APPL 2002 6559P.O. Box 1504
7 8-4 95 CALLE TAMPICO
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
February 28, 2003
Bill and Jan Turner
53-750 Avenida Obregon
La Quinta, CA 92253
SUBJECT: Results of the Appeal of Nuisance Citation
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Turner:
(760) 777-7000
FAX (760) 777-7101
On February 18, 2003, the City Council reviewed your appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision on Public Nuisance Citation No. 6559 regarding the violation of the front and side yard
setbacks and construction without permits. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's
decision denying the appeal.
Please take the necessary action to remove the shade structure within 30-days from the date of this
letter. Should you need additional time to remove the structure please contact Don Whelchel, Code
Compliance Department, at (760) 777-7017. A follow-up inspection will be conducted to ensure that
the structure has been removed.
Should you have any questions, need additional information or desire a co
resolution, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 777-7071. PY of the signed
Very truly yours,
JERRY HERMAN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Oscar W. Orci
Planning Manager
cc: Code Compliance Department
ATTACHMENT #8
NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATIONS
CASE NUMBER: 6559
PUBLIC NUISANCES
Code Violation: 8.01.060-Permit required
Location: Carport structure constructed over the driveway area.
Violation Text: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to
erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any building or
structure, including a swimming pool, spa or hot tub, or make any installation,
alteration, repair, replacement, .or remodel any building service equipment,
including swimmingpool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title,
except as specified in section 301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first
obtaining a separate, appropriate permit for each building, structure or service
equipment from the Building Official,
Correction: Remove the carport structure
Reinspection Date: September 3rd, 2002
Code Violation: 9.60.050 Table 9-3 Standards for detached accessory
buildings. (Setback requirements).
Location: Carport structure constructed over the driveway area
Violation Text: Table 9-3 See Attached
Correction: Remove the carport structure.
Reinspection Date: September 3rd„ 2002
Code Violation: 9.60.080 Satellite Dish and other Antennas
Location: South East Corner of the rear yard
Violation Text: See Attached
Correction: Remove the Satellite Dish or conform to the specific
Code Requirements.
Reinspection Date: September 3rd, 2002
009
City of La Quint.
NOTICE OF ILLEGAL PARKING
TIME/DATE OBSERVED
DATE OF VIOLATION
DAY OF WEEK TIME
VEHICLE LICENSE NO. / VIN
LOCATION OF VIOLATION:
STATE
MODEL BODY STYLE
COLOR
IN VIOLATION OF LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODES
12.28.130 $50
CI NO PARKING
E - MEDIAN OR ISLAND
C - RED CURB
12.28.130 F $50
CREATING HAZARD
12.28.130 C(5) $50
0 BUSINESS CENTER
PARKING FOR
UNRELATED REASON
11.80.080 $50
[C PARKING IN AN
AREA NOT ZONED
FOR PARKING
12.32.110 $150
El COMMERCIAL
VEHICLE WITHIN
CITY PROHIBITED
12.28.070 $50
0 ANGLE PARKING
REQUIRED
12.28.040 A $50
CI 72 HR. PARKING
IN VIOLATION
22507.8 (a) CVC $330
Q HANDICAPPED
PARKING - NO
ARD VISIBLE
BLOCKING
D A - CROSSWALK
C - DRIVEWAY
O F - SIDEWALK
12.28.030 $50
[] NO STOPPING
SEC.
El OTHER
9.60.130 $50
�] ILLEGAL R.V.
PARKING/STORAGE
12.32.030 $50
C) NOT PARKED IN
MARKED SPACE
9.160.100 $50
DISPLAY OF VEHICLE
FOR SALE ON A
ROADWAY
11.80.020 $50
VEHICLE STORED
IN VIEW 10 DAYS
OR MORE
OF CALIFORNIA STATE ICODES2254 (c) CVC $105
FIRE HYDRANT
22507.8 CVC $330
C - ON CROSS BLOCKED
LINES
5204 CVC $51
0 DISPLAY TABS
SEC. —
0 OTHER
ced un er penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct executed on the date shown
OFFICER
AGCY I.D. #__---
PAYMENT MAY BE MADE BY MAIL AND NO FURTHER ACTION
REQU
IRED.la
Enclose made payable to:
City of aQuntaParkinging Administration, P.O. 251ay,Snt. or CASHIER'S
Ana, California 92799-5120 In this envelope and mail within 20 days.
To request a hearing call the Parking Administratign at
1-800-273-6488
C 348012
City Council Minutes
10
February 18, 2003
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Hender on to direct staff to
prepare a letter declining the offer to accept the hillside I. ds (adjacerit to Tract
29436 - Trans West Housing) and the trail access and iability for the trail and
hillside. Motion carried with Council Member Perkins = SENT. MINUTE ORDER
NO. 2003-21.
Note - See Business Item No. 6 after the Study Sessi
7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A FI ANCING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGEN Y AND THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
FOR CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT F o R THE CITY'S THIRD FIRE STATION
(NO. 93) AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLU ION MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT
TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECT ON 33445.
(This item was moved from the Cons-nt Calendar.)
There were no changes to the staf report as submitted and on file in the City
Clerk's Office.
In response to Council Member Osborne, Building & Safety Director Hartung
confirmed the loan is necessary to cover the increased cost of the fire station.
Finance Director Falconer sted the money will go from the Redevelopment
Agency to the Fire Develop-r Impact Fee Fund, and will not involve a loan
between the General Fund . nd Redevelopment Agency.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 1 13
A RESOLUTION OF T E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE SECTI e N 33445(a).
It was moved by Cuncil ,Membe:rs Sniff/Osborne to adopt Resolution No.
2003-013 as submi ted. Motion carried unanimously.
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSSION OF-fSHADE STRUCTURES `AND OTHER RELATED USES IN THE
FRONT/SIDE YARD SETBACK.
Community Development Director Herman presented the staff report.
City Council Minutes
11 February 18, 2003
In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Herman stated a front -yard patio
would not be allowed if the main building is at the minimum setback of 20 feet.
He stated the front yard is always determined to be the same as their neighbor
to the north or south. He stated properties on streets running north and south
streets have a 20-foot setback, and the streets running east and west have a
10-foot setback. He explained the purpose is to keep the frontage uniform.
In response to Mayor Adolph, Mr. Herman confirmed the setback for garages
is 20 feet. He stated he didn't know if the County enforced a 20-foot setback
requirement prior to the City's incorporation. He noted special residential
standards for the Cove were adopted by the City in 1986. Any structure built
within the setback area prior to incorporation was grand -fathered in.
Mayor Adolph asked about the setback requirements for cantilever
structures/retractable awnings.
Building & Safety Director Hartung advised cantilever structures must be at
least 30 inches from the rear property line, and the supports have to be within
the normal setback area.
Mr. Herman stated the City has no standards to deal with retractable awnings.
He then reviewed shade structure requirements in other Valley cities as follows:
Cathedral City - not allowed; Coachella - no code requirements; Indian Wells,
Indio, and County - prohibited in front yards; Palm Desert - allowed only in
backyards per setback requirements; Palm Springs - must meet setback
requirements and nothing is allowed near property line; and Rancho Mirage -
must be compatible with dwelling.
In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Herman confirmed residents can
park in front of. the garage but cannot put a structure over the vehicle(s). He
noted it would add to a street parking problem if vehicles were not allowed to
park in driveways.
Council Member Sniff noted there are .a Jot of issues here, and suggested
reducing it down to the elemental issue and try to get it solved. He is not sure
the Council is interested in doing it
Council Member Henderson commented on the number of shade structures in
the City, and voiced concern that banning them will result in a large protest by
the residents. She was inclined to suggest that a committee be appointed to
look at the issue but wasn't sure there was support for that. She feels the
Council knows what is right on difficult issues such as this but the Council tries
to accommodate the need, which results in Council getting into trouble. She
City Council Minutes 12 February 18, 2003
is willing to support a single design with a standard but also doesn't want to
create additional code enforcement problems.
Council Member Sniff stated he feels shade structures are appropriate over
driveways if they are uniform in color, material, size, height, location, and
properly installed with a permit and maintained.
Mayor Adolph noted the location of the columns should also be addressed in the
standards.
Council Member Sniff stated he feels the shade structure at the Turner's
residence is reasonably attractive.
Council Member Henderson stated she could not agree with that, and asked if
this standard would apply only to the Cove area. She noted the
Sagebrush/Saguaro area has 50-foot wide lots, and asked if the Cove special
residential standards apply to that area, to which Mr. Herman responded, "no."
She noted the RV parking standard was applied to that area, and asked if
Council would need to specify that area as well if it wants this standard to
apply there, to which Mr. Herman replied, "yes."
Mayor Adolph asked if the standard would apply specifically to 50-foot wide
Tots.
Mr. Herman noted some of the lots have been merged, and the standard would
have to be applied by physical area or zone. He pointed out the presence of
propane tanks could have an effect on the issue.
Council Member Osborne commented on the difficulty of setting the standards,
and voiced concern that shade structures may affect property values in the
Cove.
Council Member Perkins stated he would not want awnings almost to the curb
if he lived in the Cove. He believes blue would be the worst color here in the
desert, and doesn't feel the City sho"ulddecide the color if this is approved. He
has concerns about encroaching into the side yard and front yard setbacks, and
is satisfied that the current ordinance should be retained and the existing shade
structures removed.
Scotty Bohlman, 77-564 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, of Shade Structures,
agreed there should be standards, and stated their shade structures are used in
the City's parks and at the schools. He stated they have a lot of colors to
select from, and their structures withstand 80-100 mph winds. He commented
City Council Minutes 13 February 18, 2003
on the benefit of shade structures reducing temperatures. He stated the posts
are galvanized steel and powder -coated. A standard two -car carport costs
approximately $3,000.
Council Member Perkins stated he still doesn't feel they belong in the front yard.
Council Member Henderson asked if window coverings are permitted to extend
into the setback area. She understood the concern about how shade structures
look in the front yard but noted a lot of residents have to look at their
neighbor's RV, and she wasn't sure how to reconcile the presence of RVs and
not allow shade structures.
Council Member Perkins stated he doesn't want to compound the problem.
Mr. Herman advised a window canopy may encroach a maximum of two feet
into any yard provided it is no closer than three and a half feet from the
property line.
Council Member Osborne asked how often the City receives requests to put
these shade structures up and how many citations are issued.
Mr. Hartung stated residents put up the shade structures without asking, and
the City is currently looking at 20-25 such structures pending a decision on this
issue.
Council Member Henderson noted it is a growing issue, and as people see them
in the community they use PVC or whatever to put one up on their property.
Council Member Sniff stated he would like to have standards drafted and
brought back to Council for consideration.
Council Member Perkins stated he could not support that.
Council Member Henderson voiced concerRabout not allowing citizens to install
shade structures when the City has installed them.
Mayor Adolph noted the restriction applies only to shade structures in the front
yard.
Council Member Henderson agreed but pointed out vehicles are only parked in
the front yard. Her intent at this point for a driveway shade structure would be
a wood trellis because she feels it would be too difficult to set standards for
anything else.
City Council Minutes 14 February 18, 2003
Council Member Sniff noted wood is a big ponderous structure and the fabric
structures are light and airy. He feels if there is no effort to accommodate the
shade structures that currently exist, the residents will complain. Because it is
so hot here in the summer, he feels the City should try to accommodate them.
Council Member Osborne stated he doesn't want to try to create a standard for
shade structures in the. Cove and would like to hear what the Cove Association
has to say.
Council Member Perkins noted the City's shade structures are not on the
property line.
Council Member Osborne stated he is in agreement with staying with the
current regulations.
Mayor Adolph noted there is insufficient support for changing the standards.
BUSINESS SESSION continued
6. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION ON A PUBLIC NUISANCE CITATION REGARDING THE VIOLATION
OF FRONT/SIDE YARD SETBACK, SATELLITE DISH LOCATION, AND
CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT AT 53-750 AVENIDA OBREGON.
APPELLANT: BILL AND JAN TURNER.
Community Development Director Herman presented the staff report.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Perkins to uphold the
Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal by Bill and Jan Turner.
Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2003-22.
REPORTS AND
NFORMATIONAL ITEMS
C. V. Mosquito &
unsigned Letter rega
union. He stated th
temporary positions'w
opposed to -the action bec
off prior to fire ant program
large enough that it may nee
ector Control District— Council Member Perkins referenced an
ing a union attempt to include 17 fire ant program workers in the
workers were hired under a State grant and were told the
Id end if State funding did not continue. The District is
use it could result in regular employee positions being laid
mployees being laid off. He feels the District is getting
an assistant manager.
FILE COPY
`6it y 4 athiral
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: February 18, 2003
ITEM TITLE:
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Discussion of Shade Structure and Other Related Uses STUDY SESSION:
in the Front/Side Yard Setback
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss shade structures and other related uses in the front and side yard setbacks
and provide Staff with direction.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS:
None.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
At the October 15, 2002 (Attachment 1) and December 17, 2002 (Attachment 2)
meetings, the City Council considered an appeal of the Planning Commission Decision
of a Public Nuisance Citation regarding the violation of the front and side yard setbacks
for the construction of an automobile shade structure and satellite dish. At the
December 17, 2002 meeting, following discussion, staff was directed to continue the
appeal and schedule a study session at the same meeting to discuss shade structures
and other related uses in the front and side yard setback area. More specifically, the
City Council directed staff to include the setback requirements for accessory structures
as well as research potential options for modifications to the Zoning Code to allow
shade structures within the required front and side yard setback areas.
Code Requirements
The code prescribes a variety of setback requirements for various types of structures
allowed in the residential zoning districts. For the sake of discussion Staff has divided
the structures into the following categories:
Yard Structures: Yard Structures are those structures other than a building or carport
that are typically taller than eight feet from finished grade and do not have exterior
walls. These structures include, but are not limited to, patio covers, decks, play
equipment, gazeboes, arbors, and trellises. Table 1 provides general setback
requirements for yard structures.
Table l.: Yard Structure Setbacks
Uses
Front Yard
Setback
Side Yard
Setback
Rear Yard
Setback
Yard Structures
Same as for Main
Building
Same as for Main
Building (5 foot
Minimum)
5 feet
Garden Structures: Garden Structures are those structures that are permanently
integrated into a home's landscape and are typically less than six feet in height.
Garden structures include, but are not limited to, barbeques, waterfalls, fountains and
fireplaces. Most of these structures can be adjacent to a property line; however a
minimum 5 foot access way must be provided from the front to the rear yard. Further
these structures may not be attached to a property wall/fence. Table 2 provides
setback requirements for Garden Structures.
Table 2: Garden Structure Setbacks
Uses
Front Yard Setback Interior Side Yard
Setback
Rear Yard Setback
Garden Structures 0 0
Fireplace 5'
5' 5'
Accessory Structures: Accessory Structures are those structures other than a garage
or carports that are similar to yard structures, but have exterior walls. These
structures include storage buildings and garden sheds. Table 3 provides setback
requirements for Accessory Structures.
2
Table 3: Accessory Structure Setbacks
Roof Area
(Square
Feet)
Front Yard
Setback
Interior Side Exterior
Yard Side Yard
Setback Setback
Rear Yard
Setback
0-100 20' 3'-6" 10' 3'-6"
1 01 -200 20' 5' 10' 5'
200 + Same as for main building
Carports and Garages: Table 4 provides front yard setback requirements for garages
based upon the type of garage door. Table 5 provides front yard setback requirements
for carports. Garages or carports that have access from the rear of the lot may have
a 5 foot rear yard setback. Note that Staff considers shade structures "carports" and
therefore subject to these setback requirements.
Table 4: Garage Setbacks
Zoning District Pivot Door
Roll -Up Door Side Entry
RVL 30'
All other residential 25'
districts
30'
20'
20'
15'
• Table 5: Carport Setbacks
Zoning District
Setback Requirement
RVL
All other residential districts 20'
30'
Swimming Pools and Spas: Table 6 provides setback requirements for swimming
pools and spas in all zoning districts. Note homes with property lines adjacent to
common open area within gated private communities may vary from these setback
requirements.
Table 6: Pool and Spa Setbacks
Interior Side Yard Rear yard
Setback Setback
3
• •
The mechanical equipment for swimming pools and spas may be located in the
front or rear yard, but must be screened (from at least three sides) from public view
by a masonry wall. The wall must comply with all applicable code requirements.
Mechanical Equipment: Mechanical equipment includes equipment other than
swimming pool equipment that is utilized by a home. This equipment includes, but is
not limited to, air conditioning condensing units, water softener, etc. The equipment
is allowed in the rear yard, unless the property is smaller than 5,000 square feet in
size, in which case, the equipment may be located in the front yard provided that a
masonry wall is constructed to screen the equipment from view.
Uses
Front Yard
Setback
Side Yard
Setback
Rear yard
Setback
Mechanical
Equipment
0'
5' 0'
Surrounding Communities
Surrounding Communities have various regulations governing accessory structures; but
generally speaking, cities either do not allow structures in front/side yards or require that
structures comply with specific setback and design requirements.
Temporary Structures
Temporary structures are those structures allowed on a temporary basis, provided they
comply with all applicable setback requirements and are not erected for more than 180
days within a 12 month period.
Should the Council wish to consider allowing shade structures on a temporary basis,
regulations should be established to specify the duration of structures. Also, the Code
Compliance Department will need to establish a protocol to:
• Identify the shade structures in the City;
• Inform owners of the code requirements;
• Verify that garages have not been illegally converted; and
• Monitor the properties for compliance with time requirements.
Note that continuous ongoing monitoring activity will be required to ensure compliance
with the time regulations.
Because temporary shade structures do not require foundations, they could become
projectiles during wind gusts. Should the Council allow shade structures on a
temporary basis, a permit should be required to make certain that wind load
4
requirements are properly addressed.
Permanent Structures
Building permits are required for permanent structures in excess of _120 square feet.
These structures require structural design by a licensed architect or engineer and must
comply with all applicable setback requirements.
As indicated previously, shade structures should obtain a permit to make certain that
wind load requirements are properly addressed.
Permanent shade structures would allow parking in the driveway, which could facilitate
the conversion of garages to other uses, reduce the amount of on -site parking, and
increase street parking. Code Compliance Department would need to ensure that
garages have not been converted to other uses prior to the issuance of a permit.
Also, the Code Compliance Department would need to monitor properties with
permanent shade structures to:
• Identify the shade structures in the City;
• Inform owners of the permit requirements; and
• Monitor the properties for compliance.
Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) Tanks
Please note that many homes in the Cove have LPG tanks that have been legally
located adjacent to the interior front/side property lines. LPG tanks were approved at
these locations because nothing could be built within the front and side setback areas.
The Fire Code requires a minimum 10 foot setback from any on or off -site tank.
Therefore, a shade structure would not be permitted in a front/side yard if a tank is
located anywhere within 10', even if the tank is on an adjacent property. Likewise,
a tank would not be allowed if a shade structure has been erected anywhere within
10'. Therefore, preexisting structures would have precedence over the placement of
subsequent structures, and future applicants would not be able to enjoy the benefit of
the code requirements.
Color, Size, and Shape
Many shade structures, especially temporary shade structures, are not architecturally
consistent with dwelling units and do not utilize similar materials. Most shade
structures consist of a metal frame with and fabric cover. In certain cases, accessory
structures that are not consistent with the dwelling unit are permitted in the front of
the home, but must meet certain setback requirements and/or screening requirements.
Should shade structures be permitted, they should be compatible with the home's
architectural style and materials. The Council may wish to establish specific design
standards that would address the following criteria:
• Material (e.g. wood, stucco, etc.);
• Design (e.g. trellis, porte cochere, etc);
• Color (e.g. to match home or trim);
• Landscaping (e.g. around columns, to screen from view, etc.); and
• Size (no bigger than driveway).
The Community Development Director should also have the discretion to review and
approve these structures to ensure compatibility. To minimize their appearance, shade
structures should be open on all sides, if detached; if attached, structures should be
open on three sides.
Retractable Shade Structures
As indicated previously, the Council may wish to permit retractable shade structures.
A permit should be required to make certain that it is consistent with the wind Toad
requirements. The retractable structure housing should be painted to match the home
and comply with setback requirements as required by Section 9.50.060.
Location
Should shade structures be allowed, the Council may wish to consider setback
requirements (if different than current code requirements). Shade structures should
be allowed over the driveway only, to prevent the tenting of the entire front yard area.
Maintenance
Most temporary shade structures include canvas covers that require routine
maintenance. The Council should also consider maintenance provisions. The following
provisions should be reviewed if fabric awnings are considered:
• Holes in the fabric that exceed 10% of the area of the entire fabric is a violation
and must be repaired or replaced.
• If the fabric becomes detached from the frame by more than 10% of the
perimeter it is a violation and must be repaired or replaced.
• All structures must remain free from graffiti, stains and burn marks and other
such defects. If the combined area of said defects exceeds 5% of the total
area of the fabric, it shall be considered excessive and the fabric must be
repaired or replaced.
• All repairs must be made with materials similar to the original installation and
approved by the Director.
• If the fabric is removed from the support framework and is not replaced within
,15 days it shall be considered a violation and must be removed.
Other Issues
There are no code provisions for "art" in private residences that is visible from public
view. Screening requirements (e.g. screen walls or landscaping) and/or design
standards (e.g. height requirements) should be considered to conceal "art" from public
view.
Summary
The following matters should be considered if the Council proposes to allow temporary
shade structures:
• New permit requirements, including design and maintenance requirements, and
approval process;
• Additional code enforcement process and ongoing monitoring;
• 10' setback, if adjacent to LPG tank; and
• Loss of front yard open space.
The following matters should be considered if the Council proposes to allow permanent
shade structures:
• New permit requirements, including design and maintenance requirements, and
approval process;
• Additional code enforcement process and ongoing monitoring;
• 10' setback, if adjacent to LPG tank;
• Loss of front yard open space;
• Increased street parking; and
• Potential garage conversions.
Respectfully submitted,
ommunity Development Director
Approved for submission by:
Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager
Attachments:
1. City Council minutes of October 15, 2002 (excerpt only)
2. City Council minutes of December 17, 2002 (excerpt only)
8
ATTACHMENT 1
Jan & William Turner explained they didn't realize a permit was required to
install a canopy to shade their vehicles. The shade is needed because their
vehicles are too tall to fit into their garage. Mrs. Turner commented on the need
for shade structures to provide shade for vehicles and the number of such
structures throughout the Cove. The setback requirement prohibits her from
putting up any type of shade structure for her vehicles because she is located
on a corner. She was unable to get information from the City on similar
violations. Mr. Turner stated the shade structure is bolted to the ground for
safety reasons. He questioned the structure being classified as a public
nuisance and noted it's not a $29.95 canopy.
In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Turner stated he wouldn't have a problem with
his neighbor installing a ,$29.95 canopy if it's needed for shade.
Mrs. Turner stated they are looking for alternative suggestions to provide shade
for their vehicles.
•
City Council Minutes
6 October 15, 2002
Mayor Pena asked if City standards would allow the garage door to be raised to
accommodate their vehicles, to which Mr. Hartung responded "yes."
Mrs. Turner stated they were not aware of the 1 2-foot easement for a sidewalk
and that they would be willing to move the shade structure should the City
decide to install a sidewalk.
Council Member Henderson stated she didn't recall sidewalks being planned on
the Cove interior streets.
Mr. Hartung stated the easement is City property and no structures are allowed
within that area. In response to Council Member Henderson, he stated he
would research the Code to find out if retractable awnings are allowed.
Council Member Sniff stated he feels the need for shade structures is prevalent
in the area and supports staff looking at the use of retractable awnings or other
alternatives. He did not feel the Turner's shade structure is totally unattractive
and would like to find a reasonable and logical solution to the matter.
Council Member Adolph agreed the Turner's structure is tasteful but noted some
of the other awnings are not. As for retractable awnings, he commented on the
need for automatic wind sensors to avoid them being ripped off by the wind.
Mrs. Turner stated she would like to have her needs addressed without taking
away from someone else or reducing property values. Mr. Turner stated they
installed the awning to upgrade their property and can reduce the height of the
structure.
In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Hartung stated the shade structure
is also approximately one foot into the side yard setback.
Council Member Perkins agreed the Turner's canopy looks nice but felt it's hard
to know how to draw the line and define what looks "nice."
City Attorney Jenson pointed out the Council does not have the discretion to
approve a structure in the 25-foot setback area but can continue the appeal if
they wish to consider amending the Municipal Code.
Council Member Sniff suggested continuing the appeal and directing staff to
research potential modifications to the Code.
Mayor Pena stated regulations are set to keep property values at a reasonable
level and it's an ongoing battle to enforce them. He felt garages should be used
10
City Council Minutes
October 15, 2002
for vehicles and not as a storage area. He felt opening the door to allow shade
structures would become a problem because of the difficulty in controlling
them. He noted not everyone can afford "nice" shade structures but may cry
that they need shade too. He was sympathetic to the Turner's need but didn't
want to deviate from current standards.
Council Member Henderson wished to have staff take a look at the gazebos and
umbrella -like structures in the Cove that may be in the setback area.
In response to Mayor Pena, Mrs. Turner stated they will remove the satellite
dish.
7
MOTION - It was moved by Council Member Sniff to continue the appeal until
a report is received back from staff. Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Council Member Henderson stated she felt the issue should be dealt with and
that the appeal should have an opportunity to wait until a determination is made
on the entire issue.
Council Member Adolph stated he understood her concern but noted there is a
setback violation involved.
Council Member Sniff stated he didn't feel the Turners should be compelled to
remove their structure if possible modifications to the Code are going to be
considered.
Council Member Perkins suggested continuing the appeal for 60 days while staff
looks into options for changing the ordinance.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to continue the
appeal by Bill and Jan Turner for 60 days. Motion carried with Mayor Pena
voting NO. MINUTE ORDER, NO. 2002-215.
MOTION It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to direct staff to
research potential options for providing shade structures in the setback area for
possible modifications to the ordinance.
Council Member Henderson stated she wouldn't support any structures within
the right-of-way, and that what may be acceptable to her would be flat and
well-defined awnings that are bolted down.
Mr. Hartung advised the structures have to be engineered to fall within the
Building Code.
S
4.
City Council Minutes 8 October 15, 2002
Mr. Herman asked if Council wished for staff to look at temporary or permanent
structures, to which Council Member Sniff responded "both."
Council Member Perkins voiced concern about changing the Code to
accommodate a situation which might result in a ripple effect through the
community.
Council Member Adolph commented on a cantilevered, non -retractable awning
that he saw installed that the manufacturer claims will withstand 80 mph
winds.
Mayor Pena stated he doesn't want anything approved that is not structurally
sound. He was concerned about opening up a "can of worms" and lessening
City standards.
Council Member Henderson suggested the Turners not make costly
modifications to their structure until the Council decides whether or not to
modify the Code.
Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2002-216.
4. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.60, SECTION
2.60.020 (DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES - DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES) OF THE
LA QUINTA CHARTER AND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO "CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CODE."
There were no changes to the staff report as submitted and on file in the City
Clerk's Office.
MOTION - It was moved by Codicil Members Sniff/Adolph to take up Ordinance
No. 377 by title and number only, and waive further reading. Motion carried
unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 377
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL .OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.60 \SECTION 2.60.020 OF THE
LA QUINTA CHARTER AND MUNICIPAL CODE\RELATING TO THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE.
It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to introd cu e\Ordinance No. 377
on first reading. Motion carried by the following vote:
12
•
ATTACHMENT 2
City Council Minutes
6
December 17, 2002
2. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION ON A PUBLIC NUISANCE CITATION REGARDING THE VIOLATION
OF FRONT/SIDE YARD SETBACK, SATELLITE DISH LOCATION, AND
CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT AT 53-750 AVENIDA OBREGON.
APPELLANT: BILL AND JAN TURNER.
Planning Manager Orci presented the staff report.
In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Orci stated the staff report
addresses shade structures in setback areas. Any other issues, such as jacuzzis
and ponds, can be brought back for review in another report.
Council Member Henderson recommended this issue be brought back in a study
session where all the issues can be discussed.
Council Member Perkins agreed and commented on the need for residents to use
their garages for parking their vehicles instead of a storage area.
Jan & Bill Turner, 53-750 Avenida Obregon, the appellant, stated they don't
have enough room to park all of their vehicles in the garage. As for the satellite
dish, it will be removed in January. Mr Turner questioned the Planning
Commission spending enough time on this issue but stated he would remove
the shade structure if that is Council's direction. He added they have received
nothing but favorable responses on the shade structure from their neighbors.
Council Member Sniff stated he didn't have a problem discussing all of the
issues in a study session but felt shade structures are the primary issue. He
suggested the appeal be continued until after the study session is held.
Council Member Osborne concurred.
Mayor Adolph agreed and'supported'looking at the issue citywide.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to continue the
appeal by Bill and Jan Turner (regarding a shade structure at 53-750 Avenida
Obregon) to the second meeting in February and direct staff toschedule a study
session at the same meeting to discuss shade structures and other things such
as jacuzzis and ponds in setback areas.
Council Member Henderson noted residents are aware of how much room they
have for parking when they buy their homes. She felt staff could perhaps come
up with some type of wood lattice structure and provide a standard for
residents to use.
Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2002-240.
13
City Council Minutes 7 December 17, 2002
Mayor Adolph noted this is the last meeting that Desert Sun reporter, Richard Guzman,
will be covering the City. He suggested sending a letter of appreciation for his news
coverage of La Quinta City Council meetings. Council concurred.
3. CONSIDERATION, OF AN APPOINTMENT OF TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO
SERVE ON THE DESERT PLEIN AIR ART PURCHASE COMMITTEE.
Community Services\Director Horvitz presented the staff report.
Council Member Henderson questioned what is meant by "hosting" a group of
artists as proposed in tlie La Quinta Arts Foundation letter. Ms. Horvitz stated
a representative from tt e Arts Foundation is not available to answer that
question.
Council Member Sniff stated he was not happy about dividing up the $7,500
into two art pieces but will go along with the Council's decision. He suggested
Council Member Henderson\and Mayor Adolph be appointed to serve on the
committee, along with two members of the Cultural Arts Commission.
In response to Council Memberbsborne, Council Member Henderson explained
how the funds were divided between art pieces from the Plein Air and Arts
Festival events. She stated she v\ould support a higher amount if funded from
the Art in Public Places Fund.
Mayor Adolph noted if the entire $2,500 is not spent at the Plein Air event, the
balance will go toward the Arts Festival art purchase.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Perkins to appoint Council
Member Henderson and Mayor Adolph tQ serve on the Desert Plein Air Art
Purchase Committee and to request the Cultural Arts Commission to name two
members to serve on the committee wittl the expenditure not to exceed
$2,500. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2002-241.
4. CONSIDERATION OF PERMIT APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE REGARDING THE AMENDMENT TO THE FRINGE -TOED
LIZARD M.O.U.
{
Community Development Director Herman presented the staff report.
i4
TA, I, 4 4atinfai FILE COPY
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE:
ITEM TITLE:
February 18, 2003
Continued Consideration of an Appeal of a Planning
Commission Decision on a Public Nuisance Citation
Regarding the Violation of Front/Side Yard Setback,
Satellite Dish Location, and Construction Without a
Permit at 53-750 Avenida Obregon. Appellant: Bill and
Jan Turner
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMENDATION:
Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS:
None.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
The City Council at its December 17, 2002 (Attachment 1)meeting, directed staff to
continue this Appeal and schedule a study session at the same meeting to discuss
shade structures and other related uses in the front and side yard setback area. This
item is now before the Council for their deliberation and action.
History
Mr. and Mrs. Turner were cited for two Code violations, on August 8, 2002. The
Citation (Attachment 2) included the shade structure in the front yard and a satellite
dish in the rear yard. The Sections cited in the violation are contained in Attachment
3.
P:\Oscar\StfRpt\shade structuresStfRpt.wpd
• •
In accordance with Zoning Code Section 1 1.72.050 (Attachment 4), the Turners filed
a Letter of Appeal (Attachment 5) for the Public Nuisance Citation (Case No. 6559),
to the Planning Commission. On September 24, 2002, the Planning Commission
considered the Appeal and after lengthy discussion denied the Appeal (Attachment 6).
On October 1, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Turner filed an Appeal of the Planning Commission
Decision (Attachment 7). The City Council considered the appeal at their October 15,
2002 (Attachment 8) meeting and after extensive discussion, continued the matter
and directed staff to research potential options for modifications to the Zoning Code
to allow shade structures within the required front and side yard setback areas. The
issue of shade structures is addressed more fully in the staff report prepared for the
Study Session discussion.
Satellite Dish
At a previous Council meeting, the applicant indicated the Satellite Dish would be
removed. As of this writing the dish has been removed.
Staff recommends the City Council maintain the current Code requirements and uphold
the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Appeal.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal; or
2. Do not uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the Appeal;
or
2. Modify the Planning Commission's decision; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted,
rry H-rman, Community Development Director
Approved for Submission by:
Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager
P:\Oscar\StfRpt\shade structuresStfRpt.wpd 2
Attachments:
1. City Council Minutes for December 17, 2002 (excerpts)
2. Citation No. 6559 with case file information and pictures
3. Code Sections regarding Garages and Carports (9.60.020), Satellite Dish and
Other Antennas (9.60.080), and Permits Required (8.01.060)
4. Code Section regarding Abatement of Public Nuisances 1 1.72.050) and Appeal
process (F)
5. Letter of Appeal (August 27, 2002) considered by the Planning Commission
6. Planning Commission Minutes for September 24, 2002 (excerpts)
7. Letter of Appeal (September 29, 2002) to be considered by the City Council
8. City Council Minutes for October 15, 2002 (excerpts)
P:\Oscar\StfRpt\shade structuresStfRpt.wpd 3
ATTACHMENT #1
City Council Minutes
6 December 17, 2002
2. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION ON A PUBLIC NUISANCE CITATION REGARDING THE VIOLATION
OF FRONT/SIDE YARD SETBACK, SATELLITE DISH LOCATION, AND
CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT AT 53-750 AVENIDA OBREGON.
APPELLANT: BILL AND JAN TURNER.
Planning Manager Orci presented the staff report.
In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Orci stated the staff report
addresses shade structures in setback areas. Any other issues, such as jacuzzis
and ponds, can be brought back for review in another report.
Council Member Henderson recommended this issue be brought back in a study
session where all the issues can be discussed.
Council Member Perkins agreed and commented on the need for residents to use
their garages for parking their vehicles instead of a storage area.
Jan & Bill Turner, 53-750 Avenida Obregon, the appellant, stated they don't
have enough room to park all of their vehicles in the garage. As for the satellite
dish, it will be removed in January. Mr. Turner questioned the Planning
Commission spending enough time on this issue but stated he would remove
the shade structure if that is Council's direction. He added they have received
nothing but favorable responses on the shade structure from their neighbors.
Council Member Sniff stated he didn't have a problem discussing all of the
issues in a study session but felt shade structures are the primary issue. He
suggested the appeal be continued until after the study session is held.
Council Member Osborne concurred.
Mayor Adolph agreed and supported looking at the issue citywide.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to continue the
appeal by Bill and Jan Turner (regarding a shade structure at 53-750 Avenida
Obregon) to the second meeting in February and direct staff to schedule a study
session at the same meeting to discuss shade structures and other things such
as jacuzzis and ponds in setback areas.
Council Member Henderson noted residents are aware of how much room they
have for parking when they buy their homes. She felt staff could perhaps come
up with some type of wood lattice structure and provide a standard for
residents to use.
Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2002-240.
• •
City Council Minutes 7 December 17, 2002
Mayor Adolph noted this is the last meeting that Desert Sun reporter, Richard Guzman,
will be covering the City. He suggested sending a letter of appreciation for his news
coverage of La Quinta City Council meetings. Council concurred.
3. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPOINTMENT OF TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO
SERVE ON THE DESERT PLEIN AIR ART PURCHASE COMMITTEE.
Community Services Director Horvitz presented the staff report.
Council Member Henderson questioned what is meant by "hosting" a group of
artists as proposed in the La Quinta Arts Foundation letter. Ms. Horvitz stated
a representative from the Arts Foundation is not available to answer that
question.
Council Member Sniff stated he was not happy about dividing up the $7,500
into two art pieces but will go along with the Council's decision. He suggested
Council Member Henderson and Mayor Adolph be appointed to serve on the
committee, along with two members of the Cultural Arts Commission.
In response to Council Member Osborne, Council Member Henderson explained
how the funds were divided between art pieces from the Plein Air and Arts
Festival events. She stated she would support a higher amount if funded from
the Art in Public Places Fund.
Mayor Adolph noted if the entire $2,500 is not spent at the Plein Air event, the
balance will go toward the Arts Festival art purchase.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Perkins to appoint Council
Member Henderson and Mayor Adolph to serve on the Desert Plein Air Art
Purchase Committee and to request the Cultural Arts Commission to name two
members to serve on the committee with the expenditure not to exceed
$2,500. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2002-241.
4. CONSIDERATION OF PERMIT APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE REGARDING THE AMENDMENT TO THE FRINGE -TOED
LIZARD M.O.U.
Community Development Director Herman presented the staff report.
ATTACHMENT #2
NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATIONS
CASE NUMBER: 6559
PUBLIC NUISANCES
Code Violation: 8.01.060-Permit required
Location: Carport structure constructed over the driveway area.
Violation Text: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to
erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any building or
structure, including a swimming pool, spa or hot tub, or make any installation,
alteration, repair, replacement, .or remodel any building service equipment,
including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title,
except as specified in section 301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first
obtaining a separate, appropriate permit for each building, structure or service
equipment from the Building Official,
Correction: Remove the carport structure
Reinspection Date: September 3`d, 2002
Code Violation: 9.60.050 Table 9-3 Standards for detached accessory
buildings. (Setback requirements).
Location: Carport structure constructed over the driveway area
Violation Text: Table 9-3 See Attached
Correction: Remove the carport structure.
Reinspection Date: September 3`d„ 2002
Code Violation: 9.60.080 Satellite Dish and other Antennas
Location: South East Corner of the rear yard
Violation Text: See Attached
Correction: Remove the Satellite Dish or conform to the specific
Code Requirements.
Reinspection Date: September 3rd, 2002
6
• •
CANOPIES AND CARPORTS
53750 Avenida Obregon
September 24, 2002
7
file://M:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dconrad\Local%20Settings\Temp\1\PKGB.JPG 10/2/2002
ATTACHMENT #3
C. Lot
of the lot cove
D. Standards.
Setbacks and Maxim
standards:
Roof Area of
Structure
(sq• ft-)
0-100
101-200
201+
verage Maximums. The placement of accessory buildings on a lot s
maximums set forth in Section 9.50.030.
Height. Detached accessory buildings shall
Table 9-3 Stan ' . ' for Detached A
Maximum
Height
10
10
17
Separation
from •
Buil
t result in violation
nform to the following setback
ry Buildings
um Setback (ft.)
nt Yard
20
20
Interior Exterior Rear
Side Yard Side Yard Yard
10 Same
(Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997 Ord. 284 § 1 (Exhs. A, B) (part), 1996)
9.60.060 Garages and carports.
A. Height. The maximum structure height shall be fourteen feat for a detached carport and seventeen
feet for a detached garage, except that garages may be up to twenty-eight feet in height if a second dwelling
unit complying with the provisions of Section 9.60.090 is located above the garage.
B. Setbacks.
1. In the RVL district, the minimum garage or carport setback shall be thirty feet. In all other residential
districts, the minimum setback for front -entry type garages or carports shall be twenty-five feet if a standard
"pivot" type garage door is used, twenty feet if a 'rollup" type garage door is used, and twenty feet for a
carport. For side -entry type garages, the minimum garage setback shall be twenty feet in the RVL district
and fifteen feet in all other residential districts.
2. When alleys, private streets or common driveways at the rear of a lot are provided specifically as
vehicular access to garages and carports and when separate access and circulation systems are provided for
pedestrians, guests and emergency vehicles, garages and carports may be placed up to a minimum of five
feet from such alley, private street or common driveway.
C. Lot Coverage Maximums: The placement of a garage or carport on a lot shall not result in violation
of the lot coverage maximums set forth in Section 9.50.030. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
3.5 10 3.5
5 10 5
for main building
9.60.070
A. Applica
spa (in -ground or a
to a depth of eighteen
or any of the foregoing
B. Standards Pools
requirements:
1. Location. Pools shall
line. No adjustments to this
where any property line is adjacent
2. Filter and Heating Equipment
locatedwithin the required front or rear y
of a roof.. A five-foot side yard, clear of
yard property Iine and the building. Pool
with the exception of a roof. The co
noise and vibration attenuation. Eq
In addition, equipment shall be s
may consist of perimeter w
ty
g pools.
The provisions of this section shall apply to any outd
ve-ground), or open tank or pond containing or no
ches or more at any point. For_ purposes of
ilities.
permitted as accessory uses in re - dential districts subject to the following
located at least threc feet
shall be approv
common 0
echanic
wp
'ty dev
ent shall be
eened from ground
or fencing (if permitted),
r swimming pool, whirlpool.
y capable of containing water
section, the term "pool" means all
asured from water's edge) from any property
with the exception -of private gated communities
area.
1 equipment, such as a pump, filter or heater, may be
areas. The equipment shall be enclosed, with the exception
ent obstructions, shall be maintained between the side
t that can be accommodated in this area shall be enclosed,
opment director shall determine if this provides effective
ned from view from the street when in the front yard.
w of surrounding properties. Such visual screening
een walls, or landscape planting.
10
9.60.070
3. Fencing Requirements. All pools shall be fenced in . • .. : __ • • s building
code Chapter 8.06, state law and o _ _ ' .. e aws and ordinances.
4. Screenin_ • _ •rovided as required in Section 9.60.140B(2).'(Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998;
Ord • • = (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
9.60.080 Satellite dish and other antennas.
A. Purpose. Satellite dish and other antennas consistent with the design and location provisions of this
section shall be permitted as accessory structures within any residential district.
B. Permitted Commercial Antennas. Commercial television, radio, microwave, communication towers,
and related facilities are permitted as principal uses in all districts subject to approval of a conditional use
permit and conformance with the requirements of Chapter 9.I70 (Communication Towers and Equipment).
Satellite dish and other antennas are permitted as accessory structures in nonresidential districts in accordance
with Section 9.100.070.
C. Permitted Noncommercial Antennas. Noncommercial privately owned television and/or radio antennas
shall be contained entirely within a building except for. (1) satellite dish antennas and other antennas which
cannot function when completely enclosed by a building; and (2) amateur radio antennas used by operators
licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC, pursuant to 47 CFR Section 97). Such permitted
outdoor antennas shall comply with the following design standards and requirements:
1. Number. No more than one satellite dish and one amateur radio antenna shall be permitted per lot.
2. Height and Diameter. Satellite dish antennas shall not exceed eight feet in height measured from adjacent
grade or finish floor and shall be no more than eight feet in diameter. Amateur radio antennas shall not exceed
the maximum building height for the district as specified in Section 9.50.030.
3. . Ground -Mounted Antennas
. Location. All ground -mounted antennas shall be located within the rear yard or may be located within
an interior side yard if not within the required side yard setback Such antennas are prohibited from exterior
street side yards unless not visible from the street All antennas over six feet in height shall be set back a
minimum of ten feet from all property lines.
b. Screening. Ground -mounted satellite dish antennas shall be screened from view, including views from
adjacent yards, by landscaping or decorative structures (trellis, arbor, fence, etc.). The dish antenna shall be
a single color that blends with its surroundings (e.g., off-white, dark green, brown, gray or black).
c. Disguised Antennas. An antenna which has the appearance of typical backyard furniture or equipment
(e.g., satellite dish antenna manufactured to have the appearance of a patio umbrella) is not required to comply
with the preceding location and screening standards but shall comply with height and size limits. Such an
antenna may be placed on any patio or deck.
4. Building -Mounted Antennas. Roof -top and other building -mounted antennas are prohibited in all residential
districts if over twenty-four inches in diameterunless completely screened from horizontal view via a parapet
wall or other feature which is integrated into the architecture of the building. (Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord.
284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
Second residential units.
A. e. This section provides standards and criteria for the establishment of second residential units
within residents • •' •: cts consistent with Sections 65852.1, 65852.150, and 65 : of the State Government
Code.
B. Definitions. For purpo of this code, the followin• • lions shall apply:
1. "Second residential unit" m . • dwelling unit, ' . •r. g sleeping and cooking facilities, that is accessory
to a pre-existing primary residence on a sin _ ; - r y lot. "Granny housing" is intended for sole occupancy
by one or two persons age sixty-two y .. •r olde - handicapped person of any age (plus spouse or care
giver). "Granny housing" is inclu • - • within the term "s .. • residential unit"
2. "Living area" means - interior habitable area of a dwe : • unit, including basements and attics (if
permitted) and shall n • • • elude a garage or any accessory structure.
C. Lsrnita: • Only one second residential unit or one guesthouse may be esta• -• on any lot in addition
to the p • I,. residence.. Therefore, no more than two residential units on a single lot are permitted under
the .p • isions of -this section... _ _ . __ . _...—_-_ _ . _ _.._ _ . _ ._ .. _ .-- - _ _- _- - - -
(LA Quiata 3-99)
240
8.01.060
8.01.060 Permits required.
Section 301.1 of the Uniform Administrative Code, 1994 Edition, shall be revised to read as follows:
Permits Required. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge.
alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure, including a swimming
pool, spa or hot tub, or make any installation, alteration, repair, replacement, or remodel any building
service equipment, including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title, except
as specified in Section 301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate, appropriate
permit for each building, structure or service equipment from the Building Official.
(Ord. 276 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 1995; Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 114 § 1 (part), 1987; Ord. 68 § 1 (part).
1985)
01.070 Construction site security and debris.
The owner, contractor or responsible party constructing a new building, addition, or alt ation to an
exist] : building shall maintain security measures as deemed necessary or as required by the .. ding official
to cont .1 vandalism, fires, blowing dust, sand or debris.
B. owner, contractor or responsible party constructing a new building, addi •n, or alteration to an
existing bui :'ng, shall keep the construction site clean by having on site an all • tal, minimum three yard
container with inged lid (except rolloff containers), compatible for use with ndard trash removal trucks.
commonly referr • to as dumpsters, for the depositing of trash and debris. ontainers are to be provided by
commercial trash c. lection companies and shall not be placed in the t-of-way. As used in this section.
"trash and debris" sha include papers, cartons, bottles, cans, garba , roofing materials, insulation, plaster.
concrete, boards and of - r substances that may be accumulated • s a result of construction activities.
C. A trash container all remain on the construction si ntil the building inspector has completed the
final inspection. Said con . 'er shall be emptied of its c- tents on a regular schedule or as ordered by the
building inspector in order to : void blowing debris • other public nuisances.
D. Disposal shall be by tr• .ortation to a le ly established dump site by the city's refuse contractor
or other person authorized by Iaw t. remove a container from the location where the container was placed
by the person in charge for storage d co ction.
E. Refusal to comply with the provi : s of this section shall be a misdemeanor and punishable as stipulated
in Section 205 of the Uniform Admini . a e Code; and/or be sufficient cause for the revocation of the issued
building permit pending compliane- (Ord. :8 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 130 § 1, 1988; Ord. 97 § 1, 1986: Ord.
68 § 1. (part), 1985)
8.01.080 Violation —Pe : ty.
It is unlawful for any . - rson, firm or corporation to - rect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve.
remove, convert or de . ish, equip or cause or permit ' e same to be done, contrary to or in violation of
any of the provisions .f this title. Any person, firm or co . 'ration violating, or failing to comply with, any
of the provisions o is title or a code adopted in this title is : ilty of a separate offense for each and every
day or portion the - of during which any violation of any of the pro sions of this title or such code is committed.
continued or p- mitted, and upon conviction of any such violation, uch person shall be punishable by a fine
of not more an five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not mo than six months, or by both such fine
and impri .nment. The application of the penalty provided in this se on shall not be held to prevent the
abateme • of prohibited conditions as a public nuisance as provided by ection 1.01.250 of the La Quinta
Muni .al Code. (Ord. 68 § 3, 1985)
167
(la Quints 9-99)
1?_
ATTACHMENT #4
11.72.030
2. Such activities constitute emergency repairs, provided that such repairs do not exceed seventy-two
hours;
X. Parking a vehicle, as defined in Chapter 11.80, in public view when a failure to maintain its ext or
causes such vehicle to constitute an eyesore. Vehicles shall be deemed unsightly when body parts rust or • ome
corroded, paint becomes faded, chipped, or peeled or the vehicle exterior becomes otherwise di •idated;
Y. Sanding or painting a vehicle, as defined in Chapter 11.80, anywhere in a residenti. one;
Z. Failure to obscure vehicles and equipment which are stored in a residential zone o of public view;
AA. Storage of any item in a residential zone in a manner which endangers publ- ealth and safety;
BB. Any offensive or unwholesome business or establishment operated in a mann dangerous to the public
health, safety and welfare;
CC. Those offenses declared a nuisance anywhere in the code of the c' or the statutes of the state of
California or known at common law as nuisances when the same exist w' , m the jurisdiction of the city. (Ord.
265 § 1, 1995; Ord. 177 § 1, 1990; Ord. 160 § 1 (part), 1989)
11.72.040 Inspections.
A. Authorized Representative. The city manager . • + e community safety director or their representative(s)
are authorized to make inspections and take suc Lions as may be required by this chapter to provide for
the abatement of public nuisances.
B. Right of Entry. Whenever there is onable cause to believe that a condition, activity, or use of property
exists which constitutes a public nui • ' the city manager or community safety director or their representative(s)
may enter the premises at a real • • . • le time for the purpose of inspection. If such premises are occupied, entry
shall be requested and pro . = credentials shall be presented. If such premises are unoccupied, a reasonable
effort shall be made to 1• ate the property owner. If entry is refused or if the property owner cannot be located
after a reasonable t' - e, a twenty-four hour written notice of intent to inspect shall be left at the premises.
The notice sh . tate that the property owner has the right to refuse entry and if such entry is refused, the
city may se- assistance from a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain entry to inspect the premises. (Ord.
160 § 1 . art), 1989)
11.72.050 Abatement of public nuisances.
A. Dangerous Buildings. The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings shall apply and
preempt the provisions of this chapter whenever the public nuisance to be abated constitutes a dangerous building
as defined in the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings.
B. Notice of Public Nuisance. Upon determination that a public nuisance exists a notice shall be issued
to the property owner. The notice shall read "Notice of Public Nuisance," in letters not less than one inch
in height. The notice shall direct abatement of the nuisance, identify the nuisance by referring to this chapter,
and contain a general description of the property sufficient to identify the location of the public nuisance.
C. Service. The notice of public nuisance may be served by one of the following methods:
1. Personal service; or
2. Certified mail; or
3. Posting the notice at a conspicuous place on the premises where the nuisance is located or at the abutting
public right-of-way in addition to personal service or notice by certified mail.
D. Time to Abate. Public nuisances shall be abated by the property owner no more than twenty-one days
from the date of personal service or mailing the notice of public nuisance. If a public nuisance constitutes
an immediate fire hazard, within five days of personal service or mailing the notice of public nuisance.
E. Summary Abatement. Whenever a public nuisance exists which constitutes an emergency present -
(La Quinta 2-96)
426
13
• •
11.72.050
•
•
•
ing imminent danger to life or serious injury to persons or property, an authorized representative of the city
may order without notice or judicial action the immediate abatement of the public nuisance.
F. Appeal Procedure. Within ten days from the date of personal service or mailing the notice of public
nuisance the property owner may appeal the determination that a public nuisance exists to the planning commission.
The appeal shall be in writing and filed with the city clerk. At a regular meeting not more than thirty days
thereafter the planning commission shall proceed to hear and pass upon the appeal. The planning commission's
decision may be appealed within ten days of the decision by written request to the city clerk. The city council
shall hear the appeal at a regular meeting not more than thirty days from the date of request.
G. Failure to Abate. If a public nuisance is not voluntarily abated after notification the following shall
apply:
1. Prosecution. Failure to abate shall constitute an infraction pursuant to Section 1.01.200 of this code
which .provides for prosecution as misdemeanor upon committing three infractions.
2. City to Abate. The city may cause the public nuisance to be abated. The manner of abatement and
costs incurred by the city to abate the public nuisance shall be reported to the city council by the community
safety director immediately following abatement.
3. Judicial Action. The city may commence a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to cause
abatement of the public nuisance. Reasonable attomey's fees and costs may be collected by the city in any
action to abate a public nuisance. (Ord. 160 § 1 (part), 1989)
11.72.060 Costs of abatement.
A. Responsibility for Costs. If the city abates a public nuisance pursuant to Sections 11.72.050(B)(2) or
11.72.050(E) the cost of abatement may be assessed as a lien against the property together with an additional
twenty-five percent of the cost of abatement for inspection and any administrative and incidental costs incurred
by the city to abate the public nuisance.
B. Hearing on Assessment. To determine if the cost of abatement shall be assessed as a lien against the
property a hearing shall be held by the city council. The city clerk shall schedule the hearing for the first regular
meeting that is held at least seven days following the filing of the community safety director's report on the
costs and manner of abating the public nuisance pursuant to Section 11.72.080(B). The property owner shall
be served notice advising him of the date, time and location of the hearing in accordance with Section 11.72.070(C)
of this chapter. A property owner may pay the assessment to the city clerk prior to the hearing to avoid a
lien being placed against the property. The city council shall consider any objections to the assessment at
the hearing. If the city council determines that the cost of abatement shall be assessed as a lien against the
property a resolution shall be adopted by the city council stating the amount of the assessment. The city clerk
shall prepare and file a certified copy of the resolution with the county auditor -controller.
