,^�'fg_.��s..'.—.-e .. � 4/8/2014 FedExShip Manager-PrintYour Label(s) From: (310)721-3335 Origin ID:CCDA Ship Date:08APR14 y� �y �. ActW 0.3 LB Pe on I�cE ea E�� CAD:5530636ANET3490 2724 Reynier Ave � Delivery Address Bar Code LOS ANGELES,CA 90034 J14101402070326 II I IIIIIII(I I IIII I I(II II I)I I I�III(I II I II I II(II I I�I I�I III I I)I II I I IIIIII III SHIP T0: (760)346•0611 BILL SENDER Ref# City Clerk's Office imo��e# Ci},,of Palm Desert Po# `r Dept# 73-510 Fred Waring Dr PALM DESERT, CA 92260 WED - 09 APR 12:OOP T�c# 7984 8581 3044 PRIORITY �VERNIGHT � I+` � � � � ozo� r�t , ti 92260 � � WM P PA oniT ' i � � � �� L � � � � � � 522G1/78D91F220 After printing this label: 1. Use the'Print'button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer. 2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line. 3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned. Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping.Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result in additional billing charges,along w ith the cancellation of your FedEx account number. Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide,available on fedex.com.FedEx w ill not be responsible for any claim in excess of$100 per package,w hether the result of loss,damage,delay, non-delivery,misdelivery,or misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge,document your actual loss and file a timely claim.Lirritations found in the current FedF�c Service Guide apply.Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic value of the package, loss of sales, income interest, profit,attorney's fees,costs,and other forms of damage w hether direct, incidental,consequential,or special is limited to the greater of$100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented Ioss.Maximum for items of extraordinary value is$1,000,e.g.jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other items listed in our ServiceGuide.Written claims must be filed w ithin strict time lirrits,see current FedEx Service Guide. https://w�nrN.fedexcom/shipping/shipmentConfirmationAction.handle?method=doContinue 1/1 . 4 ]tSON PLANNING TO 1FICATION CENTER AT 0 COMMENCING THE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )NM�OR REASONABLY E UNDERGROUND J(CAVATOf�SHALI. EXGIVA?ED. NOTE: POOLS IN THE Z007 CEC 1. SPA HEATING SYSTEM WILL COMPLY WITH THE APPLIANCE GOR TO COVERING,cEc EFFICIENCY REGULATIONS. SMANENTLY INSTAIlED AN ONIOFF SWITCH WILL BE � MOUNTED OUTSIDE OF THE � HEATER. � �� 2. HEATING EQUIPMENT WILL BE o Mou�mNc ew4a�s INSTALLED WITH A MINIMUM 36"OF PIPE BETWEEN FILTER REMOVE GRA55 AND HEATER. FUTURE DESERTSCAPE NG EWIPMENT, 3. POOL AND SPA WILL HAVE A COVER. ;ED METAL PARTS. �OL MUST BE B�IDED. 54'-11" ��oToa�rx�r 'HE POOL AND .�- 6' -*- 6' -� �tco�oucroRs _�:_;,,_,�.__,__:_-;:_::_,__�,;,��;:;�_:=�::::: 2" x 4" REAR 'OF CROSSING WITH I::::::.:::::::::.:.:......:'---;:::::.:�::::::.::�---- 1.�::�:::::�:�:�-_-�::::��::�.:. ..:--�----� SUPPORT POS� .INEDOROTHER {�DWOOD FENCE - FRONT VIEW REDWOOD FENCE - REAR VIEW t OF THE BOTTOM AND TER OF THE POOL JRD CONNECTED AND � •�— 6' —�, 6, 4" x 4" POST �RI�Y�L INY��VYniE. L•n J1CH 1HE LUMINARIES �� lAIENTLY DRY LOGATION. I Z" WI DTH x 24" DEPTH CONCRETE FOOTiN� CLOSE-UP OF SLA7S REDWOOD FENCE POST �PALM DESERT 6" x 6' BOARDS, 8" GAB BETWEEN ��car�o�wor�s • W �� U Q � � 6 �y� F �� km^ � � � � �� m � z�� $ '�� $ � � � � �� g � � �� =�� m � �� m � �� e-�� m �� €€€ ��N ��8 � �� k� � �� g �� _ � �_�� s �� H� � �� _�� . � o �� oN�� ' � �� y ��9 F �s � ��;� � �€� ��s�� A � � � � � �� $��g� � � �zo m � � �A�m� � ' :a �� g� � ��> 4 � N m � e= � F � �� $ � � ^� � � ��g� � � � � �� p� �� a., � �� s��y ^y "'m � > ��R� �� . � w � � �� 7� � � � € � � a 8 �q � .�� '� � � $ �� ca� m � � g=� � � �°, � € � sa � � � ��^� � � �� 6 �� '� � �m � '� �m �� a � �� os � � � � � � �� € � � � �$ �ffi �m� � �� m �� m D � � �� €� � ��'' �� a� �� §�� < � � � �S �o"� � � � � � �� 00 - �� $ � � � �i �� d � � � �� $g � � ��°f�� a� � $ U� > =�m � � A � � �� § � � �� '�.. �_ � � f � ,� � � � € � � � � $ � �� g z=�� 0 0 � � � �� k� � � � � � �� - ; � � � ��.