CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES. June 22, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m.

Transcription

1 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 11 1 Chris Van Vliet X 12 John Vuksic X 11 1 Karel Lambell X 12 Pam Touschner X 7 5 Allan Levin X 12 Ken Stendell X 12 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christine Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 8, 2010 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the June 8, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried , with Commissioner Touschner absent.

2 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID DEVINE, Florida Avenue, Palm Desert, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a wall exception. LOCATION: Florida Avenue ZONE: R-1, 9,000 Ms. Grisa presented the project and stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued until the next ARC meeting. Commissioner Levin asked if the plan represents what they want to do with the sidewalk. Ms. Grisa stated that the sidewalk as well as the elevation and landscape plans needs some clarification. Ms. Grisa informed the Commission that a legal notice was mailed to the property owner of the adjacent home and asked if there was anyone in attendance who was in favor of or in opposition to for this request. None were noted. Commissioner Lambell requested that the applicant show the plans in feet and inches rather than just inches. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to continue Case MISC subject to: 1) clarifying the sidewalk; and 2) show plans in feet and inches. Motion carried , with Commissioner Touschner absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 2 of 19

3 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 59 multifamily residential units and 92 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: Highway 74 ZONE: P.C. (4) Ms. Grisa presented the project and stated that approval of staff s recommendation will grant preliminary approval of architectural and landscaping design for a new condominium and resort hotel located on Highway 74. The project includes 91 hotel rooms, 59 resident units, and related ancillary uses. The applicant redesigned the project to minimize the impacts and provide a project that would be more compatible to the surrounding area. The new design creates a three story hotel along Highway 74 with a partial 4 th story set back 95 from the street, and approximately 225 from the Sandpiper perimeter wall. In addition, the building has been stepped backed along Ocotillo Drive, lessening the massing to the residents there as well. The front elevation along Highway 74 has been broken up by providing deep recessed pockets of glass with natural lighting, improving the overall design and massing scheme along the Highway 74 frontage. Staff has included all the letters in favor or opposition to the project that were received. Staff has been very cautious with this project due to concerns with the scale and massing that would negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has been very responsive to the concerns of staff and neighbors by modifying the project repeatedly to create a more attractive development that has lessened the visual impacts by stepping back the building on both street frontages. The new design provides a shorter building frontage along Highway 74 than the height study photos indicate. Staff is recommending that that Architectural Review Commission grant preliminary approval of the building and landscaping design as proposed. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 3 of 19

4 Mr. Matt Joblon, PDH Partners, Inc. mentioned that he met with the Sandpiper residents and listened to their concerns to figure out a compromise and try to reach their goals and move forward. He stated that they need to have some kind of partial fourth floor to make this project work and get a truly five-star hotel. They did a lot of different studies to get around the massing to make the impact far less for everyone. What they came up with was to remove the massing along Highway 74 completely; making it on the three legs and have it set back significantly. He explained that the fourth story is now on the three wings set back 45 from the building and 50 from Highway 74 for a total of 95 from the street. To make the architecture a little more interesting and less impactful on the Ocotillo side they stepped it back on two different levels on every single wing. He pointed out that they lost a total of 30,000 square feet, which was their prime square footage. However by losing that square footage they created several large two-level duplex suites which are fun and interesting and the overall residential units were reduced dramatically. He stated that they reached out to the community by sharing their ideas with everyone. There is still a lot of opposition but they are receiving more support every day. They made a compromise by removing a big chunk of the project to show the community that they are trying to work with them and meet their needs. He felt these new revisions will work with everyone. Mr. Richard Riveire, Architect said they were looking for opportunities that not only would affect massing, but also to extend some of the design concepts on previous plans submitted. The plans presented today keeps a lot of the same ideas; the shutters, layering of the façade, the natural materials at the base, and a reduction of the overall height of the building by grounding the building into the grade. By re-massing the building they took the fourth floor and pushed it more towards the center of the site and reconfigured how that works underneath. They are still going with the idea of the shutter façade being highly random and trying to get some variation of the façade there. The fourth floor with the overhang elements is pushed back giving the horizontal appeal. He stated that they have also created light ports that will play with some shadow and light to give it some depth and texture. Even though the façade still has some strength to hold the Highway 74 elevation you will get the light and shadow happening down below. He presented photos of the old and new view studies and described each one. He stated that by pushing the fourth floor back that far it really gets out of the view angle from an eye height of a person standing outside of the property. Mr. Joblon referred back to the light ports and stated that they created corridors out to G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 4 of 19

