Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MISC 19-0043 73142 Crosby Lane - Haws and Friedman
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: March 12, 2020 PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner REQUEST: Consideration to uphold the Architectural Review Commission decision to approve a new single-family residence with a maximum roof height of 18 feet for a portion of the home located at 73-142 Crosby Lane within Ironwood Country Club. Recommendation By Minute Motion, request that the City Council affirm the action of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approving a new 3,598-square-foot single-family home with roof heights varying from 16 feet to a maximum of 18 feet in height. Architectural Review Commission Action At its regular meeting of January 14, 2020 the ARC considered the applicant's request to approve a new single-family home with a maximum roof height of 18 feet. Staff presented the plans and stated that staff has the ability to approve, over the counter, homes at 15 feet in height or lower. The ARC may grant exceptions for homes to allow a maximum roof height of 18 feet, with projections such as chimneys above 18 feet. Staff stated that the adjacent neighbor to the southwest (Friedmans) were opposed to the applicant's request as noted in their letter dated January 8, 2020 stating that the proposal is in violation of zoning regulations, and will have a significant negative impact on potential enjoyment and market value of their property. Staff presented photos taken by the Friedman's property, and the architectural elevations of the proposed home. The ARC discussed the project and the opposing neighbor's comments. The Commission discussed the line of sight and stated that the home, in terms of mass, is set back from the neighbor's property and would not be a hindrance to them enjoying their property, especially since the neighbor's lot is approximately three to four feet higher than the applicant's lot. The Commissioners also stated that architectural design of the home is attractive and the variation in roof heights compliments the architecture. The ARC found that the project complied with all applicable zoning requirements and supported the findings, and granted approval with a 6-0-1 vote with Commissioner Lambell absent. Strateqic Plan The request for review does not implement any specific goals of the Strategic Plan. Executive Summary The applicant received approval from the ARC to construct a new 3,598-square-foot home with a maximum roof height of 18 feet in height for a portion of the home, with extended March 12, 2020 — City Council Staff Report Case No. MISC19-0043 — Haws Residence Page 2 of 4 chimneys above 18 feet that meet the zoning code. The adjacent neighbor (the Friedmans) filed an application to appeal the ARC decision to the City Council. The Friedmans outlined their position in their letters dated January 8 and March 2, 2020. Approval of staffs recommendation will reaffirm the ARC's decision of approval. The ARC determined that the applicant complied with all applicable zoning requirements, and supported the findings per Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 25.68.040 Findings of the ARC as summarized in the Project Analysis section of this report. Backqround Analvsis A. Property Description The project site is a 23,000-square foot flag lot located within Ironwood Country Club. This property along with the surrounding properties on Crosby Lane, JFK Trail, Heather Court, Sunrose Lane, and Della Robbia Lane are the only properties zoned Residential Single Family (R-1), 20,000. The remaining properties within Ironwood Country Club are zoned Planned Residential (PR). Access to said property is off of Crosby Lane through a shared driveway. B. Zoning and General Plan Designation Zone: Residential Single Family (R-1), 20,000 General Plan: Conventional Suburban Neighborhood C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use North: PR-7 units per acre/Single-family home South: R-1, 20,000/Single-family home East: PR-7 units per acre/Single-family home West: R-1, 20,000/Single-family home Proiect Description The proposed 3,598-square-foot single-family residence includes three -bed rooms/bath, two - car garage, kitchen, dining room, great room, and exercise room. The property outdoors includes a large front entry courtyard, outdoor dining area, swimming pool, and fire pit. The building roof heights range from 14 feet to 18 feet, with extended chimneys above 18 feet. The project architecture features a contemporary desert theme with undulating elevation and roof plans with a strong projection of horizontal lines to help shade the building from the sun. The architectural style also incorporates flat parapet rooflines, angular shapes, architectural pop - outs, large eaves, recessed windows, warm neutral earth tone colors, and thick architectural elements. The building design with angular shapes, large architectural pop -outs, and recessed windows provide interest and movement throughout the building on all four sides. March 12, 2020 — City Council Staff Report Case No. MISC19-0043 — Haws Residence Page 3 of 4 Public Input Building heights over 15 feet from grade require a hearing and approval from the ARC. The process includes public notices to the surrounding property owners in advance of the ARC meeting. On January 8, 2020 staff received a letter in opposition from the adjacent neighbor to the southwest (Friedman's) stating that the proposal is in violation of zoning regulations, and will have a significant negative impact on potential enjoyment and market value of their property. After the ARC's decision to approve the proposed building height, the Friedmans submitted an application to appeal the ARC's decision to the City Council. Attached to this staff report is an updated letter dated, March 2, 2020. Analysis The home has an overall roof height of 18 feet from grade, with chimneys extending above 18 feet, which conforms to the maximum building height within the R-1, 20,000 zoning district. However, new homes over 15 feet in height require approval by the ARC. Otherwise, the proposed home complies with all development standards, including maximum lot coverage and setbacks, listed for the zoning district. The ARC must make specific findings in order to support the approval of a single-family residence over 15 feet in height. These findings include: That the proposed development conforms to any legally adopted development standards. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; and that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or proposed developments and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by this title and the general plan of the City. 4. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures, and colors. 5. That the proposed use conforms to all the requirements of the zone in which it is located and all other applicable requirements. 