C. Assessment and Collection. Government Code Section 38773.5 is incorporated by reference as it currently
exists and may be subsequently amended. Section 38773.5 provides that the assessment shall be collected
at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes are collected. If payment is delinquent
the assessment shall be subject to the same penalties and procedure and sale as provided for ordinary municipal
taxes. (Ord. 160 § 1 (part), 1989)
427
(La Quinta 10-91)
August 27, 2002 Page 1 of 4
ATTACHMENT #5
Attn: City Clerk
City of La Quinta Planning Commission
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca 92253
RE: Letter of Appeal — Complaint #6559 "NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE"
To Whom It May Concern:
Please consider this letter of appeal for the citation issued on our canopy. My husband
and I have stopped any further improvements to our property until this has been resolved.
We are disappointed and confused with the term "public nuisance" itself since the shade
has so many benefits and absolutely no negatives. Neighbors are even stopping to
compliment us on it. The temperatures in our garage were over 114^ but since the canopy
was in place the temp is less than mid 90^s. Our money was invested and, more
importantly, our time to obtain a better shade and protection for our vehicles. Some
shades seen in the cove are not the quality nor have the longevity we needed. Our
decision was greatly influenced by canopies used in the La Quinta Park, pool, bike trails
and La Quinta Car Wash. Clear sight was taken into consideration since we are on a
corner lot. This impressive canopy is not permanent but sturdy and anchored for safety
however is not attached to our house. It has no abstract colors or markings even though I
understand the City considers the extreme "high profile" house colors are freedom of
expression. The color of blue was chosen to match as closely as possible to the trim of our
house (white w/ blue trim). We simply wanted to find an attractive way to have shade for
our vehicles and perhaps even discourage unwelcome vandals/ thieves. (My car has been
vandalized twice in three weeks. The first time the officer said nothing could be done and
he filed no report!) The Sun Bus comes down our street so the shade protects the privacy
of our vehicles and their contents. We plan to park all of our vehicles in the driveway,
under the shade and off of the street. Our neighbors are in complete support and we
contacted them before purchasing the canopy. Their signatures are attached.
After living in La Quinta for over twelve years, I am disappointed to find we have lost
more freedoms to additional property easements and even more again for another 20 feet
of setbacks. I heard stories of restricted colors for houses and limits on number of trees in
front yards. This stirs my concern since it seems I no longer actually own any of my so-
called property and I am sure this info will trigger the concerns of many other cove
residents. My house (2100sf) is on a corner lot of less than 6400sf with two sides
requiring 12 ft easements and the 20fi setbacks (these easements and setbacks have
changed substantially since my purchase in 1991). The side yard easement of 4.5ft
(should be 5ft?) and the rear of 10ft, I have nothing left. This may be true of most single
La Quinta cove lots although easements vary by the street you live on!! All cove lots
seem smaller than the minimum of 7200sf as listed in the codes so property taxes are
being paid on property they cannot utilize and enjoy. It seems hard to believe these
changes were made without realizing the impact on the cove residents. Is it possible to
consider the cove being "grand -fathered in", were we overlooked at the time or simply not
even considered?
15
-ea-6
Page 2 of 4
As for the satellite dish, it is very surprising to hear any concern over something that
has been in the same place since 1992. It was acceptable to the building inspector when
our remodel was in progress so the eave has been built around the satellite pole.
We moved to La Quinta in 1990 from Texas. We visited many of the Coachella Valley
cities but were constantly pulled back to La Quinta. We liked the individuality concept
and mixture of people of La Quinta Cove. It was a conscious decision to buy out of the
gated communities and away from the homeowner associations. Our primary expectations
are that we remain in control of some our freedoms and know our property should be one
of them.
My husband and I did not want nor expect a battle with the City of La Quinta over this
beautiful canopy or satellite dish. Our understanding of earlier codes was that the canopy
could not be attached permanently to the house and could not infringe on the easements or
obstruct traffic visibility at the corner. The plan and desire was to enhance our home, not
devaluate it so please know that we will continue the grounds improvement and check the
code restrictions for any future work after this citation has been resolved. We would like
to appeal the City of La Quinta's decision and respectfully request to be allowed to keep
the canopy and satellite as is. Per the code inspector, Don Whelchel, the easements are for
future sidewalks or utility needs so we offer to move/reposition the canopy at our expense
should any sidewalks or utility needs ever become a reality.
Our desire is to resolve this matter as quickly and calmly as possible. Please contact us
should you have any questions and we are anxiously waiting your decision.
Yours truly,
Bill Turner & Jan Turner
53-750 Avenida Obregon
La Quinta, Ca 92253
Bill's office# 760.564.6686
Jan's cell# 760.250.9056
Fx# 760.771.4746
Page 3 of 4
PETITION
Keep Shade Cover -
& Satellite Dish
(Newly Installed) (In place 11 years)
Located @ - 750 Avenida Obrejon
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. ,t
11.
12.
13. !'a
14.
7
rcakerS
7-1 13(00
L
8-0 33
spy V723
(El
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
(rA2ncc=
lAaViO \ -C\kk)
ATTACHMENT #6
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
24. There being no further discussion, it was moved and second
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to continue the project to Oc
2002, asking the applicant to better clarify the Specif
by
er 8,
Plan to
know what is being approved, show additional ame► ties woven
into the site plan, improved pedestrian access to e Village and
shows the location of the perimeter walls. Unan' - ously approved.
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting the meeting at 8:44
8:50 p.m.
. and reconvened at
C. Zoning Code Amendment 2002-073 a request of the City for
consideration of an amendment to ' apter 9.60, Section 9.60.030-
Fences and Walls, of the La Quint.. Municipal Code, to permit split rail
fencing in the front yard within -sidential zones.
1. Chairman Butler ope d the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Communit 'evelopment Director Jerry Herman presented
the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Co unity Development Department.
2. There bei • no questions of staff and no other public comment,
Chairma► Butler closed the public participation portion of the
hearin• and opened the matter up for Commission discussion.
3. T re being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
ommissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-092 recommending approval of Zoning Code
Amendment 2002-073, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Notice of Public Nuisance Citation #6559 a request of Bill and Jan Turner
for an appeal of a Public Nuisance Citation regarding the violation of
front/side yard setback, satellite dish location, and construction without
a permit.
1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
I
Q
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 8
•
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins stated the report submitted by Code
Compliance shows a multitude of canopies/structures, and asked
if other residents had received citations. Staff stated they will be
cited depending on the outcome of this meeting.
3. Commissioner Tyler noted there were three portions to the
citation. Staff stated that was correct.
4. Commissioner Robbins asked if this type of structure were located
in the sideyard, or back yard, and a vehicle be allowed to drive
back and park under it: would a building permit be allowed.
Community Safety Manager John Hardcastle stated the Building
Code calls out the square footage for when a permit is allowed.
It depends on the amount of area under the canopy to determine
if a permit would required.
5. Commissioner Abels stated it is important to keep in mind the look
of the streetscape.
6. Commissioner Kirk stated that if this is an illegal structure, you
cannot have a building permit. Staff stated that it is not a
buildable structure because of the setback. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman recited the Code requirements
for shade structures.
7. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Bill Turner, 53-750 Avenida Obregon,
stated the purpose of putting up the shade structure. They did
drive up and down the Cove before determining what type of
canopy to purchase and to see what had been allowed. They
chose the one currently installed as it was a much sturdier one
than what they had seen in the Cove. They have addressed the
company they bought the shade structure from and they have
corrected their information. They have a corner lot and do not
have any options due to the setbacks, to provide shade for their
driveway. They are trying to enhance the landscaping as well. It
is not a permanent structure and is not attached to their home.
8. Commissioner Abels asked if the company they purchased it from
informed them as to whether or not these structures were
allowed. Ms. Turner stated no. American Awning was informe.'
and they have put all future sales on hold.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 9
20
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
9. Commissioner Tyler asked when the house was built. Ms. Turner
stated 1990. Commissioner Tyler asked if the size of the garage
is the same now. Staff stated yes; 20 feet by 20 feet.
Commissioner Tyler asked why they did not park in the garage.
Ms. Turner stated they have motorcycles and other vehicles in the
garage. In regard to the satellite dish, they can remove it, but it
can only be seen when looking down the sideyard.
10. Commissioner Robbins stated he commends them on installing a
nice looking awning in comparison to some of the others shown
in the examples submitted. He is concerned that the retail stores
are not informing the public where they can and cannot be
installed.
11. Commissioner Kirk stated he too is concerned as to how you
approve one and not the others. He asked staff how they make
a determination as to what meets the Code and what can create
trouble for staff. Staff stated it becomes subjective and it is not
their desire to be treating people unequal.
12. Commissioner Robbins asked why this structure was the only one
given a citation. Staff noted this was not the first one, this is the
first that appealed the citation.
13. Commissioner Kirk stated the Cove does have some special
circumstances in regard to the size of the Tots. Some specific
requirements could be placed on the shade structures to permit
their use. He would support flexibility in the Ordinance to allow
them.
14. Chairman Butler stated this is a nice installation, but he does not
want to approve them as it could open the door for it to be
allowed anywhere.
15. Commissioner Tyler stated the City does recognize their are special
circumstances with the Cove Tots. He does have a problem
supporting them as it will allow all types and styles that could be
unattractive.
16. Commissioner Abels stated the streetscape is important and
unfortunately the applicants have been taken advantage of.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 10
21
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
VIII. C
17. There being no further discussion, Chairman Butler closed the
public participation portion of the meeting and opened the meeting
for Commission discussion.
18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 2002-015,
denying appeal of Public Nuisance Citation #6559, as
recommended. Motion carried with Commissioner Kirk opposed.
RRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
IX. COM
ISSIONER ITEMS:
A. N report of the September 17, 2002, City Council meeting, was given.
X. ADJOURN ENT:
There being no furt -r business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Tyler to adjourn his regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning •mmission to be held October 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning C. mission was adjourned at 9:39 p.m. on September 24,
2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 11
22
September 29, 2002
ATTACHMENT #7
Attn: City Clerk
City of La Quinta City Council
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca 92253
RECEIVED
_ SEP 3 h; } IC: S'.i
CITY CF LA MANTA
CITY CL E 4;'S OFFICE
RE: LETTER OF APPEAL — Complaint #6559 "Notice of Public Nuisance"
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to appeal the citation issued on our canopy and ask that you also read our letter
of appeal submitted to the Planning Commission along with the signatures of all of our
neighbors. We may repeat ourselves in some cases but we are very passionate on this
issue. We have stopped any further improvements to our property until this can been
resolved and are disappointed and confused with the term "public nuisance" itself since
the shade has so many benefits and absolutely no negatives. We have presented our
position to the Planning Commission and they were not in agreement so we now come to
you. There were comments made in reference to our shade that are in bad taste and are
unfair. Someone said they do not want a "tent city"! Another referred to a "coat of many
colors" impact because someone else may want a canopy in pink or some other color. I
strongly suggest that each of you take the time to drive up each of the streets in the cove
area to realize the eclectic make-up of this area. Color is definitely something no one has
discouraged from hot pink to a mixture of green/purple/yellow by looking at the homes
that have been painted in the last 3 years!
My husband and I simply wanted to shade the vehicles that did not fit into the garage.
We are like many families in the cove area. As a family grows, there are commonly more
than two vehicles and in this case we are attempting to protect the ones in the driveway. I
understand the easement needs for sidewalks (even though 12 feet seems excessive). An
additional 20 feet of setback is indeed extreme. Combining the 12 feet with the 20 feet on
my corner lot, you find yourself at the walls of my home. When this setback requirement
was decided on, it seems impossible that the RC area was taken into consideration. The
small lots in the cove area have automatic limitations and it seems confusing when we are
told we cannot erect any shade within the 20 feet but a home can have the permanent
structure of a wall and/or pool. Our position has been explained in the letter of appeal to
the Planning Commission also. The Planning Commission was polite while listening but
some had little understanding of the issue other than their desire to have a cookie cutter
appearance in the cove.
I would like to offer the same as before in reference to our shade. We offer to move/
reposition the canopy at our expense should any sidewalks or utility needs ever become a
reality. Under no circumstances were we attempting to confront the City of La Quinta or
its desire to protect property values.
As for the satellite dish, we were surprised to be cited for this because it has been in
place since 1992. Why weren't we told before so we could have made decisions when we
remodeled our home? Now the pole itself is part of our eave on the home. At this time
we are looking for a way to remove this dish but have not found an acceptable answer as
yet.
2
•
Page 2
of
Please know, as we said in our earlier appeal letter, my husband and I did not want nor 2
expect a battle with the City of La Quinta over this beautiful canopy. I was told at the
Planning Commission Appeal that other citations have been issued but I question this
because if this is true, why were so many still up? There is only a 21 day period within
which you have to comply. If we are indeed the "example", then all cited should be
notified of the appeal and its progress. Now I am hearing that the code office is issuing
citations to everyone since I began my response. That was not our desire to send the code
officers after those who had canopies. How long were the others allowed to remain up?
We chose to purchase in the La Quinta Cove because of the individuality of its
residents. We have no interest in the gated community approach of matching homes and
yards. It is important to us to retain some of the freedoms in our lives and we believe the
property we pay taxes on each year should be one of them. Obviously, any upgrades done
to our home involve respect of our neighbors and everyone's property values. We have
seen many changes within the cove area and some with delight; however, others give us a
reason to question.
As we stated before, our desire is to resolve this matter as quickly and calmly as
possible. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us as we are
anxiously awaiting your decision now.
Yours truly,
,e,&e,fre.?4)
Bill Jan Turner
53-750 Avenida Obreg
La Quinta, Ca 92253
Bill's Office# 760.202.0204
Jan's Cell# 760.250.9056
Fax# 760.202.0021
24
ATTACHMENT #8
City Council Minutes
5 October 15, 2002
3. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
ON VIOLATION OF FRONT/SIDE YARD SETBACK, SATELLITE DISH LOCATION,
AND CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT AT 53-750 AVENIDA OBREGON.
APPELLANT: BILL AND JAN TURNER.
Community Development Director Herman presented the staff report.
In response to Mayor Pena, Building & Safety Director Hartung confirmed the
shade structure encroaches into the right-of-way approximately one foot.
Council Member Adolph asked about the permit requirements.
Mr. Hartung advised any structure over 120 sq. ft. of roof area must have a
permit but a permit was not issued for this structure, nor would it have been
approved because of the setback violations.
In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Hartung advised shade structures are
permitted if out of the setback area. A number of residents have been notified
about the shade structures on their properties in the Cove but citations are on
hold pending Council's action on this item. He confirmed the City has similar
shade structures along the Bear Creek Bike Path and at the Fritz Burns Park.
In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Hartung stated, typically, the
front of the garage is constructed on -the setback line.
Jan & William Turner explained they didn't realize a permit was required to
install a canopy to shade their vehicles. The shade is needed because their
vehicles are too tall to fit into their garage. Mrs. Turner commented on the need
for shade structures to provide shade for vehicles and the number of such
structures throughout the Cove. The setback requirement prohibits her from
putting up any type of shade structure for her vehicles because she is located
on a corner. She was unable to get information from the City on similar
violations. Mr. Turner stated the shade structure is bolted to the ground for
safety reasons. He questioned the structure being classified as a public
nuisance and noted it's not a $29.95 canopy.
In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Turner stated he wouldn't have a problem with
his neighbor installing a $29.95 canopy if it's needed for shade.
Mrs. Turner stated they are looking for alternative suggestions to provide shade
for their vehicles.
City Council Minutes 6 October 15, 2002
Mayor Pena asked if City standards would allow the garage door to be raised to
accommodate their vehicles, to which Mr. Hartung responded "yes."
Mrs. Turner stated they were not aware of the 12-foot easement for a sidewalk
and that they would be willing to move the shade structure should the City
decide to install a sidewalk.
Council Member Henderson stated she didn't recall sidewalks being planned on
the Cove interior streets.
Mr. Hartung stated the easement is City property and no structures are allowed
within that area. In response to Council Member Henderson, he stated he
would research the Code to find out if retractable awnings are allowed.
Council Member Sniff stated he feels the need for shade structures is prevalent
in the area and supports staff looking at the use of retractable awnings or other
alternatives. He did not feel the Turner's shade structure is totally unattractive
and would like to find a reasonable and logical solution to the matter.
Council Member Adolph agreed the Turner's structure is tasteful but noted some
of the other awnings are not. As for retractable awnings, he commented on the
need for automatic wind sensors to avoid them being ripped off by the wind.
Mrs. Turner stated she would like to have her needs addressed without taking
away from someone else or reducing property values. Mr. Turner stated they
installed the awning to upgrade their property and can reduce the height of the
structure.
In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Hartung stated the shade structure
is also approximately one foot into the side yard setback.
Council Member Perkins agreed the Turner's canopy looks nice but felt it's hard
to know how to draw the line and define what looks "nice."
City Attorney Jenson pointed out the Council does not have the discretion to
approve a structure in the 25-foot setback area but can continue the appeal if
they wish to consider amending the Municipal Code.
Council Member Sniff suggested continuing the appeal and directing staff to
research potential modifications to the Code.
Mayor Pena stated regulations are set to keep property values at a reasonable
level and it's an ongoing battle to enforce them. He felt garages should be used
City Council Minutes 7 October 15, 2002
for vehicles and not as a storage area. He felt opening the door to allow shade
structures would become a problem because of the difficulty in controlling
them. He noted not everyone can afford "nice" shade structures but may cry
that they need shade too. He was sympathetic to the Turner's need but didn't
want to deviate from current standards.
Council Member Henderson wished to have staff take a look at the gazebos and
umbrella -like structures in the Cove that may be in the setback area.
In response to Mayor Pena, Mrs. Turner stated they will remove the satellite
dish.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Member Sniff to continue the appeal until
a report is received back from staff. Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Council Member Henderson stated she felt the issue should be dealt with and
that the appeal should have an opportunity to wait until a determination is made
on the entire issue.
Council Member Adolph stated he understood her concern but noted there is a
setback violation involved.
Council Member Sniff stated he didn't feel the Turners should be compelled to
remove their structure if possible modifications to the Code are going to be
considered.
Council Member Perkins suggested continuing the appeal for 60 days while staff
looks into options for changing the ordinance.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to continue the
appeal by Bill and Jan Turner for 60 days. Motion carried with Mayor Pena
voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2002-215.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to direct staff to
research potential options for providing shade structures in the setback area for
possible modifications to the ordinance.
Council Member Henderson stated she wouldn't support any structures within
the right-of-way, and that what may be acceptable to her would be flat and
well-defined awnings that are bolted down.
Mr. Hartung advised the structures have to be engineered to fall within the
Building Code.
City Council Minutes 8 October 15, 2002
Mr. Herman asked if Council wished for staff to look at temporary or permanent
structures, to which Council Member Sniff responded "both."
Council Member Perkins voiced concern about changing the Code to
accommodate a situation which might result in a ripple effect through the
community.
Council Member Adolph commented on a cantilevered, non -retractable awning
that he saw installed that the manufacturer claims will withstand 80 mph
winds.
Mayor Pena stated he doesn't want anything approved that is not structurally
sound. He was concerned about opening up a "can of worms" and lessening
City standards.
Council Member Henderson suggested the Turners not make costly
modifications to their structure until the Council decides whether or not to
modify the Code.
Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2002-216.
4. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.60, SECTION
2.60.020 (DES1 NATED EMPLOYEES - DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES) OF THE
LA QUINTA CHA'RTER AND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO "CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CODE."
There were no changes to the staff report as submitted and on file in the City
Clerk's Office.
MOTION - It was moved by Cocil Members Sniff/Adolph to take up Ordinance
No. 377 by title and number only, and waive further reading. Motion carried
unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 377
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL''•,.OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.60 "SECTION 2.60.020 OF THE
LA QUINTA CHARTER AND MUNICIPAL CODE 'RELATING TO THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE.
It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to introdu e\Ordinance No. 377
on first reading. Motion carried by the following vote:
City Council Minutes
6 December 17, 2002
2. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION ON A PUBLIC NUISANCE CITATION REGARDING THE VIOLATION?
OF FRONT/SIDE YARD SETBACK? SATELLITE DISH LOCATION, AND
CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT AT 53-750 AVENIDA OBREGON.
APPELLANT: BILL AND JAN TURNER.
Planning Manager Orci presented the staff report.
In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Orci stated the staff report
addresses shade structures in setback areas. Any other issues, such as jacuzzis
and ponds, can be brought back for review in another report.
Council Member Henderson recommended this issue be brought back in a study
session where all the issues can be discussed.
Council Member Perkins agreed and commented on the need for residents to use
their garages for parking their vehicles instead of a storage area.
Jan & Bill Turner, 53-750 Avenida Obregon, the appellant, stated they don't
have enough room to park all of their vehicles in the garage. As for the satellite
dish, it will be removed in January. Mr. Turner questioned the Planning
Commission spending enough time on this issue but stated he would remove
the shade structure if that is Council's direction. He added they have received
nothing but favorable responses on the shade structure from their neighbors.
Council Member Sniff stated he didn't have a problem discussing all of the
issues in a study session but felt shade structures are the primary issue. He
suggested the appeal be continued until after the study session is held.
Council Member Osborne concurred.
Mayor Adolph agreed and supported looking at the issue citywide.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to continue the
appeal by Bill and Jan Turner (regarding a shade structure at 53-750 Avenida
Obregon) to the second meeting in February and direct staff to schedule a study
session at the same meeting to discuss shade structures and other things such
as jacuzzis and ponds in setback areas.
Council Member Henderson noted residents are aware of how much room they
have for parking when they buy their homes. She felt staff could perhaps come
up with some type of wood lattice structure and provide a standard for
residents to use.
Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2002-240.
City Council Minutes 7 December 17, 2002
Mayor Adolph noted this is the last meeting that Desert Sun reporter, Richard Guzman,
will be covering the City. He suggested sending a letter of appreciation for his news
coverage of La Quinta City Council meetings. Council concurred.
3. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPOINTMENT OF TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO
SERVE ON THE D SERT PLEIN AIR ART PURCHASE COMMITTEE.
Community Services Director Horvitz presented the staff report.
Council Member Hendefson questioned what is meant by "hosting" a group of
artists as proposed in thf La Quinta Arts Foundation letter. Ms. Horvitz stated
a representative from tie Arts Foundation is not available to answer that
question.
Council. Member Sniff stated he was not happy about dividing up the $7,500
into two art pieces but will o along with the Council's decision. He suggested
Council Member Hendersond Mayor Adolph be appointed to serve on the
committee, along with two eembers of the Cultural Arts Commission.
In response to Council Member"9sborne, Council Member Henderson explained
how the funds were divided between art pieces from the Plein Air and Arts
Festival events. She stated she ould support a higher amount if funded from
the Art in Public Places Fund.
Mayor Adolph noted if the entire $2,00 is not spent at the Plein Air event, the
balance will go toward the Arts Festival art purchase.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Me" bers Sniff/Perkins to appoint Council
Member Henderson and Mayor Adolphg serve on the Desert Plein Air Art
Purchase Committee and to request the Cu f ural Arts Commission to name two
members to serve on the committee wit , the expenditure not to exceed
$2,500. Motion carried unanimously. MINUS E ORDER NO. 2002-241.
4. CONSIDERATION OF PERMIT APPLICATION IA THE FEDERAL FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE REGARDING THE AMENDMENT TO THE FRINGE -TOED
LIZARD M.O.U.
Community Development Director Herman presented the staff report.
•
`6itti44Qul«1w FILE COPY
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE:
JTEM TITLE:
December 17, 2002
Continued Consideration of an Appeal of a Planning
Commission Decision on a Public Nuisance Citation
Regarding the Violation of Front/Side Yard Setback,
Satellite Dish Location, and Construction Without a Permit
at 53-750 Avenida Obregon. Appellant: Bill and Jan
Turner.
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMENDATION:
Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS:
None.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
The Planning Commission discussed the issue of temporary shade structures in front yards
at their July 23, 2002 meeting. After discussion, the Commission decided not to
recommend a Zoning Code Amendment to permit such structures (Attachment 1).
On August 8, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Turner were cited for two Code violations, which included
a shade structure in the front yard and a satellite dish in the rear yard (Attachment 2). The
Sections cited in the violation are contained in Attachment 3.
In accordance with Zoning Code Section 11.72.050 (Attachment 4), the Turners filed a
letter (Attachment 5) appealing the citation (Public Nuisance Citation, Case No. 6559,
Attachment 6) to the Planning Commission. On September 24, 2002, the Planning
Commission considered the appeal and after lengthy discussion denied the appeal
(Attachment 7).
On October 1, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Turner filed an Appeal of the Planning Commission
Decision (Attachment 8). The City Council considered the appeal at their October 15, 2002
meeting and after extensive discussion, continued the matter for 60 days and directed staff
to research potential options for modifications to the Zoning Code to allow shade structures
within the required front and side yard setback areas (Attachment 9).
%Other�Shade tructures
There are approximately 10 homes with temporary shade structures in the front and side
yards. The majority of these homes are located in the Cove. Code Enforcement action
is pending upon the outcome of this matter.
Code Requirements
The City's regulations establish development standards, such as setbacks and height
requirements for accessory structures and buildings such as barbeques, waterfalls,
fireplaces, patio covers, decks, carports, and play equipment. These accessory structures
and buildings are subject to Sections 9.60.040 (Patio Covers, Attachment 10), 9.60.050
(Storage and Other Accessory Buildings, Attachment 11), or 9.60.060 (Garages and
Carports, Attachment 12) of the Municipal Code. In order to maintain open space,
buildings and accessory structures must maintain front and side yard requirements. Shade
structures would be located within the front yard, and thus, would reduce open space.
Note that certain decorative lawn structures (e.g. waterfalls, fireplaces...etc.) are allowed
in the front yard.
Further, Section 9.150.060 (Required Residential Parking, Attachment 13) requires two
parking spaces per unit within a garage. Shade structures would facilitate the conversion
of garages to storage areas or living areas.
Surrounding Communities
Surrounding communities have various regulations governing accessory structures, but
generally speaking, cities either do not allow structures in front and side yards or require
that structures comply with setback and design requirements of the main dwelling units.
Temporary Structures
Temporary structures are those structures allowed on a temporary basis, provided they
comply with all applicable setback requirements and are not erected for more than 180
days within a 12 month period.
Regulations must be established, if different than above, to specify the duration of shade
structures. Also, the Code Compliance Department will need to establish a protocol to:
• Identify the shade structures in the City;
• Inform owners of the code requirements;
• Verify that garages have not been illegally converted; and
• Monitor the properties for compliance.
Note that continuous ongoing monitoring activity will be required to ensure compliance.