� o � � "� � � � � ��a� � � � DELEWARE P�ACE � � , � o o �, N ,� i a � 8� � � ��__�n�� I ➢ O � p _ ��O ti�Dy�i1 C � D I I � Z�1 � � y!n��Z" �� I I � U1 0! f'll J p y��m � �r 1!1 wR�++� � �'�^ I Dr�m�C cv+^K�'�� I I 1n � D u' ' `�� +�c'mti p� � T _ � a v c I � � 0 � � T 2� �� I I ��^ � � r�i cF �rg�� I i -�n< a z ` D ��m mmy^� i o rn m � i I � rn� I v �o � cp�n u' <r� a �°n S' i � � 2 O o i � � ` � �� gi � � T� � � Z � 'i . �� I � X 1 I � �N p rn } �777OOaaa I � i - � cl�5 �. rn i �� O �i A� i � � III T N � < � ; g' � �N � , �� x � _ �� 6'IIEIGHT REDWOOD FENCE ��" -u� i O (f� � 6'IIEIGHT REDWOOD FENCE 8'h1EIGHT MEfAL GATE �� J � � D �I n � I� r � � � J � � ,c� y ��, ..0 oo !-� � � � ■= I- � � � r:r (n 0 � � i� N �� m m �� rn �3 � ro� • .�J r � �o " �g • �-a � r� �j I� � �� g N 4� _ '�i � �� € . � � � o '-°� � � ;N= C�y. � r�' � I� a �v � m N � 7i i� rn � s�+ N D (� I� z m �. � n � � � m � � I b I I I ( N I I I 4- � �I �;�"�..T N� i 4 . _ I � . I : yh. o,� i .��ti �I y`� �, �, . , �,a� D � I � � � b I � � � � I � � � Z Gl rnv C� n � I � D � _A � �� rn� Z v,,`, i m � �➢ A p I rn � � � y �' g ti3'�� _ �,,,�z � � wo o � � � �n� � � F - � � � °' y ----- , - r . �k I� 'm m I� � � � �� Z I� N rn i n �\ O �u�—, i w ,�m. � n m � � Az I c� � 7O c�, � o= � ��j �> u z� 'F b D rn� I �n � i I � = o o cn o 1I 111�!\711T �'' � ,� �, � � � � o r " m o � o 0 0 � � � m °J D y D ��■n■ �V ■ V K ■� � � -� N n a n n z = � n o � o 0 0 o p m r m y � � � m --+ r � r r r � < � � � �� , t L t,� � O Vl � N .ZJ (n .Z7 m = r Z `� McELYEA RESIDENCE �+ � � � � D � N o � � � � N � � � W m q � = m m � A a m S� � �' j � � 77-750 DE�EWARE PLACE � , � � � � �' � � < " PALM DESERT, CA 92211 $ � � � � � ��o' � o N -, ' N o D m ? uc.Nei+sn cn r w p rn o = m b A CONSTRUCTION SPECIALIST � A � � r � o g � � T p m m N m vso342-3612 „ � . � � c '-�i c�i� � /� � ARCHITECTURAL A�/IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES March 25, 2014 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 14-81 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PEYTON MCELYEA, 77-750 Delaware Place, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a wall exception to allow a 6' high wood fence visible from the surrounding roadway. LOCATION: 77-750 Delaware Place ZONE: R-E, 40,000 Commissioner Mclntosh recused himself from this project and remained in the conference room. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner said the owner of this property recently constructed a pool. During the construction, the fence, which was rotten and run down, was damaged. The fence was removed and replaced with a new wood fence without a permit. In discussions with the contractor, staff informed him that wood is not an approved material when it is visible from the public right-of-way. This fence is not a typical wood fence but staff didn't feel there was an unusual hardship to allow the wood and is recommending denial of the material as proposed. MR. JOHN BARNETT explained that he was the owner's representative and would answer any questions the Commission may have in order to make a decision. Chair Van Vliet said wood is not an approved material for the City of Palm Desert and the only way this can be allowed is if there is an unusual circumstance. MR. BARNETT said the initial fence was 4'-6" and when the trees were removed for the pool, some of the trees came down on the fence and popped off a few boards. When they started to rebuild the fence, they were faced with a lot of rot so the homeowner decided to put up a new fence. Chair Van Vliet asked why he didn't put up a block wall. MR. BARNETT said the owner spent $4,000 on this fence and it is beautiful. Had the homeowner realized he couldn't have wood, he would have gone with a block wall since it was only $10 to $12 more a linear foot. If this request is not approved, the owner would want a continuance so he can come and talk with the Commission. G:\PlanningWanineJudyWRC\1Minutes�2014\140325min.docx Page 2 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIE��COMMISSION � � MINUTES March 25, 2014 Commissioner Clark asked if there were any mitigating circumstances that the owner wishes to propose that might solve the problem. MR. BARNETT said possibly, but he would have to request a continuance. Mr. Bagato said there weren't any proposed changes so staff evaluated the fence and is recommending a denial, which the homeowner is aware of. It would be up to the Commission to grant a continuance. He said the neighborhood was notified and asked if anyone would like to step forward to speak on this matter. MR. JIM MCINTOSH, neighbor, said the zoning ordinance for block walls was put in place for a reason; because wood fences do not weather well here in the desert as exhibited in the pictures presented. This area of the city was once in the County of Riverside and walls were not enforced or they did not have the zoning ordinances that Palm Desert has so everyone in this area is hoping we receive the same attention and care as the rest of the City. Commissioner Levin said there were other homes on the street that have wood fences and they are looking pretty weathered. If any of those fences were to come down or were damaged, could they rebuild or would they be in the same position. Mr. Bagato said according to code you can repair and maintain existing fences but if it is a total rebuild it would have to be all new material; decorative block or wrought iron. Commissioner Vuksic said it would be dangerous to approve this fence because it would set precedence. It is pretty clear that wood is not allowed. Commissioner Colombini made a motion to deny and Commissioner Lambell made the second. Commissioner Clark asked the applicant if he wanted a continuance and the applicant said yes. Commissioner Vuksic said he couldn't think what they could do to make the fence more acceptable. MR. BARNETT asked if they could put fiscus trees in front of the wall and Chair Van Vliet said landscaping is not acceptable. Commissioner Clark said the next step would be to appeal to the City Council. The vote was then called. ACTION: Commissioner Colombini moved to deny Case MISC 14-81 as proposed. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 6-0-1-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES, Mclntosh abstaining and McAuliffe absent. G:\PlanningWanineJudyWRC\1Minutes�2014\140325min.docx Page 3 of 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- 38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE 25.040.80 FENCES AND WALLS WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 25t" day of March, 2014, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Mr. Peyton McElyea for an exception to the City's fence and wall ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission could not make the required findings in accordance with Section 25.40.080.F of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and denied the applicant's request for an exception to the fence and wall ordinance; and WHEREAS, no new evidence has been presented to show that unusual circumstances exist which make the literal interpretation of these standards impractical with the standards set in Section 25.40.080 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code that would permit an exception to the City's fence and wall standards; and WHEREAS, said appeal has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2013-16, 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 denial of the applicant's appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's decision: 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 deny the applicant's appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's decision and upholds the Architectural Review Commission's decision denying an exception to the City's fence and wall ordinance. RESOLUTION NO. 2014- 38 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 8th 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 G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\MISC\MISC 14-81 McElyea Wall Exception\MISC 14-081-CC Resolution.docx 2