6. That the overall development of the lands shall be designed to ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. March 12, 2020 — City Council Staff Report Case No. MISC19-0043 — Haws Residence Page 4 of 4 At its regular meeting of January 14, 2020, the ARC made the above findings as the proposed home conforms to all development standards contained in the City's zoning code. The proposed building is consistent with the development of the surrounding area as the existing homes to the west and south were built at 18 feet in height. Additionally, the Homeowners' Association approved the proposed height request. The main massing of the home is 14 feet in height with changes in the building elevation ranging from 16 feet to 18 feet for a small portion. The proposed lot is also three to four feet lower than the surrounding properties; therefore, the neighbors will not be looking at a true 18-foot structure. The home occupies a small percentage of the lot at 16 percent compared to the maximum of 35 percent (the lot coverage could increase to 50 percent with ARC approval). This creates open space and relief throughout the property to help preserve neighboring property viewing corridors. The design of the home and materials used are consistent with surrounding homes. The home does not create new traffic hazards and does not negatively impact the surrounding area, public health, safety or the general welfare. Environmental Review This project has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has found this project to be categorically exempt, under Class 32: In -fill Development Projects, of the CEQA. Because of the categorical exemption, no further environmental review is necessary. LEGAL REVIEW N/A DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW N/A Robert W. Hargreaves Ryan Stendell Janet Moore City Attorney Director of Comm. Dev. Director of Finance City Manager Lauri Aylaian: APPLICANT: Lynn Haws 73109 Crosby Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 ASSISTANT CITY MANA�ER 04- Andy Fires in ` Assistant C Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. ARC Meeting Minutes dated January 14, 2020 2. Appeal Application 3. Letters from Friedman's dated January 8 and March 2, 2020 4. Applicant Exhibits ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 detail. Commissioner Vuksic said he was sure the architect will come up with something and if you send the changes to staff before the next meeting that will help a lot. Chair Van Wet reminded the Commission there was a motion for continuance. It was moved and seconded and the vote was taken. ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved to continue Case MISC 20-0002 to allow the applicant to submit an alternative design solution for the missing cornice details, which were shown on the approved plans and elevations. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by a 5-0-1-1 vote, with Levin, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Wet, and Vuksic voting YES, McAuliffe abstaining and Lambell absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 19-0043 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: LYNN HAWS, 73-109 Crosby Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve construction of a new single-family residence with a maximum roof height of 18'. LOCATION: 73-142 Crosby Lane ZONE: R-1 20,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a request for a height exception to build a new 3,598 square -foot single-family residence with a maximum roof height of 16'-8", and architectural projections up to 18'. The property is located behind the gates of Ironwood Country Club (Ironwood), and sits on a flag lot. Per section 25.10 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC), the maximum height for a structure in single-family residential zones is 18'. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) may grant exceptions to allow a maximum roof height of 18' based on design merit. The proposed home complies with all development standards, including maximum lot coverage and setbacks. He presented renderings and described the architectural styie. He pointed out that most of the roof height is 16' with a portion, in a rectangular area, at 18', as well as the chimneys, which are allowed. He said the HOA has approved this project. Staff Is in favor of approving the proposed rooffine of 16'-8", and architectural projections at 18' as the home is sufficiently setback from surrounding properties. In addition, the height provides variation In the rooflines and o:vr. Uv%k JudPRa1MWaft zoz0=11.min.d= Page 12 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 adds architectural interests to the home. Mr. Swartz said staff is recommending approval. Mr. Swartz stated that staff received one letter from a neighbor opposing the project along with photos taken by the neighbor from various spots on their property. He explained that the neighbor's argument is that they will lose their mountain views and reminded the Commission that the new home will be 4' lower. The Commission and staff reviewed and discussed the photos and the unprotected views. Commissioner Levin said most of the roof height is 16' with a few areas at 16'. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the line -of -site and said it could be right "in your face" but this house, in terms of the mass, is set way back from the neighbor's property. Commissioner Schmid asked for the code regarding roof height exceptions. Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, said there is no ordinance that protects someone's view, however there is an ordinance that, at the Commission's discretion, you can go above 15' up to 18' in height for this zone. Mr. Swartz pointed out that these lots have greater setbacks and this home will be 4' below the neighboring home. Chair Van Vliet said the Commission looks at the architectural style of the house and where the height overage is located, and in this case most of the house is only 16' high with a lot of open space. He liked the architecture of the house and said it was good-looking. MS. LYNN HAWS, property homeowner, said there is only one narrow element that is above the height limit which is the spine wall that hits the 18% as well as the chimneys. Commissioner McIntosh said the plans call out for a roof -top deck. Mr. Ceja said the prohibition of roof decks came about in 2011. Mr. Swartz said they had discussions with the applicant regarding this because the renderings show a stairwell which the applicant said would be used to access roof -top solar panels. Commissioner McIntosh said this would be a privacy Issue with neighbors. Mr. Swartz stated that the stairs are only for access to the solar panels. Commissioner Vuksic wondered if the structural engineer was engineering this for a large load. Mr. Swartz stated that they will look into this but pointed out again that the City does not allow roof decks. Commissioner Schmid said from the profile of the neighbor, there is only a small projection at 18', as well as the chimneys. Commissioner McIntosh said it would have been helpful to have poles for the line -of -site study rather than the black line on the neighbors photos and didn't see a problem with the building height. Commissioner Schmid made a motion to approve and Commissioner McIntosh made the second. Chair Van Vliet asked for any further comments. Commissioner Vuksic was still concerned that the plans were designed to have a roof deck and does not state that this is for solar access. o:ww,�row�wJu&taaaJ %2na vi4nin.d= Page 13 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 Mr. Ceja reminded the Commission that the code prohibits roof decks and today's review is strictly on building height. He said staff will work this out with the applicant. Chair Van Vliet called for the vote. ACTION: Commissioner Schmid moved to approve with the exception of the roof deck as prohibited per code. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Wet, and Vuksic voting YES and Lambell absent. 