Because temporary shade structures do not require foundations, they could become
projectiles during wind gusts. Temporary shade structures should obtain a permit to make
certain that wind Toad requirements are properly addressed.
002
Permanent Structures
Building permits are required for permanent structures in excess of 120 square feet.
These structures require structural design by a licensed architect or engineer and must
comply with all applicable setback requirements.
As indicated previously, shade structures should obtain a permit to make certain that wind
load requirements are properly addressed.
Permanent shade structures would allow parking in the driveway, which would facilitate the
conversion of garages to other uses, reduce the amount of on -site parking, and increase
street parking. Code Compliance Department should make certain that garages have not
been converted to other uses prior to the issuance of a permit.
Also, the Code Compliance Department would need to monitor properties with permanent
shade structures to:
Identify the shade structures in the City;
Inform owners of the permit requirements; and
Monitor the properties for compliance.
Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) Tanks
Please note that many homes in the Cove have LPG tanks that have been legally located
adjacent to the interior front/side property lines. LPG tanks were approved at these
locations because nothing could be built within the front and side setback areas. The Fire
Code requires a minimum 10 foot setback from any on or off -site tank. Therefore, a shade
structure would not be permitted in a front/side yard if a tank is located anywhere within 10',
even if the tank is on an adjacent property. Likewise, a tank would not be allowed if a
shade structure has been erected anywhere within 10'. Therefore, a prejudice for
preexisting structures would be established and future applicants would not be able to
enjoy the benefit of the code requirements.
Color, size, and shape
Many shade structures, especially temporary shade structures, are not architecturally
consistent with dwelling units and do not utilize similar materials. As a result, most
communities require that shade structures be consistent with dwelling units. In certain
cases, accessory structures that are not consistent with the dwelling unit are permitted in
the front of the home, but must meet certain setback requirements and/or screening
requirements.
Should shade structures be permitted, they should be compatible with the home's
architectural style and materials. The Community Development Director should also have
the discretion to review and approve these structures to ensure compatibility. To minimize
their appearance, shade structures should be open on all side, if detached; if attached,
structures should be open on three sides.
003
•
Retractable shade structures
Retractable shade structures may be allowed in accordance with Section 9.50.060
(Architectural Projections, Attachment 14), which permits a 2' projection into the required
setback area as long as it is not closer than 3'/z feet from the property line.
As indicated previously, a permit should be required to make certain that it is consistent
with the wind load requirements. The retractable structure housing should be painted to
match the home and comply with setback requirements as required by Section 9.50.060.
Location
Should shade structures be allowed, they should comply with all applicable setback
requirements for carports (Section 9.60.060). Shade structures should be allowed over the
driveway only, to prevent the tenting of the entire front yard area.
Maintenance
Most temporary shade structures include canvas covers that require routine maintenance.
If shade structures are permitted, there should be a maintenance clause that would require
the following:
•
Holes in the fabric that exceed 10% of the area of the entire fabric is a violation and
must be repaired or replaced.
• If the fabric becomes detached from the frame by more than 10% of the perimeter
it is a violation and must be repaired or replaced.
• All structures must remain free from graffiti, stains and burn marks and other such
defects. If the combined area of said defects exceeds 5% of the total area of the
fabric, it shall be considered excessive and the fabric must be repaired or replaced.
All repairs must be made with materials similar to the original installation and
approved by the Director.
• If the fabric is removed from the support framework and is not replaced within 15
days it shall be considered a violation and must be removed.
Satellite Dish
At a previous Council meeting, the applicant indicated that the Satellite Dish would be
removed. As of this writing the dish remains.
Other Issues
There are other code compliance issues such as art in private residences that is visible
from public view that must be addressed at a later time.
004
Summary
The following matters should be considered if the Council proposes to allow temporary
shade structures:
• New permit requirements, including design and maintenance requirements, and
approval process;
• Additional code enforcement process and ongoing monitoring;
10' setback, if adjacent to LPG tank; and
Loss of front yard open space;
The following matters should be consider if the Council proposes to allow permanent
shade structures:
• New permit requirements, including design and maintenance requirements, and
approval process;
• Additional code enforcement process and ongoing monitoring;
• 10' setback, if adjacent to LPG tank;
• Loss of front yard open space;
• Increased street parking; and
• Potential garage conversions.
Staff recommends the City Council maintain the current code requirements and uphold the
Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal; or
2. Direct staff to draft language to modify the Zoning Code regarding shade structures;
or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted,
Herm : n, Community Development Director
005
Approved for Submission by:
Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Minutes for July 23, 2002 (excerpts)
2. Case file information w/ pictures
3. Code Sections regarding Garages and Carports, and Satellite Dish and Other
Antennas
4. Code Section regarding Abatement of Public Nuisances
5. Letter of Appeal considered by the Planning Commission
6. Citation No. 6559
7. Planning Commission Minutes for September 24, 2002 (excerpts)
8. Letter of Appeal to be considered by the City Council
9. City Council Minutes for October 15, 2002 (excerpts)
10. Municipal Code Section 9.60.040 (Patio Covers)
11. Municipal Code Section 9.60.050 (Storage and Other Accessory Buildings)
12. Municipal Code Section 9.60.060 (Garages and Carports)
13. Municipal Code Section 9.150.060 (Parking Spaces Required)
14. Municipal Code Section 9.050.060 (Architectural Projections)
003
ATTACHM ENT(S)
ATTACHMENT #1
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2002
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Pla ing Commission
Resolution 2002-083 recommending certif. ation of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental i - pact for Environmental
Assessment 2002-454, subject to the endings, as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners bels and Kirk. NOES:
Commissioner Robbins a : Vice Chairman Tyler. ABSENT:
Chairman Butler. ABS 'AIN: None.
48. There being a tie vote, e motion dies. No further action was
taken.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A
, a request of Jai Nettimi
for compatibility r= iew of a deck for a single family two story house
located at 79-39 f, Paseo del Rey.
1. Vice C ► airman Tyler asked if there was a motion to continue Site
Deve • pment Permit 2002-744, as requested. It was moved and
sec', nded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to continue Site
D velopment Permit 2002-744 to September 3, 2002, as
quested. Unanimously approved.
B. Zoning Issues; a request of staff for review of Shade Structures, Gas
Stations, and Drive Thrus.
1. Vice Chairman Tyler asked for the staff report. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk stated they support leaving the
Zoning Code as it is written for shade structures.
3. Staff asked if the Commission wanted to limit the number of gas
stations and fast thru restaurants in the City. Staff is not
requesting the prohibition of a restaurants, but rather the drive
thru.
GAWPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd 19 G �_� 3
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2002
4. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether or not the City could adopt
such an action. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink stated
the Planning Commission can amend the Zoning Code and make
a recommendation that allowing these uses is not good planning.
5. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abets/Tyler to continue this to a future meeting,
directing staff to prepare an analysis as to how many gas stations
and drive throughs there are and where they are located in La
Quinta and potential locations. Unanimously approved.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE
D WRITTEN MATERIAL:
A. Commissioners di- ussed the
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. No report was given o the City Council meeting of July 16, 2002.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it wa moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abets/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeti g of the Planning Commission to a special
meeting of the Planning Commission to be h; d September 3, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjurned at 10:45 p.m. on July 23, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd 20
r„ 9
•
IkTACHMENT 2
CANOPIES AND CARPORTS
53750 Avenida Obregon
September 24, 2002
file://M:\Documents%20and%20Setti ngs\dconrad\Loca1%20Settings\Temp\1\PKGB.JPG
10/2/2002
ATTACIII1ENT #3
9.60.050
Minimum Setback (ft.)
C. Lot Coverage Maximums. The placement of accessory buildings on a lot shall not result in violation
of the lot coverage maximums set forth in Section 9.50.030.
D. Standards.
Setbacks and Maximum Height. Detached accessory buildings shall conform to the following setback
standards:
Table 9-3 Standards for Detached Accessory Buildings
Roof Area of Maximum
Structure Height . Separation
from Main Front Yard Interior Exterior Rear
(sq' f-) B ig Side Yard Side Yard Yard
0-100 10 - 5 20 3.5 10 3.5
101-200 10 5 20 5 10 5
201+ 17 • 10 Ssmmr as for main building
(Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exhs. A, B) (part), 1996)
9.60.060 Garages and carports.
A. Height. The maximum structure height shall be fourteen feet for a detached carport and seventeen
feet for a detached garage, except that garages may be up to twenty-eight feet in height if a second dwelling
unit complying with the provisions of Section 9.60.090 is located above the garage.
B. Setbacks.
1. In the RVL district, the minimum garage or carport setback shall be thirty feet- In all other residential
districts, the minimum setback for front -entry type garages or carports shall be twenty-five feet if a standard
"pivot" type garage door is used, twenty feet if a "roll -up" type garage door is used, and twenty feet for a
carport. For side -entry type garages, the minimum garage setback shall be twenty feet in the RVL district
and fifteen feet in all other residential districts.
2. When alleys, private streets or common driveways at the rear of a lot are provided specifically as
vehicular access to garages and carports and when separate access and circulation systems are provided for
pedestrians, guests and emergency vehicles, garages and carports may be placed up to a minimum of five
feet from such alley, private street or common driveway.
C. Lot Coverage Maximums. The placement of a garage or carport on a lot shall not result in violation
of the lot coverage maximums set forth in Section 9.50.030. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
9.60.070 Swimming pools.
A. Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to any outdoor swimming pool, whirlpool.
spa (in -ground or above -ground), or open tank or pond containing or normally capable of containing water
to a depth of eighteen inches or more at any point. For purposes of this section, the term 'pool" means all
or any of the foregoing facilities.
B. Standards. Pools are permitted as accessory uses in residential districts subject to the following
requirements:
1. Location. Pools shall be located at least three feet (measured from water's edge) from any property
line. No adjustments to this minimum shall be approved, with the exception .of private gated communities
where any property line is adjacent to common open area.
2. Filter and Heating Equipment. Mechanical pool equipment, such as a pump, filter or heater, may be
locatedwithin the required front or rear yard setback areas. The equipment shall be enclosed, with the exception
of a roof.. A five-foot side yard, clear of any permanent obstructions, shall be maintained between the side
yard property line and the building. Pool equipment that can be accommodated in this area shall be enclosed,
with the exception of a roof. The community development director shall determine if this provides effective
noise and vibration attenuation Equipment shall be screened from view from the street when in the front yard.
In addition, equipment shall be screened from ground view of surrounding properties. Such visual screening
may consist of perimeter walls or fencing (if permitted), screen walls, or landscape planting.
J"3
.l
I1
9.60.070
• •
3. Fencing Requirements. All pools shall be fenced in accordance with the provisions of the city's building
code Chapter 8.06, state law and other applicable laws and ordinances.
4. Screening shall be provided as required in Section 9.60.140B(2)..(Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998;
Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
9.60.080 Satellite dish and other antennas.
A. Purpose. Satellite dish and other antennas consistent with the design and location provisions of this
section shall be permitted as accessory structures within any residential district.
B. Permitted Commercial Antennas. Commercial television, radio, microwave, communication towers,
and related facilities are permitted as principal uses in all districts subject to approval of. a conditional use
permit and conformance with the requirements of Chapter 9.170 (Communication Towers and Equipment).
Satellite dish and other antennas are permitted as accessory structures in nonresidential districts in accordance
with Section 9.100.070.
C. Permitted Noncommercial Antennas. Noncommercial privately owned television and/or radio antennas
shall be contained entirely within a building except for. (1) satellite dish antennas and other antennas which
cannot function when completely enclosed by a building; and (2) amateur radio antennas used by operators
licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC, pursuant to 47 CFR Section 97). Such permitted
outdoor antennas shall comply with the following design standards and requirements:
1. Number. No more than one satellite dish and one amateur radio antenna shall be permitted per lot.
2. Height and Diameter. Satellite dish antennas shall not exceed eight feet in height measured from adjacent
grade or finish floor and shall be no more than eight feet in diameter. Amateur radio antennas shall not exceed
the maximum building height for the district as specified in Section 9.50.030.
3 . Ground -Mounted Antennas. .
a'. Location. All ground -mounted antennas shall be located within the rear yard or may be located within
an interior side yard if not within the required side yard setback. Such antennas are prohibited from exterior
street side yards unless not visible from the street. All antennas over six feet in height shall be set back a
minimum of ten feet from all property lines.
b. Screening. Ground -mounted satellite dish antennas shall be screened from view, including views from
adjacent yards, by landscaping or decorative structures (trellis, arbor, fence, etc.). The dish antenna shall be
a single color that blends with its surroundings (e.g., off-white, dark green, brown, gray or black).
c. Disguised Antennas. An antenna which has the appearance of typical backyard furniture or equipment
(e.g., satellite dish antenna manufactured to have the appearance of a patio umbrella) is not required to comply
with the preceding location and screening standards but shall comply with height and size limits. Such an
antenna may be placed on any patio or deck.
4. Building -Mounted Antennas. Roof -top and other building -mounted antennas are prohibited in all residential
districts if over twenty-four inches in diameter unless completely screened from horizontal view via a parapet
wall or other feature which is integrated into the architecture of the building. (Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord.
284 § 1 (Fah A) (part), 1996)
9.60.090 Second residential units,
A. Purpose. This section provides standards and criteria for the establishment of second residential units
within residential districts consistent with Sections 65852.1, 65852.150, and 65852.2 of the State Government
Code.
B. Definitions. For purposes of this code, the following definitions shall apply:
1. "Second residential unit" means a dwelling unit, including sleeping and cooking facilities, that is accessory
to a pre-existing primary residence on a single-family lot. "Granny housing" is intended for sole occupancy
by one or two persons age sixty-two years or older or a handicapped person of any age (plus spouse or care
giver). "Granny housing" is included within the term "second residential unit."
2. "Living area" means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics (if
permitted) and shall not include a garage or any accessory structure:
C. Limitations. Only one second residential unit or one guesthouse may be established on any lot in addition
to the primary residence.. Therefore, no more than two residential units on a single lot are permitted under
the.. provisions of -this section... ._
tiQuints r•99)
240
8.01.060
8.01.060 Permits required.
Section 301.1 of the Uniform Administrative Code, 1994 Edition, shall be revised to read as follows:
Permits Required. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge.
alter; repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure, including a swimming
pool, spa or hot tub, or make any installation, alteration, repair, replacement, or remodel any building
service equipment. including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title, except
as specified in Section 301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate, appropriate
permit for eachbuilding, structure or service equipment from the Building Official.
(Ord. 276 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 1995; Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 114 § 1 (part), 1987; Ord. 68 § 1 (part).
1985)
8.01.070 Construction site security and debris.
A. The owner, contractor or responsible party constructing a new building, addition, or alteration to an
existing building shall maintain security measures as deemed necessary or as required by the building official
to control vandalism, fires, blowing dust, sand or debris.
B. The owner, contractor or responsible party constructing a new building, addition, or alteration to an
existing building, shall keep the construction site clean by having on site an all metal, minimum three yard
container with hinged lid (except rolloff containers), compatible for use with standard trash removal trucks.
commonly referred to as dumpsters, for the depositing of trash and debris. Containers are to be provided by
commercial trash collection companies and shall not be placed in the right-of-way. As used in this section.
"trash and debris" shall include papers, cartons, bottles, cans, garbage, roofing materials. insulation, plaster.
concrete, boards and other substances that may be accumulated as a result of construction activities.
C. A trash container shall remain on the construction site until the building inspector has completed the
final inspection. Said container shall be emptied of its contents on a regular schedule or as ordered by the
building inspector in order to avoid blowing debris or other public nuisances.
D. Disposal shall be by transportation to a legally established dump site by the city's refuse contractor
or other person authorized by law to removeany container from the location where the container was placed
by the person in charge for storage and collection.
E. Refusal to comply with the provisions of this section shall be a misdemeanor and punishable as stipulated
in Section 205 of the Uniform Administrative Code; -and/or be sufficient cause for the revocation of the issued
building permit pending compliance. (Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 130 § 1, 1988; Ord. 97 § 1, 1986: Ord.
68 § 1. (part), 1985)
8.01.080 Violation —Penalty.
It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair. move, improve.
remove, convert or demolish, equip or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of
any of the provisions of this title. Any person, firm or corporation violating, or failing to comply with, any
of the provisions of this title or a code adopted in this title is guilty of a separate offense for each and every
day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this title or such code is committed.
continued or permitted, and upon conviction of any such violation, such person shall be punishable by a fine
of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine
and imprisonment. The application of the penalty provided in this section shall not be held to prevent the
abatement of prohibited conditions as a public nuisance as provided by Section 1.01.250 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code. (Ord. 68 § 3, 1985)
167'
(Ia Quinta 9-99)
ATTA„_,MENT #4
11.72.050
ing imminent danger to life or serious injury to persons or property, an authorized representative of the city
may order without notice or judicial action the immediate 'abatement of the public nuisance.
F. Appeal Procedure. Within ten days from the date of personal service or mailing the notice of public
nuisance the property owner may appeal the determination that a public nuisance exists to the 1
The appeal shall be in writing and filed with the city clerk. At a regularplanning commission.thirtydays
thereafter the planning commission shall proceed to hear andpass upon thmeeting not more than on'
decision maybe appealedp° appeal. The planning commission's
within ten days of the decision by written request to the city clerk. The city council
shall hear the appeal at a regular meeting not more than thirty days from the date of request.
G. Failure to Abate. If a public nuisance is not voluntarily abated after notification the following shall
apply:
1. Prosecution. Failure to abate shall constitute an infraction pursuant to Section 1.01.200 of this code
which provides for prosecution as misdemeanor upon committing three infractions.
2. City to Abate. The city may cause the public nuisance to be abated. The manner of abatement and
costs incurred by the city to abate the public nuisance shall be reported to the city council by the community
safety director immediately following abatement.
3. Judicial Action. The city may commence a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to cause
abatement of the public nuisance. Reasonable attomey's fees and costs may be collected by the city in any
action to abate a public nuisance. (Ord. 160 § 1 (part), 1989)
11.72.060 Costs of abatement.
A. Responsibility for Costs. If the city abates a public nuisance pursuant to Sections 11.72.050(B)(2) or ,
11.72.050(E) the cost of abatement may be assessed as a lien against the property together with an additional
twenty-five percent of the cost of abatement for inspection and any administrative and incidental costs incurred
by the city to abate the public nuisance.
B. Hearing on Assessment. To determine if the cost of abatement shall be assessed as a lien against the
property a hearing shall be held by the city council. The city clerk shall schedule the hearing for the first regular
meeting that is held at least seven days following the filing of the community safety director's report on the
costs and manner of abating the public nuisance pursuant to Section 11.72.080(B). The property owner shall
be served notice advising him of the date, time and location of the hearing in accordance with Section 11.72.070(C)
of this chapter. A property owner may pay the assessment to 'the city clerk prior to the hearing to avoid a
lien being placed against the property. The city council shall consider any objections to the assessment at
the hearing. If the city council determines that the cost of abatement shall be assessed as a lien against the
property a resolution shall be adopted by the city council stating the amount of the assessment. The city clerk
shall prepare and file a certified copy of the resolution with the county auditor -controller.
C. Assessment and Collection. Government Code Section 38773.5 is incorporated by reference as it currently
exists and may be subsequently amended. Section 38773.5 provides that the assessment shall be collected
at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes are collected. If payment is delinquent
the assessment shall be subject to the same penalties and procedure and sale as provided for ordinary municipal
taxes. (Ord. 160 § 1 (part), 1989)
427
r - n
U .1 0
(L (oiau 10-91)
Au
gust 27, 2002 111.
ATTACHMENT #5
Attn: City Clerk
City of La Quinta Planning Commission
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca 92253
RE: Letter of Appeal — Complaint ##6559 "NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE"
To Whom It May Concern:
Please consider this letter of appeal for the citation issued on our canopy. My husband
and I have stopped any further improvements to our property until this has been resolved.
We are disappointed and confused with the term "public nuisance" itself since the shade
has so many benefits and absolutely no negatives. Neighbors are even stopping to
compliment us on it. The temperatures in our garage were over 114^ but since the canopy
was in place the temp is less than mid 90^s. Our money was invested and, more
importantly, our time to obtain a better shade and protection for our vehicles. Some
shades seen in the cove are not the quality nor have the longevity we needed. Our
decision was greatly influenced by canopies used in the La Quinta Park, pool, bike trails
and La Quinta Car Wash. Clear sight was taken into consideration since we are on a
corner lot. This impressive canopy is not permanent but sturdy and anchored for safety
however is not attached to our house. It has no abstract colors or markings even though I
understand the City considers the extreme "high profile" house colors are freedom of
expression. The color of blue was chosen to match as closely as possible to the trim of our
house (white w/ blue trim). We simply wanted to find an attractive way to have shade for
our vehicles and perhaps even discourage unwelcome vandals/ thieves. (My car has been
vandalized twice in three weeks. The first time the officer said nothing could be done and
he filed no report!) The Sun Bus comes down our street so the shade protects the privacy
of our vehicles and their contents. We plan to park all of our vehicles in the driveway,
under the shade and off of the street. Our neighbors are in complete support and we
contacted them before purchasing the canopy. Their signatures are attached.
After living in La Quinta for over twelve years, I am disappointed to find we have lost
more freedoms to additional property easements and even more again for another 20 feet
of setbacks. I heard stories of restricted colors for houses and limits on number of trees in
front yards. This stirs my concern since it seems I no longer actually own any of my so-
called property and I am sure this info will trigger the concerns of many other cove
residents. My house (2100sf) is on a corner lot of less .than 6400sf with two sides
requiring 12 ft easements and the 20ft setbacks (these easements and setbacks have
changed substantially since my purchase in 1991). The side yard easement of 4.5ft
(should be 5ft?) and the rear of loft, I have nothing left. This may be true of most single
La Quinta cove lots although easements vary by the street you live on!! All cove lots
seem smaller than the minimum of 7200sf as listed in the codes so property taxes are
being paid on property they cannot utilize and enjoy. It seems hard to believe these
changes were made without realizing the impact on the cove residents. is it possible to
consider the cove being "grand -fathered in", were we overlooked at the time or simply not
even considered?
Page 2 of4
r,
of them.
My husband and I did not want nor expect a battle with the City of La Quinta over this
beautiful canopy or satellite dish.-, ,Our understanding of earlier codes was that the canopy
could not be attached permanently to the house and could not infringe on the easements or
obstruct traffic visibility at the Corner. The plan and desire was to enhance our home, not
devaluate it so please know that we will continue the grounds improvement and check the
code restrictions for any future work after this citation has been resolved. ' We would like
to appeal the City of Quinta's decision and respectfully request to be allowed to keep
the canopy and satellite,as is. Per the code inspector, Don Whelchel, the easements are for
future sideWalks or utility needs so- we offer to move/reposition the canopy at our expense
should any sidewalks or utility needs ever become a reality. •,
, desire is to resolve this matter as quickly and calmly .as possible. Please contact us
should you have any questions and we are anxiously waiting your decision. .•
• i;
Yours trnly, •
C:(A;12e_rz),
As for the satellite -dish, it is very surprising to hear any concern over something that -
has been in the same place since 1992. It was acceptable to the building inspector when
our remodel was in progress so the eave has been built around the satellite pole.
We moved to La Quinta in.1990 from Texas. We visited many Of the Coachella Valley
cities but were constantly pulled back to La Quinta. We liked the individuality concept
and mixture of people of Quinta Cove. It was a conscious decision to buyout of the
gated communities and away from the homeowner associations. Our primary expectations
are that .we remain in control of some our freedoms and know our property should be one
4
Bill Turner & Jan Turner
53-750 Avenida Obregon
La Quinta, Ca 92253
Bill's office#, 760.564.6686 • •
' Jan's cell# 760.250.9056
Fx# 760.771:4746
,
rrr
• ,
4.
Page 3 of 4
PETITION
Keep Shade Cover & Satellite Dish
(Newly Installed) (In place 11 years)
Located @ -750 Avenida Obrefon
1. r V- inr,s7n4 L,/
/ r ciders
2. '��!Gu,a,.�
� A Ku,, ql(- 2-4(p3. la\--,,,01/1,4,K,
4. 7:771- 13
6.
�. 578 ^0 33,
7. � �_3/
8. � 559'g23
9,w
��
10. ,G; ti e v gll� - 56 9 7 0.
12.
13. !' hT')?
14. , `' 4<
15.
.16. 1\kovv6 N\f-t\tk\a
17. DA-kftJv tto
.18 .
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
n
NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATIONS
• CASE NUMBER: 6559
ATTACHMENT #6
•
PUBLIC NUISANCES
Code Violation: 8.01.060Permit required
Location: Carport structure constructed over the driveway area.
Violation Text: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to
erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any building or
structure, including a swimming pool, spa or hot tub, or make any installation,
alteration, repair, replacement, or remodel any building service equipment,
including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title,
except as specified in section 301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first
obtaining a separate, appropriate permit for each building, structure or service
equipment from the Building Official,
Correction: Remove the carport structure
Reinspection Date: September 3rd, 2002
Code Violation: 9.60.050 Table 9-3 Standards for detached accessory
buildings. (Setback requirements).
Location: Carport structure constructed over the driveway area
Violation Text: Table 9-3 See Attached
Correction: Remove the carport structure.
Reinspection Date: September 3`d„ 2002
Code Violation: 9.60.080 Satellite Dish and other Antennas
Location: South East Corner of the rear yard
Violation Text: See Attached
Correction: Remove the Satellite Dish or conform to the specific
Code Requirements.
Reinspection Date: September 3`d, 2002
ATTACHMENT #7
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
, 24. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to continue the project to Octobor 8,
2002, asking the applicant to better clarify the Specific ' an to
know what is being approved, show additional ameniti - . woven
into the site plan, improved pedestrian access to the 1 illage and
shows the location of the perimeter walls. Unanimo - y approved.
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting the meeting at 8:44 p.m d reconvened at
8:50 p.m.
C. Zoning Code Amendment 2002-073; a r • uest of the City for
consideration of an amendment to Chapte 9.60, Section 9.60.030-
Fences and Walls, of the La Quinta Muni• pal Code, to permit split rail
fencing in the front yard within resident ':I zones.
1. Chairman Butler opened the
report. Community Develo
the information containe
file in the Community
blic hearing and asked for the staff
ent Director Jerry Herman presented
in the staff report, a copy of which is on
evelopment Department.
2. There being no q -stionsof staff and no other public comment,
Chairman Butl- closed the public participation portion of the
hearing and .ened the matter up for Commission discussion.
3. There b: ng no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Comm' sioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission
Res• ution 2002-095 recommending approval of Zoning Code
A • endment 2002-073, as recommended.
ROL CALL: AYES: Commissioners. Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
Notice of Public Nuisance Citation #6559 a request of Bill and Jan Turner
/
for an appeal of a Public Nuisance Citation regardingthe violation of
front/side yard setback, satellite dish location, and construction without
a permit.
