Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-C Public CommentAnthony Mejia From: Maureen Erbe <maureen@erbeblackham.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 4:07 PM To: Flinn Fagg; Anthony Mejia Cc: Llubi Rios Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval, 585 Camino Calidad NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. To Whom it May Concern, My name is Maureen Erbe, I have been a Board Member of Modernism Week for 8 years, I curate the home tours, and am an advocate for architecture and preservation in Palm Springs. I was hoping to speak personally at Thursday evening's City Council Meeting but will be traveling back from New York City during the meeting. I am long familiar with Lance ODonnell/o2 Architecture's work and have reviewed all documents approved by the Planning Commission for the home at 585 Camino Calidad. From my perspective as the MW home tour curator I fully support the design on this exciting home and anticipate it will be among the most sought after in the coming years. The most admirable feature of this home is how Mr. O'Donnell, a Coachella Valley native, weaves the best of the local world renowned experimental Mid Century Modern architectural legacy into a trajectory that includes zero net energy at the highest levels of sustainability. Without new modern homes from o2 and other innovative architects the legacy of Mid -Century Modern architecture, Palm Springs and the Coachella Valley would forever lose one of its most cherished cultural assets and with it its ability to be both innovative and optimistic. I trust our City Council will understand our City's storied legacy and approved this refined example of modern architecture --it will be an asset to the neighborhood, the city, and the Valley. Many Thanks, Maureen Erbe Maureen Erbe 1 626-622-1112 maureen@erbeblackham.com MODERNISM WEEK I Board of Directors FOLLOW US LIKE US I @erbe_blackham INSTAGRAM FACEBOOK I YOUTUBE erbeblackham.com I deasV pennerpodleV.com jD12$�20Z( ITEM NO. C-" Anthony Mejia From: Lance O'Donnell <lance@o2arch.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 7:30 PM To: Flinn Fagg; Anthony Mejia; Llubi Rios Cc: Jeff Bicknell; Chad Dyer; Tenah Dyer; marc@hommelaw.net; Alex Perez Subject: 585 Camino Calidad Appeal - Response Letter & Exhibits for Circulation Attachments: 585 Camino Calidad Appeal - Response Letter - 10.26.21.pdf; 585 Camino Calidad - Solar Shading Exhibit.pdf, Dyer Residence - Roof Deck Sightline to North_REV.pdf, Recessed Garage Exhibit.pdf NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Flinn, Anthony & Llubi, Attached please find our Response Letter & Exhibits for Circulation to City Council. Thank you all in advance. Best Regards, Lance C. O'Donnell, AIA o2 Architecture 1089 N. Palm Canyon Drive, Suite 6 Palm Springs, CA 92262 lance(cDo2arch.com www.o2arch.com 760.778.8165 p. A ^r0 , Corn��r�- UEM NO. C 02Architecture October 26, 2021 Flinn Fagg Development Services Director Anthony Mejia City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Proposed 5,854-Square Foot Single Family Residence at 585 Camino Calidad (APN 513-260-028) Case NO.3.4224-MAJ City Council Appeal Hearing on October 28, 2021 at 5:30 PM Dear Mr. Flagg and Mr. Mejia, Our office represents Chad and Tenah Dyer (the "Applicants") whose application to construct a 5,874 square foot single family residence at 585 Camino Calidad received unanimous approval from the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) on June 21, 2021 and from the Planning Commission (PC) on September 1, 2021. An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed with the City Clerk on September 15, 2021 by Howard Hyman (the "Appellant", represented by Bruce T. Bauer Esq.) who resides at 525 Camino Calidad, the property to the North of the Applicant's parcel. We respectfully submit this letter and request that it be circulated to all pertinent parties including City Councilmembers. This letter consists of two parts, the first of which directly responds to the three specific items cited as basis for the appeal. While we believe these responses alone are sufficient evidence for the City Council to uphold the approval, we find it necessary to include the second part as response to the Appellant's letter dated October 20, 2021. We shall make it clear in this response that the Appellant's letter contains only opinion, numerous inaccuracies, and is not supported by the facts nor any expert testimony or relevant exhibits. PART ONE: RESPONSE TO APPEAL ITEMS (1) The project should not contain underground parking which will entail an enormous disruption to the surrounding neighbors during construction and is unprecedented in the surrounding neighborhoods. It will include the removal of 1,352 cubic yards of soil (approximately 140 truckloads) and will require the house height to be raised by 2 feet and pushed back by 7 feet, thereby obscuring the views of adjacent homeowners. Response: There is no ordinance in the Palm Springs Municipal Code that prohibits a partially underground or basement garage with living area above within hillside developments. There is a strong precedent in the neighborhood of ten homes within a one quarter mile radius that have this configuration (see attached "Recessed Garage Exhibit", also included in Attachment #10 to City Council Staff Report); it is an appropriate design response to the sloping, undulating topography of the area. It should be noted that the term "underground parking" can