2. CASE NOS: PP 19-0005 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: JOSH & ViVIAN STOMEL, 74-218 Alessandro Drive, Palm Desert CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve converting an existing two-(2) unit apartment complex to a 7-unit apartment complex. LOCATION: 74-218 Alessandro Drive ZONE: DE-O Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a request for a new 7-unit apartment complex on Alessandro Drive. He said this is an existing 9,900 square -foot two -unit apartment complex with a pool and zoned Downtown Overlay. The applicant wanted to do something per the zone as the City is encouraging a little more density in this area with buildings closer to the street and access directly to the sidewalk. The applicant is proposing to leave the pool in its current location, relocate the front parking to the back, add a two-story building with four units, rehab one existing building, and expand on another unit in the back. He presented renderings and explained the project. He pointed out an existing driveway that is currently 12' wide that has now been expanded to 18', which is the lowest amount that Fire and Public Works is willing to approve. The applicant tried to work with the neighbor to have a shared driveway but this was unsuccessful. The driveway will lead to seven (7) parking stalls. Each unit has one -bedroom and will range in size from 455 square feet to 628 square feet. He presented color renderings of the elevations and passed around the color board. He said this requires a Precise Plan and will move forward to the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending approval. Chair Van Wet referred to the 18' wide drive aisle and said it was unfortunate because of all the hardscape that will be visible coming up against the wall on the left and the building on the right. He suggested having a planter in that area. Mr. Swartz stated that at one time, staff suggested 14' with a planter. Mr. Swartz said from a safety standpoint there G:wi„*OJannIJut*�l s=W=114„w,.dm Page 14 of 17 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA APPLICATION TO APPEAL s DECISION OF THEE r� Des,rf A✓rhi f'�,fyial Revue-�l GOMM'. a 1 (Name of Determining Body) ARc CaSc# M(S� i� - 00'43 Case No. Bui(AMA Pe.,mif-* r.y-j1Date of Decision:.DI-ILF �.Zoro -:; Name of Appellant . a Phone f (�� q l4—,2.S411 J nifey- L.. i riedt-kan, MD Address __,3 1, vW Drive,, shore (iYiP. NA eNIli Description of Application or Matter Considered:- are, aD 31_ ; T-4�e- Ar Zs Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessary): The AV, im f ro I alloys an t, -I ke iant rn-0-r r�llstri s�,e.1 oJr le�� �ti ta�� eov ew,, as QbLw5 of -%e ;mm�cc�a+p l�r ad��cen� r,T Iy ar t ia,wra! ih� 0n5 in Pb ��,e�, l°h 25.ee8,e�eko •Y 25,+71,0}O.U�. At J A �-liu, structure V�VlafQ3 6+6 -f•h� loiter aM in-P�h cry c -i-y enn, n i -}�nn� �n ,I J� c9 5ghi�i a�2 n �,aiJ� imno�X on ��1'�.rr{ t' 1! e�n�vThFnt a rYl M rV,-,* vc1I tte 04 oL- PC'n'P-C-rt' y, (Sdnature of Appellant) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Appeal Filed: Fee Received: Treasurer's Receipt No. Received by: Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk H'rV!assen,WPfit7NNP000SVFO.a MS%ACV to vweal..vVd Rev 6 29,02 March 2, 2020 Palm Desert City Council c/o Mr. Kevin Swartz Palm Desert City Hall Planning Department 73510 Fred Waring Dr Palm Desert, CA 92260 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL RE: Architectural Review Commission (ARC) Case # MISC 19-0043 Appeal of ARC approval of an exception to Zone R-1 height restrictions (Permit # RESI-19-0066) Dear Council Members: We appreciate the opportunity to appeal the ARC's approval of an exception to Zone 1 height restrictions for the proposed structure at 73142 Crosby Lane in the Ironwood community. As we stated in our attached appeal application, by allowing this exception, the ARC improperly dismissed our legitimate concerns as owners of the immediately adjacent property -- concerns that are fully supported by Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC), especially Chapters 25.10, 25.68, and 25.72. As we explain below, the commission inappropriately ignored both the letter and intent of city zoning regulations in its decision -making process. Moreover, the city's processing of this building permit was unacceptably flawed from the start. As taxpaying citizens who have owned three properties in the city of Palm Desert, we trust the City Council will review our appeal in accordance with its obligations and give our concerns the fair hearing they deserve. We have stated clearly from the beginning that we have no opposition to the applicants' obvious right to build on their property — only that the structure fully comply with Palm Desert zoning regulations and that our concerns about the structure are considered fairly. Please review our attached 01/08/20 letter to the ARC, in which we explain in detail how the structure as proposed violates Palm Desert zoning regulations and why its excessive height will have a significant negative impact on the potential use and enjoyment of our property, its future real estate value, and the privileges we are entitled to enjoy as owners of property in Palm Desert. We believe our letter thoroughly explains our concern that the structure at its currently designed height will irreversibly harm our use and enjoyment of our property (protection of "use and enjoyment" explicitly is spelled out in PDMC Chapter 25.68.040.13) by permanently and adversely affecting its already limited views. Importantly, we point out that not only does almost every section of the proposed structure exceed 15 feet, but the design plan specifically calls for an "18'-0" overall building height" (see attached). In fact, there is one 18-foot roof element that is at least 60 feet long. Furthermore, at least four other structural elements extend an estimated one to three feet beyond the "18'-0" overall building height" (i.e. as high as 21 feet). By way of brief background, the property in question is located in a section of Ironwood zoned as R-1. PDMC Chapter 25,10.050 imposes a maximum building height of 15 feet in Zone R-1. Proposals with heights greater than 15 feet require referral to the ARC. Only after satisfying six specific criteria (see below), the ARC may approve such proposals. The Planning Department is responsible for reviewing submitted plans and making referrals to ARC as required. ! nadman - Pig;? 2 of e Not only were our concerns tossed aside by the ARC, but the city's management of this permit application was marked by mistakes and inappropriate handling from the outset. Please see below: 1) In mid -November, we learned from city planning staff that the initial plans received only a brief "over-the-counter" review by the Planning Department and were improperly forwarded directly to planning review without referral for ARC design review as required by city code. This was a clear and unacceptable violation of a very important procedure. This should not have happened. It was only after we caught this mistake and began to express our concerns that the plans were reviewed properly and then referred to the ARC (see the attached notice postmarked 12/27/19). 