1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins stated the report submitted. by Code
Compliance shows, a multitude of canopies/structures, -and asked
if other residents had received citations: Staff stated they will be
cited depending on the'outcome of this meeting.
3 Commissioner Tyler noted there were three portions to• the
citation. 'Staff stated that was correct.
4. .Commissioner Robbins asked if this type of structure were.Iocated
in the.sideyard, or back yard, and a vehicle be allowed to drive
back and park under _it:. would a building permit be allowed.
Community Safety. Manager John Hardcastle stated the Building
Code calls -out the square footage for when a permit is allowed.
It depends on the amount of area under the canopy to determine
if a permit would required.
5 Commissioner Abels stated it is important to keep in mind the look
of the streetscape.
•
Commissioner Kirk stated that if this is an illegal structure, you
cannot have a building permit. Staff stated that it is not a
buildable structure because of the setback. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman recited the Code requirements
for, shade structures. .
7. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Bill Turner, 53-750 Avenida Obregon,
stated the purpose of putting up the shade structure. They did
drive up land down the Cove before determining what type of,
canopy to purchase and to see what had been allowed. They
chose the one currently installed as it was a much sturdier one
than what they had seen in the Cove. They have addressed the
company' they bought the shade structure from and they have
corrected their information. They have a corner lot and do not
have any options due to the setbacks; to provide shade for their
driveway., They are trying to enhance the landscaping as well. It
is not a permanent structure and is not attached to their home.
Commissioner Abels asked if the company they purchased it from
informed ,them as to whether or not these structures were
allowed. Ms. Turner stated no. American Awning was informe-'
and they have put all future sales on hold.
.1
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd
9
/: r;
•
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
9. Commissioner Tyler asked when the house was built. Ms. Turner
. stated 1990. Commissioner Tyler asked if the size of the garage
is the same now. Staff stated yes; 20 feet by 20 feet.
Commissioner Tyler asked why they did not park in the garage.
Ms. Turner stated they have motorcycles and other vehicles in the
garage. In regard to the satellite dish, they can remove it, but it
can only be seen when looking down the sideyard.
10 Commissioner Robbins stated he commends them on installing a
nice looking awning in comparison to some of the others shown
in the examples submitted'. He is concerned that the retail stores
are not informing the public where they can and cannot be
installed.
11. Commissioner Kirk stated he too is concerned as to how you
approve one and not the others. He asked staff how they make
a determination as to what meets the Code and what can create
trouble for staff. Staff stated it becomes subjective and it is not
their desire to be treating people unequal.
12. Commissioner Robbins asked why this structure was the only one
given. a citation. Staff noted this was not the first one, this is the
first that appealed the citation.
13. Commissioner Kirk stated the Cove does have some special
circumstances in regard to the size of the Tots. Some specific
requirements could be placed on the shade structures to permit
their use. He would support flexibility in the Ordinance to allow
them.
14. Chairman Butler stated this is a nice installation, but he does not
want to approve them as it could open the door for it to be
allowed anywhere.
15. Commissioner Tyler stated the City does recognize their are special
circumstances with the Cove Tots. He does have a problem
supporting them as it will allow all types and styles that could be
unattractive.
16. Commissioner Abels stated the streetscape is important and
, unfortunately the applicants have been taken advantage of.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 10
rr. A
ti
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
17. There being no -further discussion, Chairman Butler closed the
public participation portion of the meeting and opened the meeting.
.for Commission discussion.
18. There being no further discussion, it`was moved and seconded by
Commissioners. Tyler/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 2002-015,
denying appeal of Public Nuisance ,Citation #6559, as
recommended.,Motion carried with Commissioner Kirk -opposed.
RRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
IX. COM ' ISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Nreport of the September 17, 2002, City Council meeting, was given.,
X. . ADJOURN ENT:
There being no furt
Abels/Tyler to adjourn
meeting of the Planning
meeting of the Planning
2002.
Respectfully submitted,
r business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
his regular, meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
mmission to be held October 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This
C• mission was adjourned at 9:39 p.m. on September 24,
Betty J. Sawyer,. Executive Secretary
City of La ()Uinta, California
J•
•
•
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd
September 29, 2002 gip
qpi ATTACHMENT #8
Attn: City Clerk
City of La Quinta City Council
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca 92253
RECEivtu
SEP 3 . ;. ; IC: 5
CITY CiF L CUI;JTA
CITY CLF ::'S OFFICE
RE: LETTER OF APPEAL — Complaint #6559 "Notice of Public Nuisance"
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to appeal the citation issued on our canopy and ask that you also read our letter
of appeal submitted to the Planning Commission along with the signatures of all of our
neighbors. We may repeat ourselves in some cases but we are very passionate on this
issue. We have stopped any further improvements to our property until this can been
resolved and are disappointed and confused with the term "public nuisance" itself since
the shade has so many benefits and absolutely no negatives. We have presented our
position to the Planning Commission and they were not in agreement so we now come to
you. There were comments made in reference to our shade that are in bad taste and are
unfair. Someone said they do not want a "tent city"! Another referred to a "coat of many
colors" impact because someone else may want a canopy in pink or some other color. I
strongly suggest that each of you take the time to drive up each of the streets in the cove
area to realize the eclectic make-up of this area. Color is definitely something no one has
discouraged from hot pink to a mixture of green/purple/yellow by looking at the homes
that have been painted in the last 3 years!
My husband and I simply wanted to shade the vehicles that did not fit into the garage.
We are like many families in the cove area. As a family grows, there are commonly more
than two vehicles and in this case we are attempting to protect the ones in the driveway. I
understand the easement needs for sidewalks (even though 12 feet seems excessive). An
additional 20 feet of setback is indeed extreme. Combining the 12 feet with the 20 feet on
my corner lot, you find yourself at the walls of my home. When this setback requirement
was decided on, it seems impossible that the RC area was taken into consideration. The
small lots in the cove area have automatic limitations and it seems confusing when we are
told we cannot erect any shade within the 20 feet but a home can have the permanent
structure of a wall and/or pool. Our position has been explained in the letter of appeal to
the Planning Commission also. The Planning Commission was polite while listening but
some had little understanding of the issue other than their desire to have a cookie cutter
appearance in the cove.
I would like to offer the same as before in reference to our shade. We offer to move/
reposition the canopy at our expense should any sidewalks or utility needs ever become a
reality. Under no circumstances were we attempting to confront the City of La Quinta or
its desire to protect property values.
As for the satellite dish, we were surprised to be cited for this because it has been in
place since 1992. Why weren't we told before so we could have made decisions when we
remodeled our home? Now the pole itself is part of our eave on the home. At this time
we are looking for a way to remove this dish but have not found an acceptable answer as
yet.
6
Page 2
Please know, as we said in our earlier appeal letter, my husband and I did not want nor. •
expect a battle with the City of La Quinta over this beautiful canopy. I was told at the
Planning Commission Appeal that other citations have been issued but I question this
because if this is true, why were so many still up? There is only a 21 day period within
which you have to comply. If we are indeed: the "example", then all cited should be
notified of the appeal and its progress. Now I am hearing that the code office is issuing
citations to everyone since I began my response. That was not our desire to send the code
officers after those who had:canopies. How long were the others allowed to remain up?
We chose to purchase in the La Quinta Cove because of the individuality of its
residents. We have no interest in the gated community approach of matching homes and
yards. It is important to us to retain some of the freedoms in our lives and we believe the
property we pay taxes on each year should be one of them. Obviously, any upgrades done
to our home involve respect of our neighbors and everyone's property values. We have
seen many changes within the cove area and some with delight; however, others give us a
reason to question. -
As we stated before, our desire is to resolve this matter as quickly and calmly as
possible. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us as we are
anxiously awaiting your decision now.
Yours truly,
Bill & Jan Turner
53-750 Avenida Obreg
La Quinta, Ca '92253
. Bill's Office# 760.202.0204
Jan's Cell# ,760.250.905_6 '
' Fax# 760.202.0021
r.
ATTACHMENT #9
City Council Minutes
5 October 15, 2002
3. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
ON VIOLATION OF FRONT/SIDE YARD SETBACK, SATELLITE DISH LOCATION,
AND CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT AT 53-750 AVENIDA OBREGON.
APPELLANT: BILL AND JAN TURNER.
Community Development Director Herman presented the staff report.
.In response. to Mayor Pena, Building & Safety Director Hartung confirmed the
shade structure encroaches into the right-of-way approximately one foot.
Council Member Adolph asked about the permit requirements.
Mr. Hartung advised any structure over 120 sq. ft. of roof area must have a
permit but a permit was not issued for this structure, nor would it have been
approved because of the setback violations.
In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Hartung advised shade structures are
permitted if out of the setback area. A number of residents have been notified
about the shade structures on their properties in the Cove but citations are on
hold pending Council's action on this item. He confirmed the City has similar
shade structures along the Bear Creek Bike Path and at the Fritz Burns Park.
In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Hartung stated, typically, the
front of the garage is constructed on.the setback line.
Jan & William Turner explained they didn't realize a permit was required to
install a canopy to shade their vehicles. The shade is needed because their
vehicles are too tall to fit into their garage. Mrs. Turner commented on the need
for shade structures to provide shade for vehicles and the number of such
structures throughout the Cove. The setback requirement prohibits her from
putting up any type of shade structure for her vehicles because she is located
on a corner. She was unable to get information from the City on similar
violations. Mr. Turner stated the shade structure is bolted to the ground for
safety reasons. He questioned the structure being classified as a public
nuisance and noted it's not a $29.95 canopy.
In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Turner stated he wouldn't have a problem with:
his neighbor installing a $29.95 canopy if it's needed for shade.
Mrs. Turner stated they are looking for alternative suggestions to provide shade
for their vehicles.
•
ti
City Council Minutes ' 6 October 15, 2002
Mayor Pena asked if City standards would allow the garage door to be raised to
accommodate their vehicles, to which Mr. Hartung responded "yes."
Mrs. Turner stated they were not aware of the 12=foot easement for a sidewalk
and That they would be willing to move the shade structure should the City
decide to install a sidewalk.
J.
Council Member Henderson stated she didn'trecall sidewalks being planned on
the Cove interior streets.
Mr. Hartung stated the easement is City property and no structures are allowed
within that area. In response to Council Member Henderson, he stated he
would, research the Code to find•out if retractable awnings are allowed.
Council Member Sniff stated he feels the need for shade structures is prevalent
in the area and supports staff looking at the use of retractable awnings or other
alternatives. He.did not feel the Turner's shade structure is totally unattractive
and would like to find a reasonable and logical solution to the matter.
Council Member Adolph agreed the Turner's structure is tasteful but noted some
of the other awnings are not. As for retractable awnings, he commented on the
need 'for automatic'wind sensors to avoid them being ripped off by the wind.
Mrs. Turner stated she.would like to have her needs addressed without taking
away' from someone else or reducing property values. Mr. Turner stated they
installed the awning to upgrade their property and can reduce the height of the
•
structure:
In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Hartung stated the shade structure
is also approximately one foot into the side yard setback.
Council Member Perkins agreed the Turner's canopy -looks nice but felt it's hard
to know howto draw the line anddefinewhat looks "nice."
City Attorney 'Jenson pointed 'out the Council does not have the discretion to
approve a structure in the 25-foot setback area but can continue the appeal if
they wish to consider amending the Municipal Code.
Council Member Sniff suggested continuing the appeal and directing staff to
research potential modifications to the Code.
Mayo(Pena stated regulations are set to keep property values at a reasonable
level and it's an ongoing battle to enforce them. He felt garages should be used
City Council Minutes
7 October .15, 2002 ,
for vehicles and not as a storage area. He felt opening the door to allow shade
structures would become a problem because of the difficulty in controlling
" them. He noted not everyone can afford "nice" shade structures but may cry
that they need shade too. He was sympathetic to the Turner's need but didn't
want to deviate from current standards.
Council Member Henderson wished to have staff take a look at the'gazebos and
umbrella -like structures in the Cove that may be in the setback area.
In response to Mayor Pena, Mrs. Turner stated they will remove the satellite
. dish.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Member Sniff to continue the appeal until
a report is received back from staff. Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Council Member Henderson stated she felt the issue should be dealt with and
that the appeal should have an opportunity to wait until a determination is made
on the entire issue.
Council Member Adolph stated he understood her concern but noted there is a
setback violation involved.
Council Member Sniff stated he didn't feel the Turners should,be compelled to
remove their structure if possible modifications to the Code are going to be
considered:
Council Member Perkins suggested continuing the appeal for 60 days while staff
looks into options for' changing the ordinance.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to continue the
appeal by Bill and Jan Turner for 60 days. Motion carried with Mayor Pena
voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2002-215.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to direct staff to
research potential options for providing shade structures in the setback area for
possible modifications to the ordinance.
Council,Member Henderson stated she wouldn't support any structures within
the right-of-way, and that what may be acceptable to her would be flat and
well-defined awnings that are bolted down.
Mr. Hartung advised the structures have to be engineered to fall within the
Building Code.
t�.
•
City Council Minutes 8 October 15, 2002
•
Mr. Herman asked if Council wished for staff to look at -temporary or permanent
structures, to which Council Member Sniff responded "both."
Council Member Perkins voiced , concern about changing the Code to
accommodate a situation which might result in a ripple effect through the
community.
Council Member Adolph commented on a cantilevered, non -retractable awning
that he saw installed that the manufacturer claims will withstand 80 mph
winds.
•
Mayor Pena stated he doesn't want anything approved that is not structurally
sound. He was concerned about opening up a "can of worms" and lessening
City standards. ;
17
Council Member Henderson suggested the • Turners not make costly.
modifications to their structure until the Council decides whether or not to
modify the Code.
Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO: 2002-216.
• 4. • CONSIDERATION .OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.60, SECTION
2.60.020 (DES1 NATED EMPLOYEES - DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES) OF THE
LA QUINTA CHA TER AND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO "CONFLICT OF
. INTEREST CODE."
There were no changes ,tq the staff report as submitted and on file in the City
Clerk's Office.. \
MOTION - It was moved by CoU cil Members Sniff/Adolph to take up Ordinance
No. 377 by title and number only, and waive further reading. Motion carried
unanimously. ��
ORDINANCE NO. 377
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL\OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.60 ECTION 2.60.020 OF THE
LA QUINTA CHARTER AND MUNICIPAL CODE ' ELATING TO THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA CONFLICT 'OF INTEREST CODE.
It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to introduc- Ordinance No. 377 -
on first reading. Motion carried by the following vote:
ATL WENT #10 9.60.030
4. Material Combinations. Combinations of two or more of the preceding materials may be used provided
that the bottom one-half of the fence is constructed of a masonry material. Combinations incorporating wood
materials shall only be used for the rear and interior side yards and only when not visible from the street.
F. Fence Landscaping and Maintenance.
1. Landscaping. The area between the back of curb and any fencing shall be landscaped, have a suitable
permanent irrigation system, and be continuously maintained by the property owner.
2. Maintenance. All walls and fences shall be continuously maintained in good repair. The property owner
shall be provided thirty days after receiving notice from the city to repair a wall or fence. The building official
may grant an extension to such time period not to exceed sixty days.
G. Prohibited Fence Materials and Construction Fences. The use of barbed wire, razor wire, chain link, or
simiiar materials in or on fences is prohibited in all residential districts. Chain link fencing is permitted for
temporary construction fences when authorized by a minor use permit issued in accordance with Section
9.210.020. Said minor use permit shall not be approved until a permit for grading, or construction, has been filed
for, whichever comes first.
H. Equestrian Fencing. Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, fencing shall be regulated
by the provisions of Section 9.140.060 (Equestrian overlay regulations).where the keeping of horses is
permitted.
1. Nonconforming Fences. Any fence which does not meet the standards of this section but which was
legally established prior to the adoption of these standards may be maintained provided such fence is not
expanded nor its nonconformance with these standards otherwise increased. Any fence which is destroyed or
damaged to the extent of more than fifty percent of its total replacement value shall not be repaired, rebuilt, or
reconstructed except in conformance with these standards. (Ord. 361 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2001; Ord. 325 § 1
(Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exhs. A, B) (part), 1996)
9.60.040 Patio covers, decks and play equipment.
A. Applicability. For purposes of this section, the term "patio covers, decks, and play equipment" includes
any type of yard structure other than a building or a carport. Such structures include but are not limited to open
and solid patio covers, gazebos, trellises, arbors, and to play equipment which is more than eight feet in height.
All such structures shall be "open" (no side walls) and are referred to in this section as "yard structures."
Enclosed structures shall be considered accessory buildings (see Section 9.60.050). Uncovered decks and other
structures less than eighteen inches above finish grade shall not be subject to the provisions of this section.
B. Standards. Patio covers, decks, gazebos, play equipment or other yard structures, attached to or detached
from the main building shall comply with front and side yard setbacks for the main building and the following
requirements:
1. The location of decks shall be governed by the standards for wall projections in Section 9.50.060.
2. No yard structure shall be more than twelve feet in height.
3. Yard structures shall not be constructed or established in the panhandle portion of a panhandle or flag lot.
4. No yard structure shall be located less than five feet from any adjacent residential lot or from any rear
property line adjacent to a public or private right-of-way.
5. No yard structure shall be located less than three feet from any rear property line adjacent to any
common use easement or open space or recreational area which is at least ten feet deep.
6. Eaves or roofs may overhang into the required setback a maximum of eighteen inches. Setbacks shall be
measured from the nearest supporting member of the structure to the property line or, if the property line is at the
toe of a slope, from the top of the slope.
7. Structures shall be constructed in a manner so as to prevent rooftop water from draining onto any
adjacent parcel.
8. Wood lattice cross -members in patio covers or trellises shall be of minimum nominal two inches by two
inches material.
9. No patio cover, trellis, gazebo, arbor, similar structure, or combination thereof shalI cover more than fifty
percent of the rear area required setback. (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord. 299 § I (part), 1997; Ord. 284
§ I (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
237
(La Quinta 3-02) ,
tiTACHMENT #11
9.60.045
9.60.045 Barbeques, waterfalls, fountains, fireplaces and similar structures.
A. Applicability. Permanently installed freestanding barbeques, waterfalls, fountains, fireplaces and similar
structures such as permanently installed tables and benches, etc., may be constructed on a residential lot
containing a primary residence.
B. Standards. Freestanding barbeques, waterfalls, fountains, fireplaces and similar structures shall comply
with the following requirements:
1. Said construction of structures, except freestanding fireplaces, are allowed within the required front, side,
or rear setbacks, including adjacent to a property line. In side yard areas, a single clear passageway of five feet
wide shall be provided.
2. Allowed construction of structures shall not be attached to property line walls or fences, and shall meet
all required distance clearances (i.e., for barbeques, fireplaces).
3. Within five feet of any property line, the height of the feature or construction shall not exceed the height
of the closest wall or fence. If no wall or fence exists, the construction or feature shall not exceed the height of
the wall allowed along the property line in question.
4. Outdoor fireplaces shall not be closer than five feet from a property line, except when adjacent to
permanent open space such as a golf course, common landscape or hardscape area, drainage channel, etc., in
which case it may be within three feet of the property line. The height of the chimney may be up to six feet
unless required to be higher to comply with building code requirements. In such cases, the height shall not be
higher than the minimum height required.
9.60.050 Storage and other accessory buildings.
A. Applicability. Accessory buildings, such as storage or gardening sheds, are permitted on a residential lot
containing a primary residence subject to the requirements of this section. (Carports and garages are regulated
separately by Section 9.60.060, patio covers by Section 9.60.040, swimming pools and spas by Section 9.60.070,
and recreational vehicle parking by Section 9.60.130.)
B. Drainage from Roofs. Accessory buildings shall be constructed in a manner so as to prevent rooftop
water from draining onto any adjacent parcel.
C. Lot Coverage Maximums. The placement of accessory buildings on a lot shall not result in violation of
the lot coverage maximums set forth in Section 9.50.030.
D. Standards. -
Setbacks and Maximum Height. Detached accessory buildings shall conform to the following setback
standards:
Roof Area of
Structure
-- (sq. ft.)
0=100
-101-200
201+
(Ord. 299 § I (part), I
Table 9-3
Maximum
Height
10
10
- '17
Standards for Detached Accessory Buildings
• Minimum Setback (ft.)
Separation
from Main
Building
5
5
I0
Front Yard
Interior Exterior
Side Yard Side Yard
20 3.5 10
20 . 5 ' 10
Same as for main building
997; Ord. 284 § I (Exhs. A, B) (part), 1996)
Rear
Yard.
3.5
5
..TTACHMENT #12
•
9.60.060 Garages and carports.
A. Height. The maximum structure height shall be fourteen feet for a detached carport and seventeen feet
for a detached garage, except that garages may be up to twenty-eight feet in height if a second dwelling unit
complying with.the provisions of Section 9.60.090 is located above the garage.
B. Setbacks.
1. In the RVL district, the minimum garage or carport setback shall be thirty feet. In all other residential
districts, the minimum setback for front -entry type garages or carports shall be twenty-five feet if a standard
"pivot" type garage door is used, twenty feet if a "roll -up" type garage'door is used, and twenty feet for a
carport. For side -entry type garages, the minimum garage setback shall be twenty feet in the RVL district and
fifteen feet in all other residential districts.
2. When alleys, private streets or common driveways at the rear of a lot are provided specifically as
vehicular access to garages and carports and when separate access and circulation systems are provided for
pedestrians, guests and emergency vehicles, garages and carports may be placed up to a minimum of five feet
from such alley, private street or common driveway.
C. Lot Coverage Maximums.. The placement of a garage or carport on a lot shall not result in violation of
the lot coverage maximums set forth in Section 9.50.030. (Ord. 284 § 1 (E)th. A) (part), 1996)
ATTACialrENT #13
9.150.050
E. Certification of Required Parking. Numerical parking space requirements shall be determined and/or
_amended through approval of a parking plot plan pursuant to Section 9.150.020. The numerical requirements
shall be deemed certified upon such approval. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
9.150.060 Spaces required by use.
A. Land Uses not Listed. If no provisions for the required number of off-street parking spaces are set forth
in Tables 9-11 or 9-12 of this section or the provisions are not clear for a specific use, the decision -making
authority for the applicable use or project shall determine the number of parking spaces required.
B. Definition of GFA. For purposes of this chapter and this code, "gross floor area" or "GFA" means the
total square footage of all floors of a building, including the exterior walls but excluding courtyards and other
outdoor areas.
C. Parking for Residential Land Uses.
1. Table 9-11 following contains the minimum number of parking spaces required for each type of
residential land use.
2. Whenever any commercial or industrial use is located on a building site that is also used for residential
purposes, parking facilities shall be provided for the residential use per Table 9-11 in addition to the spaces
required for the nonresidential use(s).
Table 9-11 Parking for Residential Land Uses
Land Use
Minimum Off -Street Parking
Requirement
Additional Requirements
Single-family detached, single-
family attached and duplexes.
2 spaces per unit in a garage plus
.5 guest spaces per unit if no on-
street parking is available
A bedroom means any habitable
room that may be used for
sleeping purposes other than a
kitchen, bathroom, hallway,
dining room, or living room.
Minimum driveway length shall
conform to Section 9.60.060.
Above homes with four or more
bedrooms
.
Same as above but with 3 spaces
per unit in a garage. For additions
raising total number of bedrooms
to 4 or more, third garage space is
not required provided addition
does not increase value of house
by 50% or more as determined by
director of building and safety.
Existing lots of 6,000 square feet
or Tess and affordable housing,
this requirement is optional.
Same as above
Employee quarters
One covered or uncovered space.
This space shall not be tandem.
,
Townhomes
•
2 spaces per unit in a garage plus
.8 guest spaces per unit
•
All units shall be within 100 feet of
the nearest guest space. A parking
plan will be required as part of
development review showing
allocation of guest spaces. All
guest spaces shall be restricted to
the use of guests only
323
(La Quinta 3-02)
AT- ;HMENT #14
9.50.050
9.50.050 Maximum building height.
For purposes of this code, the maximum height of buildings and other structures shall be defined as the
vertical distance from finish. grade to an imaginary plane above the building site. The imaginary plane shall
be established above and parallel to the finish grade adjacent to the exterior walls at a vertical distance equal
to the specified maximum height. This definition. is illustrated below:
STRUCTURE MAY tar Pe tract aMoerARY PiArE
T-
ahor.
HMO*
Figure 9-5: Measurement of Building Height
(Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
950.060 Architectural projections. st-
A. Roof Projections. Notwithstanding Figure 9-5, chimneys, roof vents, finials, spires, and similar architectural
features not containing usable space are permitted to extend up to three feet above the maximum structure
height set forth in Table 9-2 preceding.
B. Projections. The following architectural projections are permitted to encroach into the required setbacks
specified in Table 9-2 preceding:
1. Roof overhangs, chimneys, awnings and canopies may encroach a maximum of two feet into any
required setback provided such projections are no closer than three and one-half feet from any property line.
2. Cantilevered seating windows or ledges, which are located a minimum of one foot above the floor
and do not increase a building's usable floor area, may encroach a maximum of two feet into any required
setback provided such projections are no closer than three and one-half feet from any property line.
3. Balconies, exterior stairways, and elevated uncovered decks may encroach a maximum of four feet
into required front and rear setbacks provided such projections are no closer than three and one-half feet from
any property line. Such projections shall not encroach into required side setbacks nor. increase a building's
usable floor space. (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998: Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 .(Exh. A)
(part), 1996)
950.070 Irregular lots.
A. Purpose. Setback distances established for residential districts are based on rectangular lots. Nonrectangular
lots, lots with three sides or. more than four sides, and other nonstandard lots require special measurement
techniques in order to achieve the purpose of setback requirements, i.e., the appropriate separation of structures
from streets and other properties. The purpose of this subsection is to provide standards for the establishment
d measurement of setbacks on irregular lots. (See Chapter 9.280 for definition of lot lines.)
•
(IA Quints 3-99)
230
r •� ti
V 3, 0
City Council Minutes 5 October 15, 2002
0
3. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A&:•PLANNING .COMMISSION DECISION
ON VIOLATION OF FRONT/SIDE YARD SETBACK, SATELLITE DISH LOCATION,
AND CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A; PERMIT AT 53-750 AVENIDA OBREGON..
APPELLANT: (BILL AND JAN TURNER:;
Community Development Director Herman' presented the staff report.
In response. to -Mayor Pena,. Building &. Safety Director Hartung confirmed the
shade structure encroaches into the right-of-way approximately one foot.
Council Member Adolph asked about the permit requirements.
Mr. Hartung ,advised any. structure over 1,20 sq. ft7 of roof area must have a
permit but a permit was not issued for this structure, nor would it have been
approved because.of the setback violations.