be misleading in light of the fact that the proposed garage floor is only twelve inches below the street level at the centerline of the driveway. The design as originally proposed (which had the building pad elevation higher than that ultimately approved) integrated gracefully with the site's existing topography and would have resulted in just 267 cubic yards (approximately 30 truckloads) of exported soil. However, during the entitlement review process, the City Engineering staff suggested, and the Planning Commission approved, that the building pad elevation be lowered two feet (arrived at by averaging the elevations of seven surrounding parcels) which will result in 1,352 cubic yards (approximately 140 truckloads) of exported soil during construction. To be clear, the volume of exported soil that is the result of the garage being located "underground" is only 253 cubic yards, or nineteen percent of the total export required due to the imposed lowering of the building pad. Furthermore, the approved pad elevation of 527.50' stands regardless of whether the project includes underground parking or not. This lowering necessitated the building be moved West, toward the rear of the property four feet to minimize the degree of downward slope from curb to garage. The building as now proposed to be sited is well within the required setbacks (ten feet away from the rear setback) and has negligible impact on existing view corridors for adjacent homeowners. In addition, the Appellant whose home is located to the North of the proposed project, stated in a letter dated August 30, 2021 that... "My primary views are to the West and North, not South". Despite this statement, the proposed home was moved Westward only four feet instead of seven as initially proposed in order to maintain the Appellants view Southward toward Tahquitz Canyon. (2) The house contains a rooftop deck that is not keeping with the history, privacy and character of the neighborhood. Response: The roof deck as proposed conforms with all City zoning regulations and there is no ordinance in the Palm Springs Municipal Code that prohibits roof top decks as has been cited in the City's staff report for the project. Planning Commissioner Lauri Aylaian aptly stated during public hearing on September 1st, "If the City wanted to prohibit roof 2 decks, it would have been codified long ago." (see excerpt from Meeting Minutes contained in Attachment #7 to City Council Staff Report). Careful design consideration has been given to ensure privacy of adjacent homeowners is not impacted; the guardrail walls on the South and West sides (those closest to adjacent properties) are 5-9" above the deck level eliminating any possibility of a direct line of sight between deck occupants and adjacent properties. Mr. Robert Hawley, who resides at 587 Camino Calidad, immediately to the South, the property closest and therefore potentially the most impacted by the roof deck, has offered his support of the roof deck (see "Email from Mr. Hawley, Attachment #9 to City Council Staff Report) The Appellant, Mr. Hyman, who's property is located to the North, ninety-eight feet away from the proposed roof deck, will have no privacy impact as there will be no line of sight between his property and the roof deck because it will be blocked by the primary bedroom and main living wing of the Applicant's proposed home (see attached "Roof Deck Sightline to North _REV" exhibit, also included in Attachment #10 to City Council Staff Report). The roof deck and inherent privacy concerns were discussed at length during both AAC and PC hearings with both giving unanimous approval. (3) The entire scale of the house, along with proposed stand-alone casita, is too large for the neighborhood and is monolithic in its scale. Response: Building "scale" is regulated by the Palm Springs Municipal Code via limitation on the percentage of lot coverage (building footprint relative to total lot area) as well as maximum allowable building height. The allowable lot coverage in the R-1-A zone is thirty percent. The project as proposed has a lot coverage of twenty-three percent, identical to that of the Appellants home to the North as well as the existing home to the South (source: archived documents related to cases 3.3771-MAJ/7.1438-AMM and 3.3772-MAJ/7.1439- AMM publicly available on City website, www.palmspring sca.gov). In terms of building height, the proposed project conforms with the City's hillside development ordinances. Furthermore, despite the approved main floor elevation being five feet above that of the Appellant's home to the North, the highest portion of the proposed home's roof (the small portion at the stairwell) will be just three- and one-half feet higher than the Appellant's roof and the majority of the proposed home's roof will be less than twelve inches higher than the Appellant's roof, significantly lower than might be expected given the difference in floor elevations and six feet lower than the allowable building height for hillside development; twenty-four feet proposed versus thirty feet allowable per PSMC 94.06.01(A)(10). At 5,219 square feet of living area, the proposed home is larger than the average of approximately 4,200 square feet for the eight existing homes on Camino Calidad, but smaller than the largest which is 5,574 square feet (source: www.Zillow.com) 3 PART TWO: RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S LETTER DATED OCTOBER 20, 2021 We understand that infill development can often