2) The ARC's review process was deeply flawed, as shown in the attached meeting minutes: The minutes incorrectly state that the ARC "may grant exceptions to allow a maximum roof height of 18' based on design merit". Rather, PDMC Chapter 25.68.040 requires ARC to approve design reviews only after making six specific findings — not simply "design merit". Given the seriousness and legitimacy of our concerns about the proposed structure, the ARC was particularly inattentive to its responsibility to evaluate the impact of the structure on: (1) the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; (2) the use and enjoyment of neighboring developments; and (3) whether the structure would provide a desirable environment... for its neighbors". Indeed, ARC's dismissive treatment of our concerns suggests either that the members did not receive our letter or did not bother to even read it prior to the meeting. The minutes quote applicant Lynn Haws' explanation that "there is only one narrow element... above the height limit which is the spine wall that hits the 18', as well as the chimneys". This mispresents the true character of this 60-foot long "spine wall" as well as the four 21-foot "chimneys", all of which easily could be redesigned to comply with the R-1 code. What Ms. Haws failed to explain accurately is the notation on the Roof Plan that the outdoor stairwell is "for house and pool solar access and maintenance". We believe this notation was intentional and is disingenuous, as the stairs actually lead to an illegal roof deck as discovered by Commissioner Vuksic. We share the commissioner's concern about the illegal roof deck and its deceptive description in the plans. Because we are concerned that other concealed, non -compliant elements will be built, we ask you to require a written declaration from the applicant and her general contractor stating that no such non -code elements will be constructed. Associate Planner Kevin Swartz repeatedly misrepresented the actual height of the structure, stating at least twice that the "maximum roof height [is] 16'-8" [with] architectural projections up to 18"'. This statement is incorrect and is particularly misleading in that it: (1) flatly ignores the explicit notation of an "18'-0" overall roof height" in the building plans; (2) diminishes the actual size of the 18-foot "architectural projection" that is in fact a 60-foot-long "wall" and is actually a part of the roof; and (3) fails to point out that the four 21-foot chimneys significantly exceed the 18-foot height limit required in Zone R-1. Both the 18-foot roof "wall" and the 21-foot chimneys easily could be redesigned to comply with R-1 code. ..,.. 11140 - n, !' . c+ a We were taken aback by Mr. Swartz's statement in the minutes that "staff is recommending approval" of the proposed plans. In none of our many discussions with Mr. Swartz did he inform us that his department planned to recommend approval of the plans. In fact, he repeatedly assured us that he would represent our interests thoroughly and fairly in his report to the commission — and clearly he did not. Not only did he fail to represent us fairly, but by manipulating and delegitimizing our concerns, his false report convinced the commission to issue an inappropriate decision that completely disregarded our concerns. Had we known he would blatantly misrepresent us in this matter, we would have traveled to Palm Desert to address the commission in person. In his presentation, Mr. Swartz stated that "the neighbor's argument is that they will lose their mountain views". Mr. Swartz completely missed the essence of our argument and misrepresented our concerns to the ARC. Our argument centers on a single, simple concept — that regulations exist for a reason and should be enforced accordingly. Our simple request is for the City of Palm Desert to uphold R-1 zoning code as it is written. As the code clearly states, exceptions should be granted only after a full and unbiased evaluation of the impact on neighbors -- impacts such as, importantly, interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property or loss of the privileges they are entitled to enjoy as property owners. To convince the ARC to ignore our concerns, Mr. Swartz repeatedly stated that "the new home will be 4' below" our property and is "sufficiently set back from surrounding properties". These statements are both untrue and irrelevant. Supported by photographs (see attached), our letter described how objective measurements proved that our lot's modest elevation does not reduce the view obstruction imposed by the new construction. In fact, the difference in elevation between the two lots varies from 4.0 feet on the south end to 1.5 feet on the north end, which is where the structure comes closest to our property. Indeed, Commissioner Vuksic's observation that the structure "could be right in your face" is correct, especially since our lot would be graded down to the 1.5-foot level before a house could be built. When Commissioner Schmid asked about the code regarding roof height exceptions, Principal Planner Eric Ceja replied "there is no ordinance that protects someone's view". This is absurd. Every homeowner in the desert understands the value and desirability of views and is aware of their impact on home valuation. More to the point and as noted previously, PDMC Chapter 25.68.040 states that to approve a design review application, the ARC shall find: (1) that the design will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing developments; (2) that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; and (3) that the design of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its neighbors. Clearly, the ARC did not uphold its full responsibility for this design review. • Not only did the ARC ignore most of the required criteria for approving zoning exceptions, but its treatment of our concerns also indicates its lack of knowledge or interest in PDMC Chapter 25.72.070.G, which provides important insight applicable to nr•dm•in — papa 4 of 4 the evaluation of any zoning exception request. Specifically, the applicant in this case cannot reasonably claim that: (1) strict interpretation and enforcement of the 15-foot height requirement would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship; (2) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; or (3) strict interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone. In fact, if the city does not strictly enforce the R-1 15-foot height limitation in this case, it would create the exact opposite effect — that is, it would deprive us of the privileges we are entitled by code to enjoy as "owners of other properties". The commission seems unaware or unconcerned that the two properties in question are located within a large group of approximately 53 lots in Ironwood that are specifically zoned as R-1. It seems equally unconcerned about the intent of zoning designations as they are described in PDMC Chapter 25.10.020. Indeed, the members' preoccupation with subjective aesthetics at its meeting ("architectural interest", "he liked the architecture ... and said it was good-looking") is consistent with their inappropriate focus on "design merit" to the exclusion of the other equally important criteria they are mandated to consider. Finally, we anticipate the council will hear arguments minimizing the significance of building another code -violating home of excessive height in the R-1 zone of Ironwood because many others beat the system and got away with it. We believe the information we have submitted will refute this specious argument. Regulations and rules exist for a reason — to protect the general public from the excesses of self-interest. Further, repeatedly and mistakenly allowing exceptions to a rule does not invalidate the rule or justify granting even more exceptions. Simply put, "two wrongs, or three — ten -- forty — do not make a right". Thank you again for allowing us to make this appeal. We trust you will give our concerns a full and thoughtful review and look forward to the opportunity to appear before you at the March 12 council meeting. Sincerely, Jay M. Fri an, D Jen M er L. Friedman, MD Attachments: Appeal Application 01/08/20 Letter to ARC Building Plans City of Palm Desert Notice postmarked 12/27/19 ARC Notice of Action and Meeting Minutes View Photographs Jay M. Friedman, MD Jennifer L. Friedman, MD 3 NW Scenic Dr Shoreline, WA 98177 Telephone (206) 306-9656 Email jmfriedmanmd@att.net January 8, 2020 Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission c/o Kevin Swartz Palm Desert City Hall Planning Department 73510 Fred Waring Dr Palm Desert, CA 92260 NYX*1L*4tff*M14&L1111 RE: Building permit application, 73142 Crosby Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 Permit No. RESI 19-0066 Dear Commission Members: We appreciate the opportunity to present our concerns regarding the above -noted building permit application scheduled for review at the 01/14/20 Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting. We own the adjoining property at 73130 Crosby Lane, immediately west of the proposed building site. We are very concerned that the proposed structure violates both the letter and the intent of City of Palm Desert zoning regulations, and as currently designed will have a significant negative impact on the potential enjoyment of our property as well as on its future real estate market value. We are particularly concerned that the structure's currently designed height will permanently and adversely affect the already limited views from our property. At the outset, we wish to state that our intent is not to oppose the owners' obvious right to build on their property. Our sole interest is that their structure fully comply with Palm Desert Municipal Code zoning requirements. Please note that in November and December 2019, we informed the applicants and their general contractor, Paul Dewey of Sunlite Development, Inc. of our reservations regarding their building plans. Unfortunately, we received no constructive response from them, nor did they display a willingness to seek a mutually agreeable and beneficial compromise. As you know, the properties in question are located in the Ironwood community within a large group of approximately 53 lots zoned as "R-1 20000". Palm Desert Municipal Code zoning regulations state that R-1 structures in the city are limited to a maximum height of 15 feet, with exceptions granted only if several specific conditions are met (see below). In the applicants' currently proposed building plan, not .urdrran— Page 2 d 3 only does almost every section of the building exceed 15 feet, but their design plan specifically calls for an "18'-0" overall building height". Furthermore, at least four significant structures extend an estimated one to three feet beyond the 18-foot overall height (i.e. as high as 21 feet). All of these proposed heights exceed the city's R-1 zoning restriction on maximum building height. We believe the applicants' request for an exception to the R-1 height limit should not be allowed for reasons clearly set forth in municipal code. Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.68.040 states that, "to approve a design review application, the ARC shall find... that... the design ... of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring existing or proposed developments ... will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; and that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or proposed developments ... [and] that the design ... of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for ... it neighbors". These criteria are crucial in our case. Chief among our concerns about the proposed structure is the irreversible loss of our main view corridor caused by the building's excessive height. Both properties are flag lots, and both have essentially one significant view corridor (i.e. the view to the east featuring Mt. Eisenhower — see photos). In fact, we believe this is the reason for the eastern orientation of the proposed home's dining areas, loggia, outdoor living spaces, and pool. As the language in the municipal code implies, the loss of our eastern view corridor inevitably will diminish our property's value, impair the desirability of investment and occupation in the neighborhood, reduce the desirability of the environment for us, and interfere with our use and enjoyment of our property. We evaluated the impact of the proposed structure on our eastern view by standing on our lot and viewing 15, 18, and 21 foot tape measurements placed vertically on the proposed building lot. We confirmed that a 15-foot structure definitely would impact our view, but we accept this because the code permits a 15-foot height. However, at 18 feet, the structure would essentially obliterate our view of the eastern mountains, leaving only the sky and the top of Mt. Eisenhower visible from our property. The 21-foot structural elements in the building plans would only further compromise our view. We had hoped the modestly higher elevation of our lot would reduce the impact of this view obstruction. Unfortunately, these objective measurements proved otherwise -- and render invalid any claims by the applicants or Mr. Dewey that we would maintain a "killer view" (Mr. Dewey's words) if the current design plans are executed. Furthermore, as noted above, Chapter 25.72.070.G. provides explicit conditions for granting exceptions to existing code requirements. None of these conditions exists in this case. Specifically, the applicants cannot reasonably claim that: (1) "strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation [i.e. the 15-foot maximum height requirement] would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship"; (2) "there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone"; or (3) "strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone". In fact, if the city does not fully enforce the R-1 zoning regulations in this case (and specifically the 15-foot height requirement), it would create the exact opposite effect — that is, it would deprive us of the privileges we are entitled to enjoy as "owners of other properties". Fri -dinar — Pdg2 3 of S We also anticipate the applicants will request approval of their current building plans because: (1) the plans were approved previously by the Board of Directors of the Ironwood IX Homeowners' Association (HOA-IX); and (2) the attorney hired by the HOA-IX Board of Directors to review this matter agreed with the Board's decision. (A copy of her 12/05/19 letter was provided to you.) Neither of these arguments has validity or merit for the following reasons. In a November 2019 conversation with a longstanding Ironwood IX homeowner who currently sits on both the Ironwood IX Board of Directors and Architectural Review Committee (ARC), we learned (to our dismay) that the Ironwood IX HOA Board of Directors and ARC ignore the zoning regulations of the City of Palm Desert, and approve or disapprove building plans without acknowledging or considering the city's regulations. Further, we were told by this individual that the HOA-IX Board of Directors and ARC have their own "criteria" for building plan approval — criteria that were developed with no intention to conform to City of Palm Desert building regulations. In this respect, the Ironwood IX Board of Directors operates as if it were above the law, and this is unacceptable. Regarding the HOA-IX attorney's opinion, it should be taken for what it is: the fulfilment of a lawyer's responsibility to promote and protect only the interests of the client, irrespective of facts or regulations that support the other side. Lastly, we anticipate the applicants and their representatives (who likely have self-interest) will minimize the significance of building another 18-21 foot home in the R-1 zone of Ironwood IX because so many others have been able to do the same, citing consistency with existing residential structures in the neighborhood as the justification. We hope the information we have provided will suffice to refute this argument. If not, we would simply submit that "two — three —ten — forty -- wrongs do not make a right". Thank you again for allowing us to present our concerns. We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful evaluation of our reasonable request for fairness and respect for established regulations. Please do not hesitate to contact us at any time if you need additional information or if we can answer any questions you might have. Sincerely, CJ Jay M. Fr eiFr ei dman, MD Jennifer L. Friedman, MD Attachment: View photographs M � + � � '�4 �j= :.