The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2/7/2001 - STAFF REPORTS (15) 19 DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2001 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & BUILDING CASE #3.1114: APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE CASITAS ARENAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO ISSUE ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR A WALL AT CASITAS ARENAS CONDOMINIUMS, 801-881 EAST ARENAS ROAD, R-4 ZONE, SECTION 14. APPEAL: The Casitas Arenas Homeowners Association is appealing the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Planning Director's decision to issue architectural approval, subjectto conditions,fora wall at Casitas Arenas Condominiums, 801-881 East Arenas Road, R-4 Zone, Section 14. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council consider the appeal of the decision bythe Planning Commission to uphold the decision of the Planning Directorto issue architectural approval subject to conditions for a wall at Casitas Arenas Condominiums, 801- 881 East Arenas Road and that the City Council adoptthe attached resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND: Casitas Arenas entrance on Arenas Road includes a fountain with a semi-circular wall aroundit. The equipment that operates the fountain was originally buried. The Homeowners Association (HOA) then relocated the equipment to be above ground. Without obtaining permits, the Homeowners Association relocated the equipment and constructed a wall around it. In accordance with Section 9404.E of the Zoning Ordinance, such an improvement requires architectural review and approval prior to issuance of any permits. In response to code enforcement action, the HOA applied for Architectural Approval to construct the portion of wall screening the fountain equipment. Architectural Approval was granted subject to the following four conditions. 1 The fountain equipment must be moved behind the wall around the fountain. 2. The wall around the fountain must be painted to match the buildings. 3. The light on the palm tree must be removed. 4. Any future exterior lighting must receive approval prior to installation. The HOA is appealing conditions (1) and (2). /60 Architectural approval was issued in June of 2000. However, shortly after issuance of Case 3.1114: Appeal to City Council February 7, 2001 Page 2 Architectural Approval, residents of the condominiums advised staff thatthe HOA Board had not endorsed the improvement. Therefore,approval was rescinded pending evidence that the HOA had indeed considered and voted on this matter at an official meeting. Upon receiving the signed minutes of the HOA meeting, staff reissued the permit. - XL Director of Planning and Building City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Photograph of the wall. 2. Letter from applicant. 3. Minutes of the December 13, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting. 4. Draft Resolution. /pj cam 4w a � t f t 2 ♦ � R ..•r13�rw :.fir -�� j�`,./.��a`L��_��ir= a •• . � • � i' . S . 1 f, Casitas Arenas Homeowners Association / PO Box 2849, Palm Springs, California 92263 December 26, 2000 City of Palm Springs City Council 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way PO Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY PLANNING CONMHSON DECISION This is a notice from the Casitas Arenas Homeowners Association to appeal a decision made by the City Planning Commission regarding the placement of fountain equipment. In the spring of this year the Association voted to make improvements on the existing equipment located in the same area for 20 years. The decision to improve the equipment was made as an architectural improvement. Unfortunately, this improvement was made without obtaining a permit from the Planning Division. The current Board of Directors was unaware that a permit was required. Once we were notified that a permit was required, we took the necessary steps for'the Fling. On June 13, 2000 we received communication from the Planning Division directing us to move the fountain equipment to the backside of the wall around the fountain, and that the wall built around the current location should be removed. They also directed that a new block wall should be built around the equipment's new location to screen it from view. On December 13, 2000 we appealed the staff directives at the Planning Commission meeting asking that the wall and equipment be left where it was. We stated that the equipment had been moved less than one foot from where it had been for 20 years and that architecturally it looked much better then it did when it was covered-with a piece of metal casing. We provided pictures to the Planning Commission showing the improvement. The Planning Commission denied our request. We seek relief from this decision from the Planning Commission on the grounds that the location of the equipment has been changed minimally and is an architectural improvement from what was previously there. We do not understand why equipment should be moved from its' 20 year location. The cost for moving the equipment is many times more then what the Association spent to improve it architecturally. 1 I� A4 Page 2 of 11 December 13, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes MISCELLANEOUS: Case 3.1114 —Appeal of the Planning Director's decision by Casitas Arenas HOA for the relocation of fountain equipment and the painting of a wall at 801-881 E. Arenas Road, R-4 Zone, Section 14. Page 3 of 11 December 13, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes Continued from November 22, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Principal Planner Sullivan reported that the subject wall and fountain equipment were erected without permits. She explained that, in the course of assisting the applicant with permits after code enforcement action was taken for non-permitted structures, the applicant is appealing part of staff's requirements for obtaining permits. She explained that staff directed applicant to paint the wall to match the existing building and that the fountain equipment be moved. Planning Commission called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Richard Carlini, applicant, apologized for making the unpermitted changes; explaining that he did not know permits were required for this work. He stated that the fountain had been in place for approximately 20 years, that the equipment had been moved above ground 8 or 9 years ago, and then relocated to its present location earlier this year for a cost of approximately $500. Commissioner Caffery arrived at the meeting. Mr. Ty Cullen, Casitas Arenas resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he has lived in his condominium for 18.5 years. He explained that the entrance to the condominiums is distinguished by the fountain and the circular wall. He further explained that the new wall is made of cement brick and the original wall is made of slump stone. He stated that the color of the wall has always matched the existing building; however, it is now painted bright white. He stated that it was his understanding that the fountain equipment was moved above ground due to plumbing problems. He asked that it be required that the fountain equipment be relocated to an adjacent grassy area and be screened with appropriate landscaping and that the wall be painted. M/S/C (Klatchko/Jurasky 4-0, 1 abstention, 2 absent) to uphold staff's decision. 