induce concern or even anxiety for adjacent property owners who have enjoyed the benefits of the open space. While we take the concerns of neighboring residents seriously, many of the complaints put forth by the Appellant appear to be rooted in fear of changes the proposed development will bring and based upon basic misunderstandings of relevant facts and procedures. In light of this, we would like to address the inaccuracies contained in the letter and to explain some of the more nuanced aspects of the proposed project as well as the City's review process: 1. HOME SIZE: The letter incorrectly states twice that the proposed project contains "6,672 square feet of approved living space", a figure arrived at by counting the detached casita twice and by incorrectly including the rooftop deck as well as the garage. The following is the City's definition of living area: "Living area" means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements, attics and mezzanines, but does not include a garage or non -habitable accessory structure. (PSMC 91.00.10) Per this definition, the proposed project contains 5,219 square feet of living area. The 5,846 square foot figure listed on the project application is the total enclosed building area, which includes the garage. 2. AMOUNT OF ON -SITE PARKING: The letter's introduction states that the proposed project contains "...only two parking stalls in an area where overnight parking on the street is prohibited." There is no ordinance in the Palm Springs Municipal Code that prohibits overnight parking on Camino Calidad. It is within the City's authority to determine the minimum amount of on -site parking a project requires and it is the Applicant's prerogative to determine if and how much parking above that is desired. It is not the Appellant's role to impose how much parking they think the project should have. The two -car garage included in the proposed project complies with the City requirement for two covered parking spaces for single family residences, PSMC 93.06.00(D)(31). There is no City requirement for more than two covered parking spaces, regardless of number of bedrooms. Furthermore, the City's property development standards for R-1 zones (PSMC 92.01.03) require garages to be located no less than twenty-five feet from the property line, arguably to accommodate additional parking in front of the garage without encroaching into the public way. The project as currently proposed has the garage located thirty-nine feet from the edge of the existing sidewalk, meaning there is sufficient length (and width) within the proposed driveway for four additional vehicles when parked tandem (and side by side), based on standard nine -foot by eighteen -foot parking space dimensions, without encroaching into the public way. To summarize, six vehicles could be parked on the project site before street parking (which is not prohibited) need be utilized. 3. PAD ELEVATION AND EXCAVATION: The letter frequently relies on an essential misunderstanding about the building height and the cause for the amount of excavation by mistakenly linking the underground parking configuration to the building pad elevation. To be clear, the building pad elevation of 527.50' that was 4 suggested by the City Engineering Department and approved by the Planning Commission was for the main building level and is based upon an average of the seven nearest surrounding parcels elevations. This approved elevation applies even if the lower -level garage were to be removed from the project. The Appellant appears to believe that eliminating the underground parking would result in both lower building height and significantly less excavation. Neither are true; the building height would remain unchanged and the amount of excavation and exported soil would reduce by only the volume of the garage, nineteen percent of the total amount. The Appellant recommends as a "Possible Remediation Action" that the pad elevation be lowered two more feet to 525.50' without understanding that this would double the amount of excavation required from 140 to 300 truckloads of exported soil, or from 110 to 270 truckloads without the underground parking. 4. AMM PROCESS IS NOT A "VARIANCE": The Appellant makes frequent reference to what they refer to as a "maximum floor height variance". There is no variance being sought by the Applicants for this project. We worked with City staff to arrive at an agreed upon building pad elevation and the project is in full conformance with that elevation. There exist within the City's Municipal Code development standards that apply to all properties and there exist limited allowable exceptions to those development standards for properties designated as hillside. City review of proposed hillside projects that request to utilize any of these exceptions are required to be reviewed via an AMM (Administrative Minor Modification) application. This is a routine part of the process that is employed during the vast majority of hillside project reviews. This project includes the AMM application to request approval for the height of the building that is necessitated by the sloping terrain. The Appellant is likely not aware that City review of his own home at 525 Camino Calidad as well as the similar home located at 587 Camino Calidad which was constructed by the same developer each entailed AMM applications to allow for increased building heights above what the R-1-A zone allows. 