� r� R �� s i � .� e' c ,.� :AF Vic, 4� IRONWOOD OWNERS ASSOCIATION IX P.O.BOX 1398 PALM DESERT, CA 92261 760 568-0349 FAX# 760 346-4349 September 6, 2019 City of Palm Desert Building Department This letter is to serve as verification for the design review for new construction of the Haws residence at 73142 Crosby Lane in Association IX (The Highlands) of Ironwood Country Club. The site plan, building elevations and roof plan submitted to the Architectural Review Committee in July 2019 were reviewed and approved. If there are any questions, please email me at david(q)silvercrest.net or call at 760-296- 2204. Sincerely, David er, Architectural Review Committee Chairman Ironwood Owners Association IX (The Highlands) *t \ \ $ y 13) unx a) -0 Q E E ai � _ z,9 m w E ® a -0 g \ \ m J a 0 LL m O 3 LO & 2 �« LD« m " m N / / - 9 2 �o n ~ S ƒ ° 0 » P a w W k 2 Co � % ¢ & & - ~ S / � � \ d 7 ►®A N 2 VL�� \ 3\ o / $ q g \ p2 E 0 # r ol t p o $ 2 Co -Lr) ? \ \ @ / 5 a: / / ° / E / f % 2 2 / 2 \ \ a 4 \ / § ~ ~ L � ^ t trk 2 g / \ q $ p 7 p % N / # / / \ \ n < # r k � ¥ ^ & / ± �" / OF R S_ / ko \ , | $ q o f . � o R 3 R @ $ $ 33N3❑153H N❑21IM I IL Jai :: b�—s_6I L 101 - ❑❑❑MN❑NI 1N3Wd❑13A30 3111Nn a yi i t V) 0 bD 75 BO 0 O p� N W C) J u 0 L 0 ai � u � E uD o L iYi � n a SNOIIVA313 FEE"� 4T" N 0 rH 30N30153H N❑STMI °� l iol - ❑❑❑MNOUI 1N3Wd❑l3R3{i 31liNn5 o I I 1 I II{ ^0 W •V O UO i�^ 75 m JJo l� w -o m E a� � u. n a IN r-i SNO11YA313 _ _ - --- � ao1a31x3 � N 4" f O CV U1 I I z 0 a w a 9 W u1 zo i c a v � N Ou C 07 w Q v U L a O = u w v, 00 ❑ E rn m ❑ n a t GOOAANM:111 sNO11VAT13 aoia3ix3 ; aouapisaa slaluie❑ 1N3MO13A3O 311lNns 16 1 gII III i till p G��71�5 �¢ log �1 ass: ! r! ! a� 4 6� �xlx li 11!x 7 1 $ i i � 9 14 H i � q' o Z z �o I o Q w w - w H w w tLEl—". Q 0 I i i I pq 19 101 - QD0MN081 'DNI ONIaloll 21SOUNIIS-- W-UAM air" Jl f• ra I II �fr F;!! ,{: I i. i Eltl� Fit i� ;i F F E � rliY�f illi€k'j:�ki�l`!llkik�l�� ii4[i'�i.1 Y�Ifiilii�111F'ilfl+�tH'iit Ii; c p o k.0 +� rI4 M CU CV 61 �a W u = u � � o x � m m m m n a L 6 a U I I I I .4 ELI I uo � I I � I o � � N 2 m LU -J u A Ln - 1 0 v �+ 2 u uLn' a .' ,n E � _ m rn M co n a Z01 - BOANON1 •DNI SDNI OH ESDMIS co 8;,,s�;: t r��9� 3! ig!'112I �Qiy� Qijj ggf k ! = QI!'#:[1-1!`.}t�l}�d='did! iSlQtQs<�ii 9}i}�Q91 R I- �E I I I I I I I I I I I I I �M F) ISITE PLAN Haws Residence 73.142 Crosby Lane Palm Desert, CA 3Ndi 3SOHNns t ronwood Lot 3 STRACTSINC u`�. �Szuee�i�SVJIu p...eppm�ntNrnn,wo� L.� S�{w 3 — nprPin.pK e� we• .ter ra .ter alb a �w. sw _ r.a• n.o - m�MOW "' I I 5rW: " 1311 y I aox aRt raav:z: 0CM I jA I a y E @via:�� _ ® § x gg s a s12s rz riz z �--:Z z 3 o--- _.C3 € - z❑ Z aaaaa� c rn - mr A AT • �w- sar 4 - _ — . r.a• ago �wr r m .8 Co Haws Residence FLOOR PLAN Palm D ms Lane E) Ironwood Lot 3 w ®� 2W X, 011 STRACTS I Svc , CHffEC Kt • trMRM OEMN Qva a�sw �'oa kWv \*—e UA aya a - ■.n■r.du - m 1 r SYo�¢nGtai��� Z ...I., .a....Oil a Z I � I A c j§j't.. A rA +s + ROOF PLAIN �— am -- ------ -------------- f j o� — �rYJ I L © I�-�.— 14 Q I I ❑ ►I as I I I -- F� I' I I I o I y li El I. irk w �� � �n;ti 1• _ �.� m;l; El4' o '' ❑ ' ❑" ■ n `,✓ — — a — —— 37 tM El El o Hs Tr-, �--� l�> of, �a ° s� o I;��El "3 _ El o — •rIM Haws Residence 73-142 Crosh Lane Palm Desert, Y A I ronwood Lot 3 01 01 11 r STRACTS I NC noon I �wv�ip �Li�ii I Fee�a SWw arrop�nentlfim.eoY del Sµel 3 - Fl.glbn�...[ 1b'-8" MAXIMUM PARAPET HEIGHT FROM FIN15H SRAI7P x Ib 8" IYIYIY H"MI)M PARAPET HEIC7HT r MAXIMUM PARAPET HEISHT — FROM F-IN15H GRAVE T IJ `! ❑ FROM FIN15H GRA F r — x oC -- I e l n m n m m 4 D m I 'z I mow, I � , I I§ I MAXIMUM PARAPET HEISHT FROM FINISH GRADE I r INN I�s E� I it'll 72 b � x � r Z � � r a am RI MAXIMUM PARAPET HEISHT FROM FIN15H 5RAVE 1❑. °"'°" • SECTION S °Xp ail of Haws Residence 73.142 Crosby Lane Palm Desert. CA r L MAXIMUM PARAPET HEIGHT FROM FIN15H 5RADE M i Ironwood Lot 3 h W-8l, � A MAXIMUM PARAPET HEISHT FROM F-IN15H GRADE VTRACT$ I NC RPM i �M �oluflW �wtiC �pwvint I MC llol/1.�1i• R�94a[l4 9:14 Fw4kpnwn4M��4o1 WN 34At 3 - klrrell A N n a rr ao m �� 11 SECTIONS 1 A If a R € FR �r r Jill;�$ 9 Haws Residence 73.142 Crpsbv Lane Palm Desert, A MAXIMUM PARAPET HEISHT FROM FINISH GRADE III r I� m ' r i 1= rn m Z [ I n o — � m { m _ D 1 I o Z i rzS MAXIMUM PARAPET HEIGHT FROM FINISH GRADE tl f� Ironwood Lot 3 16'-8" XIMUM PARAPET H5*HT FROM FINISH GRADE U ❑ M r m A C � n z A m CD STRACTS I NC AtC iIEC' U . ik•Mx D151[5N xnl pluix� m. Klassen, Rachelle From: Swartz, Kevin Sent: Friday, March 06, 2020 4:28 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: Friedman Appeal Attachments: Friedman_PD Notice 12.27.19.pdf; PD ARC_01.14.20 Meeting Minutes and Decision -Haws Residence.pdf Rachelle, The homeowner who appealed the Haws residence Misc 19-0043 would like to include the two attached documents to the City Council. Kevin Swartz Associate Planner Ph:760.346,0611 Direct:760.776.6485 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org O 73-510 Fred Waring Drive. Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 =0 r www.cityofpalmdesert.org cn z� Install the Palm Desert In Touch app to stay in touch with your community 72 Android Apple Mobile Web Un �G PALM DF;Frer• C kU I-ORNM gzz60—z578 " TEL. 760 345—o611 F.JX: 7" 341-7098 CITY OF PALM DESERT CASE NO. MISC 19-0043 �IPAt_H IaESE.R T 2U2q Mp —6 Pad 5: IF NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Community Development Department has received a request to construct a new single-family residence at 73142 Crosby Lane. The proposed single - story home will feature maximum parapet roof heights of 16 feet 8 inches and architectural projections up to a maximum of 18 feet. Although the proposed building height is in conformance with the development standards of the zoning district, any proposals exceeding 15 feet require review and approval by the City's Architectural Review Commission. This notice is being sent to you based on your property's proximity to the proposed single-family home. The proposal is scheduled for consideration by the City's Architectural Review Commission on Tuesday, January 14, 2020, at 12:30 p.m. at the City's Community Development Department. Should you have any further questions, please contact Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, by January 13, 2020, at (760) 776-6485 or kswartz a@cityofpaImdesert.org, between the hours of 8:00 a.m, and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. of u: � rlj a CL w� r a- 0 Ca ■ Oo L' tr a w N K w. z [1 1 10 a 0 a 0 p Qo ! C) N W C4 Z �U Q m � w Lu Lu �U❑ it J January 15, 2019 I I I y Of PRIM 0ESEfli 73-510 FRFD WARINc. DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIPORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6i i 1n fot1dtyofpa! mdcscrt.org ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOTICE OF ACTION CASE NO: MISC 19-0043 O 'O APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: LYNN HAWS, 73-109 Crosby Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve construction of a new single-family residence with a maximum roof height of 18'. LOCATION: 73-142 Crosby Lane ZONE: R-1 20,000 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted approval with the exception of the roof deck as prohibited per code. Date of Action: January 14, 2020 Vote: Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Lambell absent (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. rrmw ucMw rru ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2020 detail. Commissioner Vuksic said he was sure the architect will come up with something and if you send the changes to staff before the next meeting that will help a lot. Chair Van Vilet reminded the Commission there was a motion for continuance, It was moved and seconded and the vote was fallen. ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved to continue Case MISC 20-0002 to allow the applicant to submit an alternative design solution for the missing cornice details, which were shown an the approved plans and elevations. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by a 5.0.1-1 vote, with Levin, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES, McAuliffe abstaining and Lambell absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 19-0043 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: LYNN HAWS, 73-109 Crosby Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PHAJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve construction of a new single-family residence with a maximum roof height of 18'. LOCATION: 73-142 Crosby Lane 2QNE: R-1 20,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate planner, presented a request for a height exception to build a new 3,598 square -foot single-family residence with a maximum roof height of 16'-8", and architectural projections up to 18'. The property is located behind the gates of Ironwood Country Club (Ironwood), and sits on a flag lot. Per section 25.10 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC), the maximum height for a structure In single-family residential zones is 18'. The Architectural Review Commission tARCj may grant exceptions to allow a maximum roof height of 18' based on design merit. The proposed home Compiles with all development standards, including maximum lot coverage and setbacks. He presented renderings and described the architectural style. He pointed out that most of the roof height is 16' with a portion, in a rectangular area, at 1 B', as well as the Chimneys, which are allowed. He said the HOA has approved this project. Staff is In favor of approving the proposed roolline of 16'-8", and architectural projections at 18' as the home Is sufficiently setback from surrounding properties. In addition, the heighl provides variation In the roaflines and n J-y+• JUdVA+C +1" Page 12 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January14, 2020 adds architectural interests to the home. Mr. Swartz said staff is recommending approval. Mr. Swartz stated that staff received one letter from a neighbor opposing the project along with photos taken by the neighbor from various spots on their property. He explained that the neighbor's argument is that they will lose their mountain views and reminded the Commission that the new home will be 4' lower. The Commission and staff reviewed and discussed the photos and the unprotected views. Commissioner Levin said most of the roof height is 16' with a few areas at 16'. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the line -of -site and said It could be right "in your face" but this house, in terms of the mass, is set way back from the neighbor's property. Commissioner Schmid asked for the code regarding roof height exceptions. Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, said there is no ordinance that protects someone's view, however there is an ordinance that, at the Commission's discretion, you can go above 15' up to i Win height for this zone. Mr. Swartz pointed out that these lots have greater setbacks and this hone will be 4' below the neighboring home. Chair Van Vliet said the Commission looks at the architectural style of the house and where the height overage Is located, and in this case most of the house is only 16' high with a lot of open space. He liked the architecture of the house and said it was good-looking. MS. LYNN HAWS, property homeowner, said there is only one narrow element that is above the height limit which Is the spine wall that hits the 18', as well as the chimneys. Commissioner McIntosh said the plans call out for a roof -top deck. Mr. Ceja said the prohibition of roof decks came about in 2011. Mr. Swartz said they had discussions with the applicant regarding this because the renderings show a stairwell which the applicant said would be used to access roof -top solar panels. Commissioner McIntosh said this would be a privacy issue with neighbors. Mr. Swartz stated that the stairs are only for access to the solar panels. Commissioner Vuksic wondered if the structural engineer was engineering this for a large load. Mr. Swartz stated that they will look into this but pointed out again that the City does not allow roof decks. Commissioner Schmid said from the profile of the neighbor, there is only a small projection at 18', as well as the chimneys. Commissioner McIntosh said it would have been helpful to have poles for the line -of -site study rather than the black tine on the neighbors photos and didn't see a problem with the building height. Commissioner Schmid made a motion to approve and Commissioner McIntosh made the second. Chair Van Vliet asked for any further comments. Commissioner Vuksic was still concerned that the plans were designed to have a roof deck and does not state that this is for solar access. awrr.+�ev..w.. wayuwc��+w.+o+i. eon Page 13 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MiNUTES January 14, 2020 Mr. Ceja reminded the Commission that the code prohibits root decks and today's review is strictly on building height. He said staff will work this out with the applicant. Chair Van Mist called for the vote. ACTiON- 6ommissioner Schmid moved to approve with the exception of the roof deck as prohibited per code. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and Lambelt absent. 2. CASE NOS: PP 19-0005 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: JOSH & ViVIAN STOMEL, 74-218 Alessandro Drive, Palm Desert CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECWAPPROVASOUGHT: Consideration to prelim Warily approve converting an existing two-(2) unit apartment complex to a 7-unit apartment complex. LOCATION: 74-218 Alessandro Drive ZONE: DE-0 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a request for a new 7-unit apartment complex on Alessandro Drive. He said this is an existing 9,900 square400t two -unit apartment complex with a pool and zoned Downtown Overlay. The applicant wanted to do something per the zone as the City is encouraging a little more density In this area with buildings closer to the street and access directly to the sidewalk. The applicant Is proposing to leave the pool in Its current location, relocate the front parking to the back, add a two-story building with four units, rehab one existing building, and expand on another unit in the beck. He presented renderings and explained the project. He pointed out an existing driveway that is currently 12' wide that has now been expanded to 18', which is the lowest amount that Fire and Public Works is willing to approve. The applicant tried to work with the neighbor to have a shared driveway but this was unsuccessful. The driveway will lead to seven (7) parking stalls. Each unit has one -bedroom and will range In size from 455 square feet to 628 square feet. He presented color renderings of the elevations and passed around the color board. He said this requires a Precise Plan and will move forward to the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending approval. Chair Van Vliet referred to the 18' wide drive aisle and said It was unfortunate because of all the hardscape that will be visible coming up against the wall on the left and the building on the right. He suggested having a planter In that area. Mr. Swartz stated that at one time, staff suggested 14' with a