5 the courtyard so there is some transparency going all the way through which will create an interesting element. Mr. Riveire said that by opening the light ports in four places they are open all the way back into the courtyards. When you are driving you actually get view angles through the building to see light and landscape happening there in all four locations. Commissioner Lambell stated that what the applicant has done by stepping the product back gives it some interesting angles and takes it out of the box car look that was previously presented. By stepping back the upper floors and moving it back from Highway 74 it is by far a better project and visually speaks of elegance. She went through each view study and made comments on each. She felt the building is far better looking with steps and movements and was pleased to see the box gone. The views from within the Sandpiper are vastly improved. It is not perfect, but far better than the past plans. Commissioner Lambell excused herself from the meeting. Commissioner Gregory referred to one of the letters received from a concerned citizen stating that their fear was additional traffic. He asked about a deceleration lane. Mr. Joblon said there will be a deceleration lane and stated that a traffic study was performed and the lane was approved by traffic. The Commission reviewed the view study photos and discussed how pulling back the fourth floor to 95 might help the view from the Sandpiper. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the setback and pulling it back 95 but he referred to the view study of the hotel and Sandpiper and said that you will see this project by the time you are on the other side of Highway 74. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the balloon study was still relevant and Ms. Grisa stated that it was no longer accurate since the submittal of this new design. Commissioner Vuksic asked what the height of the orange balloon was from the grade and Mr. Joblon said around 49. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the overall height was on the north end of the building and Mr. Joblon stated that the front is 49 and the recessed fourth story is 59. Commissioner Stendell asked about mounting of roof top equipment. Mr. Riveire stated that they are as sensitive to that as the Commission and stated that they won t have the same roof top problems as other hotels. They will have elevators and packaged fan core units. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 5 of 19

6 Commissioner Gregory opened the Public Hearing. Mr. David Austin - Imago Gallery. He stated that he and his wife own the Imago Gallery and they are trying to be open-minded about this project. They were told by the developers that they would look at different options for the scale of the building. He said that they are absolutely against the building as it is designed. When he and his wife went through the approval process for their building at 35 in height there was quite the uproar. He stated that he keeps hearing that this is 35 per code and it is not. The reality is that on the north side of the building it is 59 and it steps down to 35. He pointed out that his building is 35 tall and this building is almost half again larger with the grade. He stated that they would love to have a high quality hotel here someday but there is absolutely no way that this is in keeping with the City. They were told that they could not be any closer to Highway 74; however the hotel pushes its way all the way out 20 plus feet. He said just imagine as you are driving down Highway 74, his building will be gone. He stated that the developer agreed to his statement and said they thought the Imago Gallery was a destination, they didn t think visibility was important. Mr. Austin said that when they first presented their plans for the Gallery, they considered the residents in Sandpiper and Ocotillo and met with them while developing their building. They decided to poke holes in the sculpture garden wall and decided to never have a solid wall on Ocotillo. It took everything they had to build their building knowing what the rules were in Palm Desert. This hotel will be so far beyond anything imaginable particularly after it is built and everyone says this building is big. He stated that they will be the most impacted and pointed out that the building is 15 from his parking lot and 59 high. They designed their building with light in mind and the entire dynamic of the art gallery will change because they will be in shadow all day. Ms. Karen Prinzmittal Sandpiper. In theory she concurs with Mr. Austin. She is in support of having a really high-end hotel in that property. She likes a lot of the aspects of the new design, but is concerned about averaging height. She feels that one of the things that makes Palm Desert important and highly regarded in this valley is a real sense of proportion. She stated that the renowned architectural historian photographer Julius Shulman took every photograph of the Sandpiper and his photographs capture a man-made development fitting into the natural environments. Several images of the Sandpiper are now in the architectural photography collection of the Palm Springs Art Museum and part of the collection at the Getty Museum. She stated that they all want G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 6 of 19