In response to .Council Member -Sniff, Mr. Hartung advised shade structures are
permitted if out of .the setback area. : A number of residents have been notified
about the shade structures on their properties in the Cove but citations are on
hold. pending -Council's action on this: item. He confirmed the City has similar
shade structures along the Bear Creek Bike Path and at the Fritz Burns Park.
In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Hartung stated, typically, the
front'of the. garage -is .constructed s'on- he setback Tine.
Jan & William Turner explained they didn't realize a permit was required to
install a canopy to shade their vehicles. The shade is needed because their
vehicles are too tall to fit into their garage. Mrs.. Turner commented on the need
for shade structures toItrovide shade for vehicles and. the number of such
structures throughout the`: Cove. The setbackrequirement/ prohibits her from
putting up any type of shade structure for her vehicles because she is located
on a corner. She wasunable to -get information from the •City on similar
violations. Mr. Turner stated the. shade structure is bolted to the ground for
safety reasons. He questioned the structure being classified as a public
nuisance and noted it's nova $29:95 canopy.
In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Turner stated he wouldn't have 'a problem with
his neighbor installing a $29.95 canopy if it's needed for shade.
Mrs. Turner stated they are looking foralternative suggestions to provide shade
for their vehicles.
• City Council Minutes
6 October 15, 2002 •
0
Mayor Pena asked if City standards would allow the garage door to be raised to
accommodate their vehicles, to which Mr. Hartung responded "yes."
Mrs. Turner stated they were not aware of the ;12-foot easement for a sidewalk
and that they would be willing to move the shade structure should the City
decide to install a sidewalk.
-
Council Member Henderson stated she didn't recall sidewalks being planned on
the Cove interior streets.
Mr. Hartung stated the easement•is City property and no structures are allowed
'within that; area. In response to' Council. Member Henderson, he stated he
• would research the Code to find out if retractable awnings are allowed.
Council Member Sniff stated he feels the need for shade sthuctures.is prevalent,„.
in the area and supportsstaff looking at the use of retractable awnings or other .
alternatives. He did not feel the Turner's shade structure is totally unattractive
and would like to find 'a reasonable and logical solution to the matter.
Council Member Adolph agreed the Turner's structure is tasteful but noted some
of the other awnings are not. As for retractable awnings, he commented on the
need for automatic wind sensors to avoid them being ripped off by the wind.
Mrs. Turner stated she would like to have her needs addressed without taking
away from someone &se or reducing property values. Mr. Turner stated they
installed the awning to upgrade their property and can -reduce the height of the
structure. _ f
-t
In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr: Hartung stated the shade structure
is also approximately one foot into ,the side yard setback.
Council Member Perkins agreed the Turner's canopy looks nice but felt it's hard
to know how to draw the line and define what looks "nice."
City Attorney Jenson pointed out the Council does not have the discretion .to.
approve a structure in the 25-foot setback area but can continue the appeal if
they wish to consider amending the Municipal Code. •
Council Member Sniff suggested continuing the appeal and directing staff to
research potential modifications to the Code.
Mayor Pena stated regulations are set to keep property values at a reasonable r
level and it's an ongoing battle to enforce them. He felt garages should be used.
.•
City Council Minutes 7 October 15, 2002
for vehicles and not as .a storage area. He felt opening the door to allow shade
structures would become a problembecause of the difficulty in controlling
them. He noted not everyone can afford "nice" shade structures but may cry
that they need shade too. He was sympathetic to the Turner's need but didn't
want to deviate from current standards.
Council Member Henderson wished to have staff take a look at the gazebos and
umbrella -like structures in the Cove that may be in .the setback area.
In response to Mayor Pena, Mrs. Turner stated they will remove the satellite
dish.
MOTION It was. moved by Council Member Sniff to continue the appeal until
a report is received back from staff. Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Council Member Henderson stated she felt the issue should be dealt with and
that the appeal should have anopportunity to wait until a determination is made
on the entire issue.
Council Member. Adolph stated he understood her concern but noted there is a
setback violation involved.
Council ;Member Sniff statedhe- didn't feel the Turners.should be compelled to
remove their structure if ;possible .m.o.difications to the Code are going to be
considered:
Council Member Perkins suggested continuing the appeal for 60 days while staff
looksintooptions for changing the ordinance.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to continue the
appeal by BiII and Jan Turner for 60 days. Motion carried with Mayor Pena
voting NO. MINUTE ORDER NO...2002-2.15.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to direct staff to
research potential options for providing shade structures in the setback area for
possible modifications to the ordinance.
Council Member Henderson stated: she wouldn't support any structures within
the right-of-way, and that;w,hat may, ,be acceptable .to::her would be flat and
well-defined awnings that:;are bolted down. l• • ,
Mr. Hartung- advised the structures have, to beengineered to fall,vwithin the
Building Code.
City Council Minutes •
8
October 15, 2002
Mr. Herrrian asked if Council wished for staff to look at temporary or permanent
structures, to which Council Member Sniff responded "both."
Council Member. Perkins voiced concern about changing the Code to
accommodate a situation which might result in a ripple effect through the
community.
Council Member Adolph commented on a cantilevered, non -retractable awning
that he saw installed that the manufacturer claims will withstand 80 mph
winds.
Mayor Pena stated he doesn't want anything approved that is not structurally
sound. He was concerned about opening up a "can of worms" and lessening
City standards.
Council Member Henderson suggested the • Turners . not make costly
modifications to their structure until the Council decides whether or not to
modify the Code.
Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO: 2002-216.
4. CONSIDERA ON OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.60, SECTION
2.60.020 (DE NATED EMPLOYEES - DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES). OF THE
LA QUINTA CHAPTER AND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO "CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CODE."
. There were no changes
Clerk's Office.
the staff report as submitted and on file in the City
•, -MOTION -,It was moved by Co ,cil Members Sniff/Adolph to take up Ordinance
•
No. 377 by title and number onh and waive further reading. 'Motion carried
' unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 377
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING • CHAPTER ;2.60 ECTION 2.60.020 OF, THE
• LA QUINTA. CHARTER AND, MUNICIPAL .CODE ELATING TO THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE.
It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to introduc- Ordinance No. 377
on first reading. Motion carried by the following vote:
TAitti4 4 aging'
COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE:
ITEM TITLE;
Consideration of an Appeal of a Planning Commission
Decision on a Public Nuisance Citation Regarding the
Violation of Front/Side Yard Setback, Satellite Dish
Location, and Construction Without a Permit at 53-.
750 Avenida Obregon. Appellant BiII. and Jan Turner
October 15, 2002
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION: 3
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMENDATION:
Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS:
None.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
The issue of temporary shade structures in the front yard was first discussed by the
Planning Commission on July 23, 2002 when staff brought the issue before them.
After discussion, the. Commission decided to not recommend a Zoning Code
Amendment to permit the structures (Attachment 1).
On August 8, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Turner were cited for two Code violations, including
the shade structure and satellite dish (Attachment 2). The Sections cited in the
violations are contained in Attachment 3.
The Turners filed a letter of Appeal (Attachment 4) pursuant to Section 11.72.050.F
(Attachment 5).. This appeal was considered by the Planning Commission on
September 24, 2002. After lengthy discussion the Commission denied the appeal
(Attachment 6).
On October 1, 2002 Mr. and Mrs. Turner filed an Appeal of the Planning Commission
decision (Attachment 7).
192
P:\Jerry\appeal-carport. wpd
Included as Attachment 8 are pictures of other shade structures located in the Cove
area which will be addressed pending the outcome of this appeal.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission by denying the Appeal; or,
2. Do not uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the Appeal;
or,
3. Modify the Planning Commission's decision; or,
4. Provide staff with alternative direction.
, dre
•
ry Her an, Community
velopment Director
Attachment:
r
Approved for submission by:
Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager
1. Planning Commission Minutes for July 23, 2002 (excerpts)
2. Case file information w/ pictures
3. Code Sections regarding Garages and Carports, and Satellite Dish and Other
Antennas
4. Letter of Appeal considered by the Planning Commission
5. Code Section regarding Abatement of Public Nuisances
6. Planning Commission Minutes for September 24, 2002 (excerpts)
7. Letter of Appeal to be considered by the City Council
8. -Booklet of other shade structures in the Cove area
193
'0G2
P:\Jerry\a ppeal-carport.wpd
ATTACHMENT #1
Planning Commission Minutes
•July 23, 2002
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Pla► ing Commission
Resolution 2002-083 recommending certif ation of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental i act for Environmental
Assessment 2002-454, subject to the endings, as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners ' • els and Kirk. NOES:
Commissioner Robbins a • Vice Chairman Tyler. ABSENT:
Chairman Butler. ABS 'AIN: None.
48. There being a tie vote, e motion dies. No further action was
taken.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A . , ., i , e ,� , - = ii • - - - ; a request of Jai Nettimi
for compatibility r: iew of a deck for a single family two story house
located at 79-39►, Paseo del Rey.
1. Vice C ► .irman Tyler asked if there was a motion to continue Site
Deve • pment Permit 2002-744, as requested. It was moved and
sec nded . by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to continue Site
Development Permit 2002-744 to September 3, 2002, as
quested. Unanimously approved. -
Zoning Issues; 'a request of staff for review of Shade Structures, Gas
Stations, and Drive Thrus.
1. Vice Chairman Tyler asked for the staff report. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Vice Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk stated they support leaving the
Zoning Code as it is written for shade structures.
3. Staff asked if the Commission wanted to limit the number of gas
stations and fast thru restaurants in the City. Staff is not
requesting the prohibition of a restaurants, but rather the drive
thru.
194
004
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd 19
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2002
4. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether or not the City could adopt
such an action. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink stated
the Planning Commission can amend the Zoning Code and make
a. recommendation that allowing these uses is not good planning.
5. Following discussion, it wasmoved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue this to a future meeting,
directing staff to prepare an analysis as to how many gas stations
and .drive throughs there are and where they are located in La
Quints and potential locations. Unanimously approved.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE
D WRITTEN MATERIAL:
A. Commissioners di ussed the
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. No report was given o the City Council meeting of July 16, 2002.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it wa moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Robbins to adjourn this regular meets g of the Planning Commission to a special
meeting of the Planning Commission to be h= d September 3, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adj urned at 10:45 p.m. on July 23, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
195
005
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd 20
ATTACHMENT 2
'CANOPIES AND CARPORTS
53750 Avenida Obregon
190.
008.
September 24, 2002
19
007
file://MADocuments%20and%20Settings\dconrad\L,ocal%20Settings\Temp\1\PKGB.JPG 10/2/2002
ATTACHMENT 3
NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATIONS
CASE NUMBER: 6559
PUBLIC NUISANCES
Code Violation: 8.01.060-Permit required
Location: Carport structure constructedover the driveway area.
Violation Text: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to
erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair,.move, convert or demolish any building or
structure, including a swimming' pool, spa or hot tub, or make any installation,
alteration, repair, replacement, or . remodel any building , service equipment,
including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title,
except as specified in section 301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first
obtaining a separate, appropriate permit for each building, structure or service
equipment from the Building Official,
Correction: Remove the carport structure
Reinspection Date: September 3`d, 2002
Code Violation: 9.60.050 Table 9-3 Standards for detached accessory
buildings. (Setback requirements).
Location: Carport structure constructed over the driveway area
Violation Text: Table 9-3 See Attached
Correction: Remove the carport structure.
Reinspection Date: September 3111
,,, 2002
Code Violation:
Location:
Violation Text:
Correction:
Reinspection Date:
•
9.60.080 Satellite Dish and other Antennas
South East Corner of the rear yard
See Attached
Remove the Satellite Dish or conform to the specific
Code Requirements.
September 3rd, 2002
193
009
9.60.050
C. Lot Coverage Maximums. The placement of accessory buildings on a lot shall not result in violation
of the lot coverage maximums set forth in Section 950.030.
D. Standards.
Setbacks and Maximum Height. Detached accessory buildings shall conform to the following setback
standards:
Table 9-3 Standards for Detached Accessory Buildings
Minimum Setback (ft.)
Roof Area of
Structure Maximum Separation Interior Exterior Rear
(sq, ft-) fromMainFront Y� Side Yard Side Yard Yard
•ding
0-100 10 5 20 3.5 10 3.5
101-200 10 5 20 5 10 5
201+ 17 ' 10 Same as for main building
(Ord. 299 § 1 (part)..1997; Ord. 284 § 1(Exhs. A, B) (part), 1996)
9.60.060 Garages and carports.
A. Height The maximum structure .height shall be fourteen feet for a detached carport and seventeen
feet for a detached garage, except that garages may be up to twenty-eight feet in height if a second dwelling
unit complying with the provisions of Section 9.60.090 is located above the garage.
• Setbacks.
1.setback shall be thirty feet. In all other residential
1. In the RVL district, the minimum garage or carport
districts, the minimum setback for front -entry type garages or carports shall be twenty-five feet if a standard
"pivot" type garage door is used, twenty feet if a "roll -up" type garage door is used, and twenty feet for a -
carport. For side -entry type garages, the minimum garage setback shall be twenty feet in the RVL district
and fifteen feet in all other residential districts.
2. When alleys, private streets or common driveways at the rear of a lot are provided specifically as
vehicular access to garages and carports and when separate access and circulation systems are provided for
pedestrians, guests and emergency vehicles, garages and carports may be placed up to a minimum of five
feet from such alley, private street or common driveway. .
C. Lot Coverage Maximums: The placement of a garage or carport on a lot shall not result in violation
of the lot coverage maximums set forth in Section 9.50.030. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Each. A) (part), 1996)
9.60.070 Swimming pools.
A. Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to any outdoor swimming pool, whirlpool,
spa (in -ground or above -ground), or open tank or pond containing or normally capable of containing water
to a depth of eighteen inches or more at any point. For purposes of this section, the term `pool" means all
or any of the foregoing facilities. •
B. Standards. Pools are permitted as accessory uses in residential districts subject to the following
requirements:
1. Location. Pools shall be locatedat least three feet (measured from water's edge) from any property
line. No adjustments to this minimum shall be approved, with the exception -of private gated communities
where any property line is adjacent to common open area.
2. Filter and Heating Equipment Mechanical pool equipment, such as a pump, filter or heater, may be
located.within the required front orrear yard setback areas. The equipment shall be enclosed, with the exception
of a roof. . A five-foot side yard, clear of any permanent obstructions, shall be maintained between the side
yard property line and the building. Pool equipment that can be accommodated in this area shall be enclosed,
with the exception of a roof. The community development director shall determine if this provides effective
noise and vibration- attenuation. Equipment shall be seed from view from the street when in the front yard.
In addition, equipment shall be.sa+xned from gzotmd view of surrounding properties. Such visual screening
may consist of perimeter walls or fencing Cif permitted), screen walls, or landscape planting.
010 {''%0
9.60.070
'3. Fencing Requirements. All pools shall be fenced in accordance with the provisions of the city's building
code Chapter 8.06, state law and other applicable laws and ordinances.
4. Screening shall be provided as required in Section 9.60.140B(2): (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998;
Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
9.60.080 Satellite dish and other antennas.
A. Purpose. Satellite dish and other antennas consistent with the design and location provisions of this
section shall be permitted as accessory structures within any residential district.
B. Permitted Commercial Antennas. Commercial television, radio, microwave, communication towers,
and related facilities are permitted as principal uses in all districts subject to approval of a conditional use
permit and conformance with the requirements of Chapter 9.170 (Communication Towers and Equipment).
Satellite dish and other antennas are permitted as accessory structures in nonresidential districts in accordance
with Section 9.100.070.
C. 'Permitted Noncommercial Antennas. Noncommercial privately owned television and/or radio antennas
shall be contained entirely, within a building except for. (1) satellite dish antennas and other antennas which
cannot function when completely enclosed by a building; and (2) amateur radio antennas used by operators
licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC, pursuant to 47 CFR Section 97). Such permitted
outdoor antennas shall comply with the following design standards and requirements:
1. Number. No more than one satellite dish and one amateur mdio antenna shall be permitted per lot.
2. Height and Diameter. Satallite dish -antennas shall not exceed eight feet in height measured from adjacent
grade or finish floor and shall be no more than eight feet in diameter. Amateur radio antennas shall not exceed
the maximum building height for the district as specified in Section 9.50.030.
3<, Ground -Mounted Antennas.
a. Location. All ground -mounted antennas shall be located within the rear yard or may be located within
an interior side yard if not within the required side yard setback. Such antennas are prohibited from exterior
street side yards unless not visible from the street. All antennas over six feet in height shall be set back a
minimum of ten feet from all property lines.• -
b. Screening. Ground -mounted satellite dish antennas shall be screened from view, including views from
adjacent yards, by landscaping or decorative structures (trellis, arbor, fence, etc.). The dish antenna shall be
a single color that blends with its surroundings (e.g., off-white, dark green, brown, gray or black).
c. Disguised Antennas. An antenna which has the appearance of typical backyard furniture or equipment
(e.g., satellite dish antenna manufactured to have the appearance of a patio umbrella) is not required to comply
with the preceding location and screening standards but shall comply with height and size limits. Such an
antenna may be placed on any patio or deck.
4. Building -Mounted Antennas. Roof -top and other building -mounted antennas are prohibited in all residential
districts if over twenty-four inches in diameter -unless completely screened from horizontal view via a parapet
wall or other feature which is integrated into the architecture of the building. (Ord. 299 § 1(part), 1997; Ord.
284 § 1 (&h. A) (part), 1996)
9.60.090 Second residential units.
A. Purpose. This section provides standards and criteria for the establishment of second residential units
within residential districts consistent with Sections 65852.1, 65852.150, and 65852.2 of the State Government
Code.
B. Definitions. For purposes of this' code, the following definitions shall apply:
1. "Second residential unit" means a dwelling unit, including sleeping and cooking facilities, that is accessary
to a pre-existing primary residence on a single-family lot. "Granny housing" is intended for sole occupancy
by one or two persons age sixty-two years or older or a handicapped person of any age (plus spouse or care
giver). "Granny housing" is included- within the term "second residential unit."
2. 'Living area" means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics (if
permitted) and shall not include a garage or any accessory structure.
C. Limitations. Only one second residential unit or one guesthouse may be established on any lot in addition
to the primary residence:. Therefore, no more than two residential units on a single lot are permitted under 4 C
the .provisions of -this section._.. _
011
(LAQuiesa 3-99)
8.01.060
8.01.060 Permits required.
Section 301.1 of the Uniform Administrative Code, 1994 Edition; shall be revised to read as follows:
Permits Required. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge,
alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure, including a swimming
pool, spa or hqt tub, or make any installation, alteration, repair, replacement, or remodel any building
service equipment, including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this .Title, except
as specified in Section 301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate, appropriate
permit for each building, structure or service equipment from the Building Official.
(Ord. 276 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 1995; Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 114 § 1 (part), 1987; Ord: 68 § 1 (part),
1985)
8.01.070 Construction site security and debris.
A. The owner,contractor or responsible party constructing a new building, addition, or alteration to an
existing building shall maintain security measures as deemed necessary or as required by the building official
to control vandalism, fires, blowing dust, sand or debris.
B. The owner, contractor or responsible party constructing a new building, addition, or alteration to an
existing building, shall keep the construction site clean by having on site an all metal, minimum three yard
container with hinged lid (except rolloff containers), compatible for use with standard trash removal trucks,
commonly referred to as dumpsters, for the depositing of trash and debris. Containers are to be provided by
commercial trash collection companies and shall not be placed in the right-of-way. As used in this section,
"trash and debris" shall include papers, cartons, bottles, cans, garbage, roofing materials, insulation, plaster,
concrete, boards and other substances that may be accumulated as a result of construction activities.
C. A trash container shall remain on the construction site until the building inspector has completed the
final inspection. Said container shall be emptied of its contents on a regular schedule or as ordered by the
building inspector in order to avoid blowing debris or other public nuisances.
D. Disposal shall be by transportation to a legally established dump site by the city's refuse contractor
or other person authorized by law to remove any container from the location where the container was placed
by the person in charge for storage and collection.
E. Refusal to comply with the provisions of this section shall be a misdemeanor and punishable as stipulated
in Section 205 of the Uniform Administrative Code; and/or be sufficient cause for the revocation of the issued
building permit pending compliance. (Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 130 § 1, 1988; Ord. 97 § 1, 1986: Ord.
68 § 1. (part), 1985)
8.01.080 Violation —Penalty:
It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve,
remove, convert or demolish, equip or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of
any of the provisions of this title. Any person, firm or corporation violating, or failing to comply with, any
of the provisions of this title or a code adopted in this title is guilty of a separate offense for each and every
day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this title or such code is committed,
continued or permitted, and upon conviction of any such violation, such person shall be punishable by a fine
of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine
and imprisonment. The application of the penalty provided in this section shall not be held to prevent the
abatement of prohibited conditions as a public nuisance as provided by Section 1.01.250 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code. (Ord. 68 § 3, 1985)
167
(La Quinta 9-99)
012
0 ATTACHMENT #f4
August 27, 2002
Attn: City Clerk
City of La Quinta Planning Commission
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca 92253
RE: Letter of Appeal — Complaint #6559 "NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE"
To Whom It May Concern:
• Please consider this letter of appeal for the citation issued on our canopy. My husband
and I have stopped any further. improvements to our property until this has been resolved.
We are disappointed and confused. with the term ."public nuisance" itself since the shade
has so. many benefits and absolutely no negatives. Neighbors are even stopping to
compliment us on it. The temperatures in our garage were over 114^ but since the canopy
was in place the temp is less than mid 90^s. Our money was invested and, more
importantly, our time to obtain a better shade and protection for our vehicles. Some
shades. seen in the cove are not the quality nor have the longevity we needed. Our
decision was greatly iiiflueiiced by canopies- used iii th La Quints Park, pool, bike trails
and La Quinta Car Wash. Clear sight was taken into consideration since we are on a
corner lot. This impressive canopy is not permanent but sturdy and anchored for safety
however is not attached to our house. It has no abstract colors or markings even though I
understand the City considers the extreme "high profile" house. colors are freedom of
expression. The color of blue was chosen to match as closely as possible to the trim of our
house (white w/ blue trim). We simply wanted to find an attractive way to have shade for
our vehicles and perhaps even discourage unwelcome vandals/ thieves. (My car has been
vandalized twice in_ three. weeks... The. first time. the..officer_ said .nothing could be done and
he filed no report!) The Sun Bus comes down our street so the shade protects the privacy
of our vehicles and their contents. We plan to park all of our vehicles in the driveway,
under the shade and off of the street. Our neighbors are in complete support and we
contacted them before purchasing the canopy. Their signatures are attached.
After living in La Quinta for over twelve years, I. am disappointed to find we have lost
more freedoms to additional property easements and even more again for another 20 feet
of setbacks. I heard stories of restricted colors for houses and limits on number of trees in
front yards. This stirs my concern since it seems I no longer actually own any of my so-
called property and I am sure this info will trigger the concerns of many other cove
residents. My house (2100sf) is on a corner lot of less than 6400sf with two sides
requiring 12 ft easements and the 20ft setbacks (these easements and setbacks have
changed substantially since *my purchase in 1991). The side yard easement of 4.5ft
(should be 5ft?) and the rear of loft, I have nothing left. This may be true of most single
La Quinta cove lots although easements vary ' by the street you live on!! All cove lots
seem smaller than the minimum of 7200sf as listed in the codes so property taxes are
being paid on property they cannot utilize and enjoy. It seems hard to believe these
changes were made without realizing the impact on the cove residents. Is it possible to
consider the cove being "grand -fathered in", were we overlooked at the time or simply not
even considered?
013
i;
•
Page 2 of4
As for the satellite dish, it is very surprising to hear any concern over something that
has been in the same place since 1992. It was acceptable to the building inspector when
Our remodel was in progress so the eave has been built around the satellite pole.
We moved tO La Quinta in 1990 from Texas. We visited many of the Coachella Valley
cities but were constantly 'pulled back to La Quinta. We liked the individuality c,oncept
and mixture of people of La QuintalCove. It was a conscious decision to buy out of the
gated communities and away from the homeowner associations. Our primary expectations
• are that we remain in control of some our freedoms and know our property should be one
of them.
My husband and I did not want nor e?cpeci a battle with the City of La Quinta over this
beautiful canopy or satellite dish. Our understanding of earlier codes was that the canopy
could not be attached permanently to the house and could not infiinge on' the easements or
•obstruct traffic visibility at the corner. The plan and desire was to enhance our home, not
devaluate it so please know that we will continue the grounds improvement and check the
code restrictions for any future work after this citation has been resolved. We would like
to appeal the City of La Quinta's decision and respectfully request to be allowed to keep
the canopy and satellite as is. Per the code inspector, Don Whelchel, the easements are for
future sidewalks or utility needs so we offer to move/reposition the canopy at our expense
should any sidewallcs or utility needs ever become a reality.
- - - Our desire is -to resolve this matter -as quickly and calmly as possible. Please contact us
should you have any questions and we are anxiously waiting your decision.
Yours truly,
.(;&6
•
Bill Turner & Jan Turner
53-750 Avenida Obregon -
La Quinta, Ca 92253
Bill's office# 760.564.6686
Jan's cell# 760.250.9056
Fx# 760.771.4746
014
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Page 3 of 4
PETITION
Keep Shade Cover & Satellite Dish
(Newly Installed) (In place 11 years)
Located @ 50 Avenida Obre on
,V1K.Le/t
Ala
In4-itoirs7,
6. ��� tYJQ.r::
7 7/ Sr/
57.8-03t
7.
8. "tio,„eP 5-6(/-c/223
9.
10.
11. „,7,
12.
5641 7 01
13. :?h .17 (0_1 A
14.
,1%/4&& �,, �-- )f
n -•r
UJ
1)15
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
LU
016
ATTACHIVILNT 5
11.72.050 ,
1
ing imminent danger to life or serious injury to persons or property, an authorized representative of the city
may order without notice or judicial action the immediate .abatement of the public nuisance.
F. Appeal Procedure. Within ten days from the date of personal service or mailing the notice of public
nuisance the property owner may appeal the determination that a public nuisance exists to the planning commission.
The appeal shall be in writing and filed with the city clerk. At a regular meeting not more than thirty days
thereafter the planning commission shall proceed to hear and pass upon the appeal. The planning commission's'
decision may be appealed within ten days of the decision by written request to the city clerk. The city council.
shall hear the appeal at a regular meeting not more than thirty days from the date of request.
G. Failure to Abate: If a public nuisance is not voluntarily abated after notification the following shall"
apply
1. Prosecution. Failure to abate shall constitute an infraction pursuant to Section 1.01.200 of this code
which provides for prosecution as misdemeanor upon committing three infractions.
2. City to Abate. The city may cause the public nuisance to be abated. The manner of abatement and
costs incurred by the city to abate the public nuisance shall be reported to the city council by the community
safety director immediately following abatement.