planter. Mr. Swartz said from a safety standpoint there Q4PWVr,dJW" �.yun�.,, oo•I ft= Page 14 of 17 Klassen, Rachelle From: Jay M Friedman MD <jmfriedmanmd@att.net> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 10:08 AM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: Fried man_Agreement to Continuance -ARC Case No MISC 19 0043 Dear Ms. Klassen, As discussed this morning, we (Jay M. Friedman, MD and Jennifer L. Friedman, MD) agree to a continuance to April 16, 2020 of our appeal to the City Council regarding its consideration of the decision of the Architectural Review Commission to approve an 18 foot roof height for the proposed residence at 73142 Crosby Lane (Case No. MISC 19-0043). We appreciate your attention to this matter. We would appreciate it if you could reply to this email to let us know it was received. Also, please feel free to call us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jay M. Friedman, MD Jennifer L. Friedman, MD Telephone (760) 773-4945 Home (206) 914-2869 Cell Klassen, Rachelle From: Ceja, Eric Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 12:46 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: FW: Zoning Document for Packet Hi Rachelle, Please provide a copy of this email to the City Council for the appeal application on Crosby Road. Thanks, Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph:760.346.0611 Direct:760.776.6384 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Lynn Haws [mailto:lynn.haws@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 11:35 AM To: Swartz, Kevin <kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org> Cc: Ceja, Eric <eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: RE: Zoning Document for Packet Hi Eric, Thank you for the call. Couple of thoughts after I got off the phone with you: We changed my husband's travel plans to be here for this meeting. He is on a plane now. Not ideal for us if we have to book yet another flight for him for the next meeting. Please remind the City Council that Mr. Friedman's goal is to delay our project. He told the board member, who he mis-quoted in his January letter, he wished we'd not build until he sold his home. Which by the way should be noted: Friedman's have had their home on the market for over a year. Friedman's plan to sell the lot next to us after house sells per his realtor. • Please note we have been delayed since December because of Mr. Friedman's frivolous claims. We know there is not much we can do under the circumstances. We hope the city can be sympathetic to our situation and if this does not go to the council today, council will hear it at the next meeting. We know people's health and safety is most important. Thank you for keeping us in the loop. Lynn Haws On March 12, 2020 at 8:56 AM kswartz((-,)citvofpalnulesert.or,,, wrote: Hello, I am home sick and will not be presenting tonight. Eric Ceja will be taking my place. I will put the Power Point with all the exhibits, including yours together. Kevin Swartz Associate Planner Ph:760,346.0611 Direct:760.776.6485 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Lynn Haws jmailto:lvnn.haws@comcast.netj Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2020 8:09 PM To: Swartz, Kevin <kswartzPcitvofoalmdesert.org> Subject: Zoning Document for Packet Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Hi Kevin, I hope you had a good weekend. In going through the Council Agenda Packet I realize we simply need to stick to the facts that we followed the City of Palm Desert's zoning guidelines and process. 2 Do not worry about the updated document that I sent unless you think it helpful to have the extra examples of homes built to the 18' height restriction. I do however want this document added to keep us focused on Freidman's claims our planned house is not within R1 height restrictions. Thank you! Lynn On March 6, 2020 at 5:57 PM Lynn Haws <Ivnn.hawsCconicast.net> wrote: Here is final version sent in February. Thanks so much! Sent from XFINITY Connect Mobile App ------ Original Message ------ From: Lynn Haws To: ks\artzC)citvotbalmdesert.or, Cc: Ivnn.hawsCa) comcast.net Sent: February 18, 2020 at 12:30 PM Subject: RE: Supporting Documentation - HOA Approval Letter for Grading Plan Hi Kevin, I hope your week is going well. Attached is final Crosby Lane elevation documentation for City Council meeting. Last two residents noted are a couple of examples I saw when I looked at city records. As you know I can not get these images but City Council can look into if needed. Second attachment is HOA Approval letter I tried sending to Nick last week but email did not go through. City had asked for approval from the HOA on our grading plan's drainage, being it needs to go through neighborhood common area. Not sure they in fact still need letter as our engineer said grading was approved and we have proceeded with PM 10 Packet? In any case I'm sending approval letter to you knowing you receive my emails and can give to the appropriate department in case they would like to have it on file with grading plan. Let me know if you have any questions or need something further. Appreciate your help with this. Thank you! Lynn Haws On February 12, 2020 at 8:54 AM kswartz@citvol'palnulesert.or,-7 wrote: This is great. If you would like to produce more, that would help. Kevin Swartz Associate Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6485 kswartz@cltyofpalmdesert.org From: Lynn Haws [maiIto: Ivnn.hawsCal comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 8:08 AM To: Swartz, Kevin<kswartzC,citvofpaltndesert.or2> Cc: Ivnn.hawsCq`comcast.net <Ivnn.haws@'comcas.net> Subject: Supporting Documentation Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Good morning! I took Friedman's house, along with the two closest homes to where we are building, as representation of homes built to the 18' height allowed by both HOA and City of Palm Desert. I provide neighborhood map, key indicating where each home sits along with elevations from architect. Architect who did home we are in now and this new one also did the other three. See his comments below regarding this situation. Would you recommend more examples? I would hope seeing that the house we are building is lower than the Friedman's should be enough? Just want to make sure. Thank you! Lynn On February 11, 2020 at 8:40 AM Anton Marinkovich <anton@stracts.com> wrote: Lynn, The exterior elevations we are sending show the 18' height limit dashed in. Want 4 to note for you this is to the plywood roof sheathing and when you add the roof tile the height limit would be above the 18'. Most cities allow for the height to be calculated to the roof sheathing but wanted you to know that this house at that one ridge would exceed the 18' once the roof tile is added. This "neighbor" does not have any argument as he lives in a home that is higher than yours. Anton On February 11, 2020 at 8:52 AM Anton Marinkovich <antonCa`stracts.com> wrote: Lynn, Just another note to prove your point is that the other 2 homes we designed behind your lot were designed to the 18' height limit. Anton On February 11, 2020 at 9:09 AM kswartzCal citvofnalmdescrt.or(* wrote: Yes. That would be great. Kevin Swartz Associate Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6485 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Lynn Haws [maiIto: Ivnn.haws@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 9:09 AM To: Swartz, Kevin <ksw-artzCd citvol'nalmdesert.or,,> Subject: Question Hi Kevin, If we have elevation plans of Friedman's house, as well as the other two homes next to where we are building, should I send those to you prior to the meeting to be put in the packet for the council's review? Thank you! Lynn Haws 5