5. OTHER ITEMS: Below are brief responses to other concerns cited in the letter: a. Impact or damage caused by excavation work to existing adjacent structures: A soils report by a licensed geotechnical engineer has been obtained (see LCI Report No.: LP20165 dated November 12, 2020 prepared by LandMark Geo-Engineers and Geologists) for the project and the recommendations contained therein shall be adhered to. Given the distances between the proposed and existing buildings, there is no evidence or reason to believe that the proposed project presents any greater cause for concern to adjacent property owners than would any other home being constructed on the project site. 5 b. Safety concems due to "backup driveway": There is no evidence or reason to believe that this project presents any greater cause for safety concerns than any other development with a "backup driveway" which is the standard design for the vast majority of single-family residences. The Appellant's letter conflates backing out of the proposed driveway with emerging from an underground parking garage, when in fact, the proposed driveway's lowest point is just eighteen inches lower than the sidewalk and the garage floor is just twelve inches below the street level at the driveway centerline. c. Shading impact on solar power generation due to building height: A solar study for the project has been completed (see enclosed "Solar Shading Exhibit") that illustrates the location of the proposed building's shadow during various times of day on December 21, the Winter Solstice, when the Sun is lowest in the sky. The exhibit shows clearly that the shadow does not reach the base of the Appellants Southern wall, let alone the roof or solar panel locations. In conclusion, while the Appellant's letter describes this projects approval to be a "slippery slope" toward subsequent development that includes aspects they find disagreeable, the truer slippery slope would be to allow the dislikes of a misinformed neighbor outweigh the decisions of qualified members of the Planning Commission and of the Architectural Advisory Committee and to infringe upon the rights of property owners to construct development that is in full accordance with well -established City ordinances. Sincerely, Lance C. O'Donnell, AIA Solar panels 11 1 Existing Residence (525 Camino Calidad) Building shadow line 7 ML\11111 7jr Proposed Residence (586 Camino Calidad) Sun condition at 9:00am on December 21 Winter Solstice) - Altitude = 21 degrees, Heading = 140 degrees SE Solar panels Building shadow line \1 Existing Residence (525 Camino Calidad) Proposed Residence; 85 Camino Calidad) Sun condition at 12:00pm on December 21 Winter Solstice) - Altitude = 33 degrees, Heading = 184 degrees S Solar panels Building shadow line R Existing Residence (525 Camino Calidad) Proposed Residence (585 Camino Calidad) 1 J Sun condition at 3:00pm on December 21 (Winter Solstice) - Altitude ll= 16 degrees, Heading = 226 degrees SW 1 SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT TITLE 02 Architecture SOLAR SHADING STUDY DYER RESIDENCE 1089 N. PALMC ANYON DR., STE. B SCALE: NOT TO SCALE 585 CAMINO CALIDAD PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 TEL. 760 . 7788165 DATE: 10.21.21 PALM SPRINGS, CA 82262 FAX 760 . 406.. 7946 EMAIL otfic @02—h— LZ'OVOL :31va LD Z9ZZ6 VO'SONINdS VOYd 'S'I*N:31VOS (3V(31-IVO ONIVYVO 999 AAMA NVId 31lS 30N30IS31:11:13AG 1181HX3 NOUVA313 (]Vd 31111133r02ld NOUNDS30 133HS w— � , 6 !V9 III __ is I* o � I 0 J ( i V I m x s. CD a�ti '3 '�� �` ��r[i �' Rw" , ��r �' s+a 3a �! -Sir�4•r, '-: 4. 1 C � !,.'aa.�,!=•���F�� qa_� .` .ii-r�� .1. .+� mil. y 3. •. '• •` iF� • i wd TA • iq4 A,« f tz �.i:rr��Q aw 4' vt IL Ai CL C r r ell Ale VF ad Anthony Mejia From: Williams <sidneygg@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 9:18 PM To: Anthony Mejia Subject: Agenda item 2c Attachments: City Council- Lance Oct. 27.docx NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Hello Anthony, Would you kindly read thes comments into the public hearing on agenda item 20 Its so delayed. Thanks, Sidney Williams I� J-2,6 I'-VV 'Pu bl I ( comvReA— TTEM AI D. 2 City Council- Oct. 27, 2021 Good evening Mayor, City Council, and Staff. I am SW, retired curator of A+D at the PSAM would like to speak in support of Lance O'Donnell's Dyer Residence located at 525 Camino Calidad. We are fortunate in Palm Springs to have some outstanding architects who are designing exceptional commercial and residential projects and Lance is one of this select group. He is well aware of our architectural legacy of excellence and strives to further that tradition. As a fourth -generation resident of the Coachella Valley Lance understands the climate and the environment and designs with this knowledge in mind. I am familiar with his many projects over a more than a twenty-year period and I am always impressed by the variety of creative solutions he achieves. The recipient of several AIA awards, Lance's design for the Dyer Residence will surely receive that level of recognition. Moreover, as an architect -designed project it will enhance the neighborhood and likely increase the value of the surrounding homes. Both the Planning Commission and the AAC approved the project unanimously and their expert judgment should be upheld. Since Lance is so experienced in building in Palm Springs, is familiar with the zoning laws, building codes, and the requirements of building on a hillside lot, I applaud his design and urge you to reject the Appellant's appeal. Thank you for your consideration.