1 � No Good Evening, My name is Ty Cullen. I am a designer and a resident of Casitas Arenas Condominiums. I am speaking on behalf of 15 homeowners. The entrance to our complex is distinguished by a fountain, flower bed, and a circular wall made of slump stone as a backdrop. For 20 years our circular wall has been painted to match the property buildings. Now, it is an eyesore, stark white, emphasizing the white wall instead of the decorative fountain. The white is a harsh contrast to the soft, sandy beige color of the complex. The motor operating the fountain has been underground in a grated pit, again, for 20 years. The pipes to the motor needed to replaced. However, in correcting the problem the original design was compromised. The equipment pit was filled in, the motor was raised to ground level, placed in front of the circular wall, and then encased with an unsightly wall made of cement bricks instead of slump stone that would have matched the existing wall. This calls attention to the cement brick wall, destroying the architecture that was intended to feature the fountain. We requested that the circular wall be repainted to match the buildings and the architectural mistake of the cement brick encasement be moved outside, a few feet away on the grassy area, and be complemented with shrubbery and flowers. Planning staff supported our request, but the Homeowner Board took the issue to Planning Commission. Planning Commission denied the Homeowner Board appeal and agreed with our position. I apologize to the City Council for talking up your time with a problem that we thought was solved. I hope that you will agree with your City staff and with your Planning Commission, and deny the Homeowner Board appeal. Thank you for your attention. The 15 homeowners I am speaking for are: 805 -Weinstein 807 - John Simmons cat ar„ 817 -Hank Montoya 831 -Ann Chen 833 -Ben Kaye 839 -Bill Sibel 837 - Gladys Hummel 841 -Robert Bach ^cj_ , 847 -Michael Sferrati 851 -Arron Sage 855 - Andrew Martin 861 -Robert Rocks Q ! 869 -Mary Patterson 873 - Patrick Brennan 875 - Ty Cullen 1 _�YuYi1�Wi H i SH fir. i+ ur ,� • At a o $ 7iWr ��•X. � J �s 4 �p,1��J .Y*'x •+ �Yi w r IM�x%u:Y:r ... .-7 � 4r. t �i4lk•'sY.`awY}hH z4 N F PALM 9 City of Palm Springs ` Office of the City Clerk o..,<o 3200 Tahgwa Canyon Way• Palm Springs,California 92262 f FO RN TEL:(760)323-8204 •Too:(760)864-9527 December 28, 2000 Casitas Arenas Homeowners Association P.O. Box 2849 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Dear Sir: RE: Appeal of Palm Springs Planning Commission Decision Case 3.1114 —Architectural Approval This will acknowledge receipt of your appeal on the above-mentioned Case of Planning Commission decision dated December 13, 2000 of said project and payment of the required fee of $275. Your appeal will be set for hearing before the City Council on February 7, 2001, at 7 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way. If you wish to provide any written material to the City Council, to be included in its agenda packet prior to the meeting, please furnish 10 copies to me no later than February 1, 2001. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk cc: Planning Post Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 OCL City ofPalm SpringsCity CouncilDecember 26, 2000 Page 2 We feel that we did not present our case correctly to the Planning Commission and that they did not fully understand from this presentation that the fountain equipment has been at the same location within the wall since the property was constructed. We realize that we did not apply for a permit prior to moving the equipment but we did apply once we were informed of the requirement. We request that the City Council authorize Casitas Arenas Homeowners Association to leave the fountain equipment and block wall enclosure where it now stands. The equipment has been moved less then 18" and the block wall enclosure constructed is an architectural enhancement as opposed to the old metal casing which covered the equipment in this location for more thenl8 years. We see moving it back in the location and appearance (an old metal cover over the equipment) that it was prior to our improving it as the only feasible alternative to not receiving City Council approval. Ids � � CC) RESOLUTION 19988 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA PROVIDING A DECISION ON AN APPEAL BY THE CASITAS ARENAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF A DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WITH RESPECT TO ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL FOR A WALL AT CASITAS ARENAS,801-881 EASTARENAS ROAD, R-4ZONE,SECTION 14. WHEREAS in accordance with Section 9404.E of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, physical improvements at multifamily residential uses are subjectto Architectural Review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director reviewed the request for Architectural Reviewforawall to screen fountain equipmentand granted approval subject to the following fourconditions, and WHEREAS,the established conditions are meantto promote harmony of materials, colors, and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission reviewed the request for Architectural Approval during its meeting of December 13, 2000; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission found the established conditions to promote harmony of materials,colors, and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously; ) 45 Appeal Resolution: Casitas Arenas February 7, 2001 Page 2 Resolution 19988 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Springs that the decision of the Planning Commission to uphold the Planning Director's decision to grant Architectural Approval for a wall subject to the following conditions 1. The fountain equipment must be moved behind the wall around the fountain. 2. The wall around the fountain must be painted to match the buildings. 3. The light on the palm tree must be removed. 4. Any future exterior lighting must receive approval prior to installation. at Casitas Arenas, 801 - 881 East Arenas Road, R-4 Zone, Section 14 is upheld. Adopted this 7,b day of February, 2001. AYES: Members Jones, Oden, Reller-Spurgin and Mayor Kleindienst NOES: None ABSENT: Member Hodges ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA By: City Clerk City Manager 1, REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1