3. Judicial Action. The city may commence a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to cause
abatement of the public nuisance. Reasonable auorney's fees and costs may be collected by the city in any
action to abate a public nuisance: (Ord 160 $ 1 (part), 1989)
.11.72.060 • Costs of abatement.
• A. Responsibility for Costs. If the city abates a public nuisance pursuant to Sections 11.72.050(BX2) or
11.72.050(E) the cost of abatement may be assessed as a lien against the property together with an additional
twenty-five percent of the cost of abatement for inspection and any administrative and incidental costs incurred
by the city to abate the public nuisance.
B. Hearing on Assessment. To determine if the cost of abatement shall be assessed as a lien against the
property a raring shall be held by the city council. The city deck shall schedule the hearing for the first regular
meeting that is held at least seven days following the filing of the community safety director's report on the
costs and manner of abating the public nuisance pursuant to Section 11.72.080(B). The property owner shall
be served notice advising him of the date, time and location of the hearing in accordance with Section 11.72.070(C)
of this chapter. A property owner may pay the assessment to the city clerk prior to the hearing to avoid a
lien being placed against the property. The city council shall consider any objections to the assessment at
the hearing. If the city council determines that the cost of abatement shall be assessed as a lien against the
property a resolution shall be adopted by the city council stating the amount of the assessment. The city clerk
shall prepare and file a certified copy of the resolution with the county auditor -controller.
C. Assessment and Collection. Government Code Section 38773.5 is inccaporated by reference as it currently
exists and may be subsequently amended. Section 387735 provides that the assessment shall be collected
at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes are collected. If payment is delinquent
the assesment shall be subject to the same penalties and procedure and sale as provided for ordinary municipal
taxes: (Ord. 160 $ 1 (part), 1989)
•
427
A.
017
(L (Nam 1491)
ATT
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
24. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to continue the project to Octob: 8,
2002, asking the applicant to better clarify the Specific : an to
know what is being approved, show additional. ameniti = - woven
into the site plan, improved pedestrian access to the ' illage and
shows the location of the perimeter walls. Unanimo - y approved.
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting the meeting at 8:44 p.m. • d reconvened at
8:50 p.m.
C. Zoning Code Amendment 2002-073; a r; • uest of the City for
consideration. of an amendment to Chapte 9.60, Section 9.60.030-
Fences and Walls, of the La Quinta Muni • pal Code, to permit split rail
fencing in the front yard within residen = I zones. '
. 1. Chairman Butler opened the • blic hearing and asked for the staff
report. Community Develo- ent Director Jerry Herman presented
the information containe• in the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community .evelopment Department.
2. There being no
Chairman Butl
hearing and
q=stions of staff and no other public comment,
closed the public participation portion of the
ened the matter up for Commission. discussion.
There b = ng no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Com sioners Tyler/Abell to adopt Planning Commission
Res • ution 2002-095 recommending approval of Zoning Code
A endment 2002-073, as recommended.
RO CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Notice of Public Nuisance Citation #6559 a request of Bill and Jan Turner
for an appeal of a Public Nuisance Citation regarding the violation of
front/side yard setback, satellite dish location, and construction without.
a permit.
1. .Chairman Butler asked for the- staff report. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information 208
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community. Development Department. n 1 .
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins stated the report submitted by Code
Compliance shows a multitude of canopies/structures, and asked
if other residents had received citations. Staff stated they will be
cited depending on the outcome of this meeting.
3. Commissioner Tylernoted there were three portions to the
citation. Staff stated that was correct.
4. Commissioner Robbins asked if this type of structure were located
in the sideyard, or back yard, and a vehicle be allowed to drive
back and park under it: would a building permit be allowed.
Community Safety Manager John .Hardcastle stated the Building
Code calls out the square footage for when a permit is allowed.
It depends on the amount of area under the canopy to determine
if a permit would required. •
5. Commissioner Abels stated it. isimportant to keep in mind the look
of the streetscape. .
6. Commissioner Kirk stated that if this is an illegal structure, you
cannot have a building permit. Staff stated that it . is not a
buildable structure because of the setback. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman recited the Code requirements
for shade structures.
7. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Bill Turner, 53-750 Avenida Obregon,
stated the purpose of putting up the 'shade structure. They did
drive up and down the Cove before determining what type of
canopy to purchase and to see what had been allowed. They
chose the one currently installed as it was a much sturdier one
than what they had seen in the Cove. Theyhave addressed the
company they bought the shade structure from and theyhave
corrected their information. They have a corner lot and do not
have any options due to the setbacks, to provide shade for their
driveway. They are trying to enhance the landscaping as well.,, It
is not a permanent structure and is not attached to their home.
8. Commissioner Abels asked if the company they purchased it from
informed them as to whether or not these. structure were 4. 1 11
allowed. Ms. Turner stated no. American Awning was informed
and they have put all future sales on hold. 019
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 9
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
9: Commissioner Tyler asked when the house was built. Ms. Turner
stated 1990. Commissioner Tyler asked if the size of the garage
is the samenow. Staff stated yes; 20 feet by 20 feet.
Commissioner Tyler asked why they did not park in the garage.
Ms. Turner stated they have motorcycles and other vehicles in the
garage. In regard to the satellite dish, they can remove it, but it
can only be seen when looking down the sideyard.
10. Commissioner Robbins stated he commends them on installing a
nice looking awning in comparison to some of the others shown
in the examples `submitted. He is concerned that the retail stores
are not informing the public where they can and cannot be
installed.
11. Commissioner Kirk stated he too is concerned as to how you
approve one and not the others. He asked staff how they make
'a determination as to .what meets the Code and what can create
trouble for staff. Staff stated it becomes subjective and it is not
their desire to be treating people unequal.
1 Commissioner Robbins asked why this structure was the only one
given a citation. Staff noted this was not the first one, this is the
first that appealed the citation.
13. Commissioner Kirk stated the Cove does have some special
circumstances in regard to the size of the lots. Some specific . .
requirements .could be placed on the shade structures to permit
their use. He would support flexibility in the Ordinance to allow
them.
14. Chairman Butler stated this is a nice installation, but he does not
want to approve them as it could open the door for it to be
allowed anywhere.
15 Commissioner Tyler stated the City does recognize their are special
circumstances with the Cove lots. He does have a problem
supporting them as it will allow all types and styles that could be •
unattractive.
16. Commissioner Abels stated the streetscape is important and
unfortunately the applicants have been taken advantage of. t 7
10 020
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002 '
17. there being no further discussion, Chairman Butler closed the
public participation portion of the meeting and opened the meeting
for Commission discussion.
18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 2002-015,
denying appeal of Public Nuisance Citation #6559, as
recommended. Motion carried with Commissioner Kirk opposed.
RESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
IX. CO ISSIONER ITEMS:
A. •, report of the September 17, 2002, City Council meeting, was given.
X. ADJOURN ENT:
There being no fury - r business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Tyler to adjourn his regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning'• mmission to be held October 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This.
meeting of the Planning C. mission was adjourned at9:39 p.m. on September 24,
2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
•
211
n21
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd
September 29, 2002
1)
Attn: City Clerk
City of La Quinta City Council
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca 92253
RE: LETTER OF APPEAL — Complaint #6559 "Notice of Public Nuisance"
ATTACHMENT #7
RECEivtu
2 r2 SEP 3'2 A;1 IC: 5 L
CITY OF LA CUINTA
CITY CLE ii'S OFFICE
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to appeal the citation issued on our canopy and ask that you also read our letter
of appeal submitted to the Planning Commission along with the signatures of all of our
neighbors. We may repeat ourselves in some cases but we are very passionate on this
issue. We have stopped any further improvements to our property until this can been
resolved and are disappointed and confused with the term "public nuisance" itself since
the shade has so many benefits and absolutely no negatives. We have presented our
position to the Planning Commission and they were not in agreement so we now come to
you. There were comments made in reference to our shade that are in bad taste and are
unfair. Someone said they do not want a "tent city"! Another referred to a "coat of many
colors" impact because someone else may want a canopy in pink or some other color. I
strongly suggest that each of you take the time to drive up each of the streets in the cove
area to realize the eclectic make-up of this area. Color is definitely something no one has
discouraged from hot pink to a mixture of green/purple/yellow by looking at the homes
that have been painted in the last 3 years!
My husband and I simply wanted to shade the vehicles that did not fit into the garage.
We are like many families in the cove area. As a family grows, there are commonly more
than two vehicles and in this case we are attempting to protect the ones in the driveway. I
understand the easement needs for sidewalks (even though 12 feet. seems excessive). An
additional 20 feet of setback is indeed extreme. Combining the 12 feet with the 20 feet on
my corner lot, you find yourself at the walls of my home. When this setback requirement
was decided on, it seems impossible that the RC area was taken into consideration. The
small lots in the cove area have automatic limitations and it seems confusing when we are
told we cannot erect any shade within the 20 feet but a home can have the permanent
structure of a wall and/or pool. Our position has been explained in the letter of appeal to
the Planning Commission also. The Planning Commission was polite while listening but
some had little understanding of the issue other than their desire to have a cookie cutter
appearance in the cove.
I would like to offer the same as before in reference to our shade. We offer to move/
reposition the canopy at our expense should any sidewalks orutility needs ever become a
reality. Under no circumstances were we attempting to confront the City of La Quinta or
its desire to protect property values.
As for the satellite dish, we were surprised to be cited for this because it has been in
place since 1992. Why weren't we told before so we could have made decisions when we
remodeled our home? Now the pole itself is part of our eave on the home. At this time
we are looking for a way to remove this dish but have not found an acceptable answer as
yet.
212
n22
Page 2 of2
• Please know, as we said in our earlier appeal letter, my husband and I did not want.nor
expect a battle with the City of La Quinta over this beautiful canopy. I was told at the
Planning Commission Appeal that other citations have been issued but I question this
because if this is true, why were so many Still up? There is only a 21 day period within
Which you have to comply. If we are indeed the "example", then all cited should be
notified' of the appeal and its progress. Now I am hearing that the code office is issuing
citations to everyone since I began my response. That was not our desire to send the code
officers after those who had canopies. How long were the others allowed to remain up?
• We chose to purchase in the La Quinta Cove because of the individuality of its
residents. We have no interest in the gated. community approach of matching homes and
yards. It is itnportant to us to retain some of the freedoms in our lives and we believe the
property we pay taxes on each year should be one of them. Obviously, any upgrades done
to our home involve respect of our neighbors and everyone's property values. We have
seen many changes within the cove area and some with delight; however, others give us a
reason to question.
As we stated before, our desire is to resolve this matter as quickly and calmly as
possible: Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us as we are
anxiously awaiting your decision now.
Yours truly,
• Bill & Jan Turner
53-750 Avenida Obreg
La Quints, Ca 92253
Bill's Office# 760.202.0204
Jan's Cell# 760.250.9056
Fax# 760.202.0021
213
n23.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
24. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to continue the project o October 8,
2002, asking the applicant to better clarify th pecific Plan to
know what is being approved, show addition , amenities woven
into the site plan, improved pedestrian acc s to the Village and.
shows the. location of the perimeter walls. nanimously approved.
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting the meeting at 8 44 p.m. and reconvened at
8:50 p.m.
C.
; •a request of the City for
consideration of an amendment tr Chapter 9.60, Section 9.60.030-
Fences and Walls, of the La Qui r to Municipal Code, to permit split rail
fencing in the front yard withi residential zones.
1. Chairman Butler ope -d the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Community Ievelopment Director Jerry Herman presented
the information c• tained in the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Com unity Development Department.
2. There being o questions of staff and no other public comment,
Chairman utler closed the public participation portion of the
hearing a d opened the matter up for Commission discussion.
There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Corn issioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission
Re lution 2002-092 recommending approval of Zoning Code
A r endment 2002-073, as recommended.
ROLL ALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:,
None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A.
Notice of Public Nuisance Citation #6559 a request of Bill and Jan Turner
for an appeal of a Public Nuisance Citation regarding the violation of
front/side yard setback, satellite dish location, and construction without
a permit.
1. Chairman Butler _asked for the staff report. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins stated the report submitted by Code
Compliance shows a multitude of canopies/structures, and asked
if other residents had received citations. Staff stated they will be
cited depending on the outcome of this meeting.
3. Commissioner Tyler noted there were three portions to the
citation. Staff -stated that was correct.
4. Commissioner Robbins asked if this type of structure were located
in the sideyard, or back yard, and a vehicle be allowed to drive
back and park under it: would a building permit be allowed.
Community Safety Manager John Hardcastle stated the Building
Code calls, out the square footage for when a permit is allowed.
It depends on the amount of area under the canopy to determine.
if a permit would required.
5. Commissioner Abels stated it is important to keep in mind the look
of the streetscape.
6. Commissioner Kirk stated that if this is an illegal structure, you
cannot have a building permit. Staff stated that it is not a,
buildable structure because of the setback. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman recited -the Code requirements
for shade structures.
7. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Bill Turner, 53-750 Avenida Obregon,
stated the purpose of putting up the shade structure. They did
drive up and down the Cove before determining what type of
canopy to purchase and to see what had been allowed. They
chose the one currently installed as it was a much sturdier one
than what they had seen in the Cove. They have addressed the
company they bought the shade structure from and they have
corrected their information. They have a corner lot and do not
have any options due to the setbacks, to provide shade for their
driveway. They are trying to enhance the landscaping as well. It
is not a permanent structure and is not attached to their home.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
8. Commissioner Abels asked if the company they purchased it from
informed them as to whether or not these structures were
allowed. Ms. Turner stated no. American Awning was
subsequently informed and they have put all future sales on hold.
9. Commissioner. Tyler asked when the house was built. Ms. Turner,
stated 1990. Commissioner Tyler asked if the size of the garage
is the same now. ,Staff stated yes; 20 feet by 20 feet.
Commissioner Tyler asked why they 'did not park in the garage.
Ms. Turner stated they have motorcycles and other vehicles in the
garage. In regard to the satellite dish, they can remove it, but it
can only be seen when looking down the sideyard.
10. Commissioner Robbins stated he commends them on installing a
nice looking awning in comparison to some of the others shown
in the examples submitted. He is concerned that the retail stores
are not informing the public where they can and cannot be
installed.
11. Commissioner Kirk stated he too is concerned as to how you
approve one and not the others. He asked staff how they make
a determination as to what meets the Code and what can create
trouble for staff. Staff stated it .becomes subjective and it is not
their desire to be treating people unequal.
12. Commissioner Robbins asked why this structure was the only one
given a citation. Staff noted this was not the first one, this is the
first that appealed the citation.
13. Commissioner Kirk stated the Cove does have some special
circumstances in regard to the size of the lots. Some specific
requirements could be placed on the shade structures to permit
their use. .He would support flexibility in the Ordinance to allow
them.
14. Chairman ,Butler stated this is a nice installation, but he does not
want to approve them as it could open the door for it to be
allowed anywhere.
15. Commissioner Tyler stated the City does recognize their are special
circumstances with the Cove lots. He does have a problem
supporting them as it will allow all types and styles that could be
unattractive.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2002
16. Commissioner Abels stated the streetscape is important and
unfortunately the applicants have been taken advantage of.
17. There being no further discussion, Chairman Butler closed the
public participation portion of the meeting and opened the meeting
for Commission discussion.
18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 2002-015,
denying appeal of Public Nuisance Citation #6559, as
recommended. Motion carried with Commissioner Kirk opposed.
VIII. CORRE'. PONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
IX. COMMI'.SIONER ITEMS:
A. No report of the September .17, 2002, City Council meeting, was given.
X. ADJOURN ENT:
There being no f ther business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Tyler to adjo rn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Plan ing Commission to be held October 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Plann'ng Commission was adjourned at 9:39 p.m. on September 24,
2002.
Respectfully submitte•
Betty J. Sawyer, Executiv Secretary
City of La Quinta, Californi
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\9-24-02.wpd 11
�• •
BI#A
r:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: • SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
CASE NO.: NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE. CITATION #6559
REQUEST: APPEAL OF PUBLIC NUISANCE CITATION REGARDING THE
VIOLATION OF FRONT/SIDE YARD SETBACK, SATELLITE DISH
LOCATION, AND CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT.
LOCATION: 53-750 AVENIDA OBREGON
APPLICANT: BILL AND JAN TURNER
BACKGROUND:
On July 23, 2002, staff asked for direction from the Planning Commission, in regard
to a potential Code Amendment to permit temporary shade structures. It was the
decision of the Commission that no action be taken to amend the Code (Attachment
1).
Based on the Planning Commission's action, Code Compliance Officer Don Whelchel •
cited the above applicant for various Code violations (Attachment 2) on August 8,
2002. The Sections cited in the violation are contained in Attachment 3.
The property owners, Bill and Jan Turner filed a Letter of Appeal (Attachment 4)
pursuant to Section 1.1.72.050.F (Attachment 5).
In order to provide further clarity, staff will prepare a Code Amendment to better
define such uses, and there permitted locations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2002-_, upholding Citation #6559. as a Public Nuisance,
and direct staff to prepare a Zoning Code Amendment to clarify such uses and
there permitted locations.
Attachments:
1. • Planning Commission Minutes for July 23, 2002.(excerpts)
2. Case file information w/ pictures
3. Code Sections regarding Garages and Carports and. Satellite Dish and
Other Antennas
4. • Letter of Appeal
5. Code Section regarding Abatement of Public Nuisances
P:\Jerrv\PC rept-codeViol-ShdStr.wpd
:ATTACHMENT #1
Planning Commission Minutes
July•23; :2002'
7:. There being ;no discussion, " it was Moved ' and ` se ' nded by.
Commissioners Kirk/Abels ' to adopt Planning ommission
Resolution 200.2-083 recommending certificatio of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmentalimpac !for Environmental
Assessment 2002-454, subject to the find' gs,, as submitted.
ROLL. CALL: AYES: .Commissioners Abe and Kirk. .NOES:
Commissioner Robbins and V'ce Chairman..Tyler. ABSENT:
Chairman Butler. ABSTA'None.
48 There being a tie vote, theniotion dies.. No further action was
taken.
VII:" BUSINESS ITEMS:
A Continued Site Development Permit .2002 744; a request :of Jai Nettimi
for compatibility _reviewof a deck for 'a single family two story house
located at 79.-39:0'aseo delRey.
Vice :Chairman. Tyler asked if there Was a motion to continue Site
Development Permit 2002-744, as requested. It was moved and
seconded by Commissioners .Kirk/Robbins to continue , Site
44velopment Permit 2002-744 to .September 3,.. 2002, as.
requested. Unanimously approved.
Zoning Issues; a request of staff for review of Shade Structures, .Gas
Stations, and Drive Thrus.
1 Vice Chairman Tyler asked for the staff report. Community
Development Director, Jerry Herman presented the' information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which.' is onfile in the
Community. Development Department.
V.ice;Chairman Tyler:asked if there were any questions of staff:
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk stated they support leaving the
Zoning Code as it is written for shade structures.
Staff asked if the Corrimission wanted .to limit the number .of gas
stations and fast thru restaurants in the City: Staff . is not
requesting the prohibition of a restaurants, but rather the drive
thru.
G:\WPDOCS\PC "Minutes\7-23-02.wpd
..19
Planning'; Commission Minutes
July 23; 2002::
ommissioner Kirk questioned.'whether or not the :City could adopt
such an 'action. Assistant City Attorney Marc Luesebrink stated
.the.Planning Commission can amenCdthe Zoning Code and make_
a recommendation that 'allowing these uses is not good planning:
Following discussion, it was ` moved and seconded by
commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue thi4.. to a future meeting,
dir•ecting _staff to prepare an analysis •.as to how "many gas stations
and drive lhrus there are and. where they are Iocated in La, Quinta
and' potential locations. Unanimously approved..
RRESPONDENCE AND. WRITTEN MATERIAL:
ornmissioners discussed the
ISSIONER ITEMS:
A. report,'was given on the City Council meeting of July 16, 2002.
ADJOUR'JMENT .:
There :being no rther business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Robbins to a t 'burn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to .a special
meeting.'of the:Plannr g Commission to be held September :3, 2002, at 7 00"p.m. This
meeting: of the.;Plann'irg ,Commission was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. on July 23, 2002.
Betty..J. Sawyer;. Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7-23-02.wpd
20
ATTACHMENT#2
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253
PH: (760) 777 7000
FAX: (760)777-7011.
TDD: (760)777-1227
Date Reported
Received By
How Received
Complaint
• 8/9/2002
'r Don WhelcheII-,rr a
Self -initiated
Founded
Location
[DRIVEWAY
IAPN
Address
774-155-001
53750 AVENIDA OBREGON
Reporting Party Name
Phone
eporting Party Address
WHELCHEL
7017
LLQCC N/A
Description
A LARGE METAL FABRICATED SHADE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN ERECTED IN THE DRIVEWAY WITHIN THE SET BACK AREA BOTH FROM
THE FRONT AND THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINES. ADDITIONALLY, A LARGE SATELLITE DISH HAS BEEN ERECTED TOO HIGH AND TOO
CLOSE TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE IN THE REAR YARD AND IS VISABLE FROM THE ROADWAY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
Codes Violated_.
° `[Code#7o.,04 t escrtption
960 060 B1 CARPORT MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, MEASURED FROM THE OBVIOUS PROPERTY
LINE (NOT INCLUDING EASEMENTS) SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 30 FEET IN AN RVL ZONE: ALL OTHER ZONES
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET UNLESS IN VIOLATION OF. ANY OTHER APPLICABLE CODES OR ALLOWED BY
,,,, e r� "; SPECIAL PERMIT.
960 0800 1.,"fir SATELLITE DISH/ANTENNAS--SPECIFIC USES REQUIRED.
B 011060 y ',' CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIRED; A MISDEMEANOR.
Officer Assigned
Don Whelchel
Thursday, September. 19, 2002
Date Closed
pproved By
Page 1 of 7
Case# )6559 •
Events.
;Date
Description
IDay
8/2/2002 Friday > Case Initiated
DURING ROUTINE PATROL; I NOTED ALARGE SHADE. STRUCTURE. HAD, BEEN ERECTED OVER 3/4 OF THE DRIVEWAY AND A LARGE
SATELLITE DISH IN THE REAR'YARD WHICH WAS VISABLE TO THE ROADWAY DUE TO ITS SIZE AND°HEIGHT.
THE VIOLATIONS WERE DOCUMENTED: WITH PICTURES WITH NO CONTACT ATTEMPTED. AT THIS TIME.
8/5/20021 ; Monday Follow-up
A PHONE CALL WAS MADE TO THE PROPERTY BILL AND JAN TURNER. I SPOKE WITH MRS.TURNER ABOUT THE
VIOLATIONS AND REQUESTED A; MEETING WITH HER AND; HER HUSBAND TO EXPLAIN THE VIOLATIONS AND DISCUSS A REMEDY.
IT•WAS AGREED UPON TO MEET AT -THE RESIDENCE ON FRIDAY; 8 9-2002 AT 9:00 A.M.
8/9/2002 Friday` • Follow up,
THE MEETING TOOK PLACE ON SCHEDULE AND THE VIOLATIONS WERE DISCUSSED. MR. TURNER REQUESTED THAT THE
VIOLATIONS BE FORMALLY ABATED;SO HE COULD;EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO AN'APPEAL.
I ADVISED MR. TURNER THATIWOULD BE SENDING HIM A FORMAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AND HE SHOULD BE RECEIVING. IT;
VIA CERTIFIED:MAIL .DURING;THE.WEEK OF :8-12-2002.
8/13/2002. Tuesday._. follow-up
A CERTIFIED NOTICE OF/PUBLIC NUISANCE WAS MAILED ON THIS DATE, DESCRIBING ALL VIOLATIONS. THE CORRECTIONS
REQUIRED AND THE APPEAL PROCESS,
8/22/2002 . Thursday • Follow-up
• ' '-:THECERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT WAS RECEIVED BACK AND SIGNED FOR BY. JAN TURNER. ON 8-21-2002 INDICATED THAT THE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC:NUISANCE HADBEENLEGALLY SERVED ON THE PROPERTY OWNEROF RECORD.• •
8/28/2002 Wednesday Follow up:
A PHONE CALL AS RECEIVED FROM' WTHE RESIDENT, JAN TURNER, ADVISING THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED THE' NOTICE OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE. AND SHE ADVISED THAT SHE HAS'PREPARED AN:APPEAL AND WILL BE SUBMITTING SAME TO THE CITY CLERK; PER •
REQUIREMENTS, BY, NaLATER THAN THE END OF THE WORK DAY ON.THURSDAY, 8-29-2002: • •
8/28/2002 . Wednesday Follow-up
A FOLLOW UP ATTHE PROPERTY. WAS DONE TO DETERMINE EXACT DIMINSIONS OF THE STRUCTURE AND DISTANCES FROM
PROPERTY AND CURB LINES. '
IT WAS. FOUND THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS 20' FEET DEEP (DISTANCE FROM THE CLOSEST PORTION TO THE GARAGETO THE
STREET) IS 20' (FEET): THE WIDTH OF THE STRUCTURE FRON THE OUTSIDE EDGE OF THE SUPPORT POLES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE
DRIVEWAY IS 25'.(FEET). THIS MAKES THE' OVERALL• SQUARE. FOOTAGE OF THE STRUCTURE AT 500 SQUARE FEET.'
THE DISTANCE FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINENS 12" (1 FOOT), AND THE DISTANCE FROM THE FACE OF THE CURB TO THE FACE
OF THE SUPPORT POLE IS"1.1' 6" (ELEVENFEET-SIX INCHES).. . .
THESEDISTANCES ARE PICTORILY DOCUMENTED IN THE ATTACHMENTS SECTION.
Officer Assigned
Don Whelchel
Thursday, September. 19, 2002
Date Closed
Ipproved By
Page 2 of i
ATTACHMENT #3
9.60.060 Garages and carports.
A. Height. The maximum structure height shall be fourteen feet for a detached carport and seventeen feet
for a detached garage, except that garages may be up to twenty-eight feet in height if a second dwelling unit
complying.: with the provisions of Section 9.60.090 is located above the .garage.
B. Setbacks.
1: In' the RVL district, .the minimum .garage or carport setback shall be thirty feet. In all other •residential
districts, the minimum setback for front -entry type garages or carports shall be twenty-five feet if a standard
"pivot" type garage door is used, twenty feet if a "roll -up" type garage door is used, and twenty feet for a
carport. For side -entry type garages, the minimum garage setback shall be twenty feet in the RVL district and
fifteen feet in all other residential districts.
2. When alleys, private streets or common driveways at the rear of a lot are provided specifically as
vehicular access to garages and carports and when separate access and circulation systems are provided for
pedestrians, guests and emergency vehicles, garages and carports may be placed up to a minimum of five feet
from such alley, private street or common driveway.
C. Lot Coverage Maximums. The placement of a garage or carport on a lot shall not result in violation of
the lot coverage maximums set forth in Section 9.50.030. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
9 66.'080 , Satellite dish and other antennas:
A. Purpose. Satellite dish and other antennas consistent with the design and location provisions of this
section shall be permitted as accessory structures within any residential district.
B. Permitted Commercial Antennas. Commercial television, radio, microwave, communication towers, and
related facilities are permitted as principal uses in all districts subject to approval of a conditional use permit and
conformance with the requirements of Chapter 9.170 (Communication Towers and Equipment). Satellite dish
and other antennas are permitted as accessory structures in nonresidential districts in accordance with' Section
9.100.070.
C. Permitted Noncommercial Antennas.. Noncommercial privately owned television and/or radio antennas
shall be contained entirely within a building except for: (1) satellite dish antennas and other antennas which
cannot function when completely enclosed by a building; and (2) amateur radio antennas used by operators
licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC, pursuant to 47 CFR Section 97). Such permitted
outdoor antennas shall comply with the following design standards and requirements: •
1. Number. No more than one satellite dish and one amateur radio antenna shall be permitted per lot.
2. Height and Diameter. Satellite dish antennas shall riot exceed eight feet in height measured from adjacent
grade or finish floor and shall be no more than eight feet in diameter. Amateur radio antennas shall not exceed
the maximum building height for the district as specified in Section 9.50.030.
3. Ground -Mounted Antennas.
a. Location. All ground -mounted antennas shall be located within the rear yard or may be located within an
interior side yard if not within the required side yard setback. Such antennas are prohibited from exterior street
side yards unless not visible from the street. All antennas over six feet in height shall be set back a minimum of
ten feet from all property lines.
b. Screening. Ground -mounted satellite dish antennas shall be screened from view, including views from
adjacent yards, by landscaping or, decorative structures (trellis, arbor, fence, etc.). The -dish antenna shall be a
single color that blends with its surroundings (e.g., off-white, dark green, brown, gray or black).
c. Disguised Antennas. An antenna which has the appearance of typical backyard furniture or equipment
(e.g., satellite dish antenna manufactured to have the appearance of a patio umbrella) is not required to comply
with the preceding location and screening standards but shall comply with height and size limits: Such an
antenna may be placed on any patio or deck.
4. Building -Mounted Antennas. Roof -top and other building -mounted antennas are prohibited in all
residential districts if over twenty-four inches in diameter unless completely screened from horizontal view via a
parapet wall or other feature which is integrated into the architecture of the building. (Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997;
Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996)
8.01060 Permits required:'
Section 301..1. of the Uniform Administrative Code, 1994 Edition, shall be revised .to. readas follows:
Permits Required. It shall be unlawful for any person; firm or corporation toerect;- construct, enlarge,
alter, repair, move, improve; remove, convertor demolish any building or structure,.including a swimming
pool, spa or .hot tub, or make any installation, :alteration, repair, replacement, or. remodel any :building
service equipment including swimming.pool, spa and hot?tub equipment, regulated by this Title,- except
;as specified in:Section 301.2:1, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate, appropriate
perriiit for each building,= structure or service equipment from the. Building Official.
(Ord. 276 § :2. (Exh. A) :(part),.1995; Ord. 208`§' 2 (part), 1992; •Ord:."114 § 1 (part), 1987; Ord. 68 § :1-(part),
1985)
Pagel of
ATTACHMENT #4
Attn: City Clerk
City of La Quinta•Planning Commission
78-495 Calle Tampico ".
La Quinta, Ca 92253
RE: Letter of Appeal — Complaint #6559 "NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE
Please consider this letter of appeal forthe citation issued on our:canopy. My husband
and I havestopped any further improvements -to our property until this has been resolved:
We are -disappointed :`and confused with the term "public` nuisance" itselfsince the shade
has so many benefits and absolutely ` no negatives. Neighbors . are even stopping to
complimenfus on it. The temperatures in our garage were over 114" but since the canopy
was in place the temp is less than :mid .90^s. ` Our money was invested and, more
importantly, our time to 'Obtain a: better shade and" protection for our. vehicles: Some
shades seen in the cove are not the quality nor have the longevity we needed. Our
decision was greatly influenced by' canopies used in:the La Quinta Park, pool, bike trails
and: La Quinta Car, Wash. Clear . sight was taken into consideration since we 'are on a
corner lot: This impressive canopy, is not permanent but sturdy and anchored for safety
however is not attached to our housee. Ithas no abstract colors or. markings even though I
understand the City considers the extreme "high profile" house colors are .freedom of
expression. The color of blue was chosen to match as closely as possible to the trim of our
house (white w/ blue trim) ` We simply wanted to find an attractive way to have shade for
our vehicles; and perhaps even discourage unwelcome vandals/ thieves. (My car has been
vandalized twice in three weeks The first time the officer said nothing could be done and
he filed no report!) ,The Sun Bus comes down our street so the shade protects the privacy
of our vehicles and their contents We plan to park of our vehicles in the driveway,
under the shade and off of the street. Our neighbors are in complete support and we
contacted them before purchasing the canopy. Their signatures are attached:
After living in. La 'Quinta for over twelve years, I am disappointed to find we have lost
more freedoms to additional property easements and even more again for another 20 feet
• of setbacks: I heard stones of restricted colors for houses and limits on number of trees in
front yards. This stirs my concern since it seems I no longer actually own any of my so-.
.called property and I am sure this info will trigger : the concerns of many other cove
residents. My house (2100sf) is on a corner lot of less than 6400sf with two sides
requiring 12 ft easements and the 20ft setbacks (these easements and setbacks have
changed substantially since my, purchase in 1991). The side yard easement. of. 4.5fi
(should be 5ft?) and the rear of loft, I have nothing left. This may true of most single
La Quinta cove lots although easements vary by the street you live On!! All cove lots
seem smaller than the minimum . of 7200sf as listed in the codes so property taxes are
being paid on property they cannot utilize and enjoy. It seems hard to believe these
changes were made 'without realizing the impact on the cove residents. Is it possible to
consider the cove being "grand -fathered in", were we overlooked at the time or simply not.
even considered?
As for the satellite dish, it is very surprisingto hear any concern: over something" that
has `been in :the same place since 1992 It was acceptable to ;the. building. inspector when ..
our remodel was inprogress so. the eave has been'built around the satellite pole:
We moved to La Quints in:1990 from Texas We visited many of the Coachella' Valley .
cities but were constantly ,pulled back to La Quinta. We:' liked the individuality :concept
and mixture: of people: of La Quinta:Cove. It was a conscious decision to buy : out of the
gated communities and away from the homeowner associations. Our primary expectations
are that we remain in control of some our freedoms and know . our property should be one
My husband, and I did not want nor expect a battle`with the City of La Quinta over this
beautiful canopy or satellite dish Our understanding of earlier codes .was that the canopy
could not be attached 'permanently to the house and could not infringe on the easements or
obstruct traffic visibility at the corner:; , The plan and desire was to enhance Our r home, not
devaluate it : so please know that we will continue the grounds improvement and check the
code .restrictions for any future work after this citationhas-been: resolved. We would like
to appeal the City. of LaQuinta's decision and respectfully request to beallowed to keep
the canopy and satellite as is, Pet the.code inspector, Dori Whelchel, the easements are for
future .sidewalks: or utility needs so we offer to move/repositionthe canopy at our expense
should any sidewalks or utility needs ever become a reality.
Our desire is to resolve this matter as quickly and calmly: as possible. Please contact us
should you have anyquestions and we are anxiously waiting your decision.
Yours truly,
�.l
•
Bill' `Turner :& Jan Turner
53-750 Avenida Obregon
La Quinta, Ca: 92253
Bill's office# 760.564.6686
Jan's cell# 760.250.9056
Fx# 760.771.4746
Keep Shade Cover & Satellite Dish
{Newly Installed) (In place 11 years)
Located @ 3 750 AvenidaObregon
15.
16.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
2.5.
ATTACHMENT #5
11.72.050 Abatement 'of public nuisances.
A . 'Dangerous Buildings:: The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings shall apply and
preempt the provisions of this chapter whenever the public nuisance tobe abated constitutes a dangerous building
as defined in the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings.
B. :Notice of Public Nuisance:; Upon determination that a public nuisance exists a-noticeshall be issued
to the property owner. The notice shall read "Notice of Public Nuisance," in letters not less than one .inch.
in height: The notice shall direct abatement of the nuisance, identify the nuisance by referring to this chapter;
and contain a general description of the property:sufficient to identify the location of the public nuisance.
C. Service: The;=notice of public nuisancemay be served by one of the following methods:
•1 Personal service;; or
2. Certified mail,'or
3 Posting the notice at a conspicuous place on the premises where the nuisance is located or at the abutting
public right of -way in:.:addition-to personal' service or notice by certified mail.
D. Time to Abate. Public nuisances shall be abated by the property owner no more.than twenty-one days
from the date of personal service or mailing the notice of•public nuisance: If a public nuisance constitutes
an immediate fire hazard, within `five days of.personal:Service or mailing the notice of: public ;nuisance.
E. `Summary Abatement:. Whenever a public nuisance exists which constitutes an emergency present
ing imminent danger to life or serious injury to persons or property, an authorized :representative of the city
may order without notice or judicial action the immediate abatement of :the public nuisance.
F Appeal -Procedure. Within ten days from the date. of personal service or mailing -the notice of public
nuisance the property owner may -appeal the determinaton that a public nuisance exists to the planning
n.
The appeal shall be in venting 'and filed with:the-city clerk. At a`regular meeting not more thn irtysd days
thereafter the planning commission shall proceed to hear and ass upon thethirty days
decision maybe a Y P p° appeal Theplanning,commission's
appealed .within ten da •s of the decision by written request to the city clerk. The city council
shall hear the' appeal ata regular meeting not more than thirty days from the date of request.
G. Failure to Abate: .If a public nuisance is not voluntarily abated after notificationthe following shall
apply
1. Prosecution Failure to abate shall constitute an infraction pursuant -to Section 1.01.200 of this code
which provides for prosecution as misdemeanor upon committing_ three infractions.
2. City to Abate: The city` may cause the public nuisance to be abated. The manner of abatement and
costs incurred by'`the:city to abate the -public nuisance shall' be reported to the city council bythe community
safety director immediatelyfollowing abatement
3.. Judicial Action..The city may commence a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to cause
abatement of the public nuisance. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs'may be collected by the city in : any
action to abate a public nuisance. (Ord 160, § 1 (part), 1989)
September 29, 2002
Attn: 'City'Clerk
City ofLaQuinta City Council
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca 92253
RECEIVED
7"2SEP3:i
CITY OF LA GUINTA
CITY CLEMCS-OFFICE
RE: LETTER OF APPEAL — Complaint #6559 "Notice of Public Nuisance"
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to appeal the citation issued on our canopy and ask that you also read our letter
of appeal submitted to the Planning Commission along with the signatures of all of our
neighbors. We may repeat ourselves in some cases but we are very passionate on this
issue. We have stopped any further improvements to our property until this can been
resolved and are disappointed and confused with the term "public nuisance" itself since
the shade has so many benefits and absolutely no negatives. We have presented our
position to the Planning Commission and they were not in agreement so we now come to
you. There were comments made in reference to our shade that are in bad taste and are
unfair. Someone said they do not want a "tent city"! Another referred to a "coat of many
colors" impact because someone else may want a canopy in pink or some other color. I
strongly suggest that each of you take the time to drive up each of the streets in the cove
area to realize the eclectic make-up of this area: Color is definitely something no one has
discouraged from hot pink to a mixture of green/purple/yellow by looking at the homes
that have been painted in the last 3 years!
My husband and I simply wanted to shade the vehicles that did not fit into the garage.
We are like many families in the cove area. As a family grows, there are commonly more
than two vehicles and in this case we are attempting to protect the ones in the driveway. I
understand the easement needs for sidewalks (even though 12 feet. seems excessive). An
additional 20 feet of setback is indeed extreme. Combining the 12 feet with the 20 feet on
my corner lot, you find yourself at the walls of my home. When this setback requirement
was decided on, it seems impossible that the RC area was taken into consideration. The
small lots in the cove area have automatic limitations and it seems confusing when we are
told we cannot erect any shade within the 20 feet but a home can have the permanent
structure of a wall and/or pool. Our position has been explained in the letter of appeal to
the Planning Commission also. The Planning Commission was polite while listening but
some had little understanding of the issue other than their desire to have a cookie cutter
appearance in the cove.
I would like to offer the same as before in reference to our shade. We offer to move/
reposition the canopy at our expense should any sidewalks or utility needs ever become a
reality. Under no circumstances were we attempting to confront the City of La Quinta or
its desire to protect property values.
As -for the satellite dish, we were surprised to be cited for this because it has been in
place since 1992. Why weren't we told before so we could have made decisions.when we
remodeled our home? Now the pole itself is part of our eave on the home. At this time
we are looking for a way to remove this dish but have not found an acceptable answer as
yet.
Page2of2
Please know, as we said in our earlier appeal letter, my husband and I did not want nor
expect a battle with the City of La Quinta over this beautiful canopy. I was told at the
Planning Commission Appeal that other citations have been issued but I question this
,because if this is true, why were so many still up? There is only a 21 day period within
which you have to comply. If we Are indeed the ."example", then all cited should be
notified of the appeal and its progress. Now I am hearing that the code office is issuing
citations to everyone since I began my response. That was not our desire to send the code
officers after those who had canopies. How long were the others allowed to remain up?
We chose.to purchase in the La Quinta Cove because of the individuality of its
residents. We have no interest in the gated community approach of matching homes and
yards. It is important to us to retain some of the freedoms in our lives and we believe the
property we pay taxes on each year should be one of them. Obviously, any upgrades done
to our home involve respect of our neighbors and everyone's property values. We have
seen many changes within the cove area and some with delight; however,, others give us a
reason to question.
As we stated before, our desire is to resolve this matter as quickly and calmly as
possible. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us as we are
anxiously awaiting your decision now.
Yours truly, .
Bill & Jan Turner
53-750 Avenida Obreg
La Quinta, Ca 92253
Bill's Office# 760.202.0204
Jan's Cell# 760.250.9056
Fax# 760.202.0021
August 27, 2002 Page 1 of 4
Attn: City Clerk
City of La Quinta Planning Commission
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca 92253
RE: Letter of Appeal Complaint #6559 "NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE"
To Whom It May Concern:
Please consider this letter of appeal for the citation issued on our canopy. My husband
and I have stopped any further improvements to our property until this has been resolved.
We are disappointed and confused with the term "public nuisance" itself since the shade
has so many benefits and absolutely no negatives. Neighbors are even stopping to
compliment us on it. The temperatures in our garage were over 114^ but since the canopy
was in place the temp is less than mid 90^s. Our money was invested and, more
importantly, our time to obtain a . better shade and protection for our vehicles. Some
shades seen in the cove are not the quality nor have the longevity we needed. Our
decision was greatly influenced by canopies used in the La Quinta Park, pool, bike trails
and La Quinta Car Wash. Clear sight was taken into consideration since we are on a
corner lot. This impressive canopy is not permanent but sturdy and anchored for safety
however is not attached to our house. It has no abstract colors or markings even though I
understand the City considers the extreme "high profile" housecolors are . freedom of
expression. The color of blue was chosen to match as closely as possible to the trim of our
house (white w/ blue trim). We simply wanted to find an attractive way to have shade for
our vehicles and perhaps even discourage unwelcome vandals/ thieves. (My car has been
vandalized twice in three weeks. The first time the officer said nothing could be done and
he filed no report!) The Sun Bus comes down our street so the shade protects the privacy
of our vehicles and their contents. We plan to park all of our vehicles in the driveway,
under the shade and off of the street. Our neighbors are in complete support and we
contacted them before purchasing the canopy. Their signatures are attached.
After living in.La Quinta for over twelve years, I am disappointed to find we have lost
more freedoms to additional property easements and even more again. for another 20 feet
of setbacks. I heard stories of restricted colors for houses and limits on number of trees in
front yards. This stirs my concern since it seems I no longer actually own any of my so-
called property and I am sure this info will trigger the concerns of many other cove
residents. My house (2100sf) is on a corner lot of less than 6400sf with two sides
requiring 12 ft easements and the 20ft setbacks (these easements and setbacks have.
changed substantially since my purchase in 1991). The side yard easement of 4.5ft
(should be 5ft?) and the rear of loft, I have nothing left. This may be true of most single
La Quinta cove lots although easements vary by the street you live on!! All cove lots
seem smaller than the minimum of 7200sf as listed in the codes so property taxes are
being paid on property they cannot utilize and enjoy. It seems hard to believe these
changes were made without realizing the impact on the cove residents. Is it possible to
consider the cove being "grand -fathered in", were we overlooked at the time or simply not
even considered?
Page 2 of4
As for .the satellite dish, it is very surprising to hear any concern over something that
has been in the same place since 1992. It was acceptable to the building inspector when
our remodel was in progress so the eave has been built around the satellite pole.
We moved to La Quinta in 1990 from Texas. We visited many of the Coachella Valley
cities but were constantly pulled back to La Quinta. We liked the individuality concept
and mixture of people of La Quinta Cove. It was a conscious decision to buyout of the
gated communities and away from the homeowner associations. Our primary expectations
are that we remain in control of some our freedoms and know our property should be one
of them.
My husband and I did not want nor expect a battle with the City of La Quinta over this
beautiful canopy or satellite dish. Our understanding of earlier codes was that the canopy
could not be attached permanently to the house and could not infringe on the easements or
obstruct traffic visibility at the corner. The plan and desire was to enhance our home, not
devaluate it so please know that we will continue the grounds improvement and check `the
code restrictions for any future work after this citation has been resolved. We would like
to appeal the City of La Quinta's decision and respectfully request to be allowed to keep
the canopy and satellite as is. Per the code inspector, Don Whelchel, the easements are for
future sidewalks or utility needs so we offer to move/reposition the canopy at our expense
should any sidewalks or utility needs ever become a reality.
Our desire is to resolve this matter as quickly and calmly as possible. Please contact us
should you have any questions and we are anxiously waiting your decision.
Yours truly,
Bill Turner & Jan Turner
53-750 Avenida Obregon
. La Quinta, Ca 92253
Bill's office# 760.564.6686
Jan's cell# 760.250.9056
Fx# 760.771.4746
Page 3 of 4
PETITION
Keep Shade Cover & Satellite Dish
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
(Newly Installed) (In place 11 years)
Located @750:Avenida Obregon
Aem,
'nl0 ilk Q r!fr)
7-11-1362O
i-
78-0 3
3ko3
rkeivae 5-6 ‘/--e/223
„t„ )1
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
0-Ao_ A(
\6(5 eW,�
4 Gefiathisi
MEMORANDUM
TO: OSCAR ORCI, PLANNING MANAGER
FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: OCTOBER 29, 2002
SUBJECT: SHADE STRUCTURES
The following are my thoughts on what needs to be done on shade structures.
Tom Genovese would like to have a draft report completed by November 27th and
finalized in time'for Council to consider it at their meeting of December 17th.
Issues that need to be addressed:
1 Contact local cities and obtain their regulations for
temporary/permanent structures in the front and side yard setback.
2. Define art in the front/side yard setback.
• 3. Maintenance of structures.
4. Do we write regulations for temporary or permanent structures.
5. Need to address color, size, shape, location, and height of the
structure(s).
6. Also address awnings, gazebos umbrellas in the front yard.
7. If they are temporary address the length of time they are permitted
and how many times per year they can be permitted.
8. Do they have to be detached or attached.
9. Their purpose (play areas, barbeques, decorative ponds, etc.).
10. Tom Hartung was to give us the number of violations currently being
issued. He was also to get us information on the Building Code
pertaining to setbacks, wind loads, footings, etc. You will need to
follow up with him regarding these issues
Attached is a memo from Tom Hartung for your information.
We should review your information the week of November..18th.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jerry Herman, Community Development Director
FROM: Tom Hartung, Director of Building and Safety -7-1-14
•
DATE: October 28, 2002
RE: Shade Structure Code Provisions
Please find below a summary of the applicable Building and Fire Code
provisions that would apply to shade structures:
Temporary Fabric Shade Structures
•
•
•
•
•
Temporary fabric structures are regulated by the California Fire
Code.
To be considered temporary it must not be erected for more than
180 days within a 12 month period. CBC § 3111.2
Temporary fabric structure cannot be greater than 400 square feet
in floor area if vehicles are to be parked under it.
No permit required by the Fire Code
No structural design required
Permanent Shade Structures (fabric or otherwise including retractable
awnings)
•
•
•
Permit required for structures exceeding 120 square feet in floor
area. CBC § 106.1
Structural design by licensed architect or engineer required for
permit. CBC § 106.3.2 and Appendix § 3115
Structures requiring a permit must be a minimum of 3 feet from
interior side or rear property lines. CBC Table 5A
Structures must be a minimum of 10 feet from an LPG tank. CFC §
8204.3
Recommendation
My preference would 'be to maintain the current setback regulations with
regards to the shade structures. A major concern is location of the shade
structures with relation to the LPG tanks. The Fire Code requires a 10 foot
clearance from existing structures. There are hundreds of these tanks in
the Cove area which have been legally located adjacent to the interior side
property line. They were approved in this location because we knew that
nothing could be built within 10 feet of the location due to the setback
requirements in' place on the subject property as well as the one adjacent
to it.
Even .if the setbacks are amended, the Fire Code would restrict the shade
structure from being built on the property with the tank, but also could
prohibit building a shade structure on the lot next door if the proposed
structure would be within 10 feet of the existing tank.
The Code also requires tanks to be placed a minimum of 10 feet away
from where a future structure may be built. In other words we could not
allow a tank to be placed next to a side interior property line, adjoining a
vacant lot, because it is possible that when the lot is developed a shade
structure•could be constructed within 10 feet of the LPG tank.
Restricting people from developing their property based on what is or could
be built on the adjacent property wouldbe an enforcement nightmare. I
think the LPG tank issue in and of itself is a sufficient reason not to amend
the setback requirements (at least in the RC Zone) for shade. structures.
If however it is decided to amend the setbacks to allow shade structures
on lots not affected by the LPG tanks, I would suggest the following:
1. Structures should be permanent and the allowed size should be
greater than 120 square feet but less than 400 square feet. These
parameters would require a permit and a structural design to be
submitted, without triggering Fire Code regulations that would
prohibit parking under them. By requiring the permit we eliminate
the home made structures and the little "pop up" canopies that we
are seeing now.
The structure should be allowed over the driveway only. This would
restrict somebody from tenting their whole yard.
3. The structure should be open on three sides with the fourth side
being the side adjacent to the garage face. This would prohibit a
garage from being built to the front property line and eliminating the
two onsite parking spaces in the driveway.
Structures must be a.minimum of 3 feet from the side or rear
property lines in compliance with the .Building Code. However, I
would suggest maintaining the current 5 foot side yard setback. In
other words the shade structure would not extend closer to the
property line than the garage.
5. Structures should not be allowed to encroach into the City right of
way.
6. A„ maintenanceclause should be included. The fabric structures will
need replacing periodically. This should be as objective as possible.
Examples:
If the area of holes, in the fabric exceeds 10% of the area of
the entire fabric, it is a violation and fabric must be repaired or
replaced.
If the fabric becomes detached from the frame at more than
10% of the perimeter it is a violation and must be repaired or
replaced.
All structures must remain free of graffiti, stains and burn
marks and other such defects. If the combined area of said
defects exceeds 5% of the total area of the fabric, it shall be
considered excessive and the fabric must be repaired or.
replaced.
All repairs must be made with materials similar to the original
installation and approved by the Director. (This would prevent
people from duct taping ripped covers)
Support- framework for fabric shade covers shall be considered
a public nuisance if the fabric is removed for a period of more.
than. 30 days.
There may be other considerations but the goal is to make the .
maintenance regulations as objective as possible.
.October-21, 2002;
Tom -r Oscar W.Orci,, Planning Manager::
.
Subject' Patio Covers & "Art" in Front.Yards
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide general background information with
regard to the structures located in the front yard.
Sometime earlier this year the City issued a code violation for a car cover in the front
yard of a single family home. The item was appealed to the Planning Commission,
which granted permission to allow the cover in the front yard. On October 15, 2002, the
City Council reviewed and approved a temporary patio cover in the front yard? The City
Council directed staff to review these structures and determine if they should be allowed.
Specifically, the City Council requested that staff research other cities, especially in the
local area. Other issues to consider include:
1. Temporary (length per year, permit type, annual permits per year);
2. Permanent ;
3. Color;
4. Shape (detached or attached);
5. Location (setback requirements);
6. Size;
7. Height;
8. Use (for vehicles, play areas, other types of improvements);
9. UBC requirements for temporary/permanent structures; and
10. Number of Violations.
The Council also directed staff to review gazebos in the front yard. Lastly, the Council
also directed staff to research the definition of art (e.g. Chicken).
The Council directed staff to bring back this item at the December 17th meeting.
Questions to Consider
• Would these regulations apply to all properties, including commercial properties?
• Why are we regulating gazebos as opposed to other structures permitted in the
front yard?
• Should the ALRC review the art definition as it applies to the structures in the
front yard?
• •• 'How do we currently regulation temporary structures (covers) in the front yard?
What is the City's policy regarding art in_public places or visual from: public.
spaces (residential versus commercial) •
;How :does the City allow tents and other type of covers in the. commercial district?
V,hat is being stored under these temporary`covers (autos,. recreational vehicles,
lay, equipment)? •
'Relevant Code requirements
Section 9.60.045 BBQ's, waterfalls, fireplaces, and other similar structures are allowed in
the front yard on a residential lots. Structures are not allowed to be attached to walls or
fences.
Section 9.60.040- allows patio covers, play equipment...Etc. in the front yards. The
structures must meet front yard setback requirements. The structures may not be higher
than 12 feet in height.
Section 9.60.050- This section regulates storage and other accessory buildings and does
not include carports or garages (how about temporary carports).
Section 9.60.060- The code allows 14 foot maximum height limit for detached garages,
17 feet for attached garages, and 28 feet for two story garages (with dwelling unit above).
Section 9.60.130- Recreational vehicles. Rec. vehicles can't be stored on the street for
more than 72 consecutive or combined hours during a 7 day period. Recreational
vehicles may not be parked in the front yard in RVL, RL, or RM. Recreational vehicles
are allowed in the side yard with a 6 foot screening fence. No storage is allowed on
commercial properties.
Section 9.100.050- storage areas must be screen from public views.
City Council Minutes of October 15, 2002
• Mrs. Turner looking for alternatives suggestions to provide shade for vehicles...
• Staff said that these structures are currently allowed behind their respective
setbacks...
• Are retractable awnings allowed?
• Look at retractable awnings as an option.
• Find a reasonable and logical solution
• City Attorney said you have to change the code, but cannot approve the proposed
shade structure
tx
JeatCregulagons:to'keep property•values at a reasonable leve
enforceable` c 1.
•
should be
•
ecovewithin the setback area.
•