7 something that will add to El Paseo and said that the Commission needs to think hard about their decision before it impacts the Sandpiper and the Imago Gallery. Mr. Mark Homme Highway 111. He stated that he has been in the desert since the early 1960s and has been a practicing attorney in Palm Desert for probably 25 years. He is representing Mr. and Mrs. Austin in this matter. He mentioned that he does a lot of real estate work and is sure that the Planning Commission realizes that this building is kind of forever when you build on this site. You can t change your mind, it s there. It s nice to say that the Rosewood has signed up but ask the people at the Ritz Carlton in Rancho Mirage about the hotel business and what could happen to a hotel. If something happens to this hotel or the operator walks out, the hotel will just be sitting there unoccupied. From his client s perspective it isn t just that his building is 35 versus 50. Think of this, the service entry for the hotel comes right next to his client s art gallery, and the gallery is right next to a wall that is 59 tall. He pointed out that the building has been pushed way out to the street because the city is eliminating the frontage road. From a planning standpoint his client s building is set way back from the street. He pointed to one of the images provided and said that it doesn t look like a 25 differential in height. As you are driving up Highway 74 all of a sudden you will see this big institutional looking building that is jutting right out on the street. It may be 35 per the ordinance from the center of the lot, but now you have combined four lots. He felt that the intent of the ordinance is to be 35 for relatively small lots in a small area, not this kind of mass. He reminded the Commission of the opposition that happened with his client s gallery when it first came into the city. This gallery has been a real asset to the City and is a beautiful building; it has style, form and has brought business to the City. He stated that the proposed hotel really diminishes the art gallery and is done in a way that will destroy its light and visibility. Once the landscape goes in between the buildings and on the frontage it will destroy it even more. He asked about the frontage road in front of his client s building; who will tear it out and who will pay for the landscape. He understands that the city is anxious to put a hotel there, but the city also has a lot of opportunity to place a hotel there that should be there. Ms. Grisa clarified that the hotel is not moving closer to Highway 74. The applicant requested to vacate the frontage road, but is not pulling the building closer. She stated that the setback remains the same; the applicant is only requesting to landscape that area. Mr. Homme asked if someone were looking up Highway 74, will the G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 7 of 19

8 Gallery be exactly even with the hotel. Ms. Grisa wasn t familiar with what Imago developed so she couldn t say for sure, but the hotel is building within the setback range. They can go farther back or they can go right at the setback. Mr. Austin stated that with his gallery they couldn t go farther back. He didn t know what has changed from then to now, but it has definitely changed. He stated that they weren t even allowed to have parking in the front of the building. The Commission discussed the setbacks. Ms. Jan Coffyn Sandpiper. She stated that this project is far too massive for Palm Desert. Palm Desert overall is like a quaint village. We are subdued, quiet, we don t razzmatazz, and we are sophistication in a quiet manner. This project will be on four lots and the portion that sits on each of these lots should be required to stay within Palm Desert s regulation of a 35 height limit. This shouldn t be allowed to be dramatically higher. If these were individual shops or restaurants, they wouldn t have been allowed to go up to 59 on their little lot. It is very important that you think about it. A five-star hotel might be right for Palm Desert, but is it right for this situation on this particular lot. If the developer can t build within the City s requirements, the City should not have to make concessions to them. If they want to be here, they should have done their research to know that there are restrictions and not submit a proposal that was just massively beyond anything in Palm Desert. She indicated that the developer came to the Sandpiper and said if this is going to work this is what they needed to have in order to get a five-star hotel. She requested that the City think about the residents, how much love they have for the desert, and how much they want to keep their tranquility. She requested that a 3-D rendering of this plan be submitted prior to approval. Ms. Tess Miller Sandpiper. She applauded the developer on a good job but it s still like placing an aircraft carrier on that side of the street. Palm Desert is a village and they want to keep it that way. They want to keep it quaint where people want to live and visit and not have the towering buildings, the congestion, and the urban sprawl. She felt that they could build a five-star hotel at two stories or less. She suggested that they create something new, different and innovative. This project is too massive for this site and stated that this would be beautiful on a flat lot somewhere else in Palm Desert, but not El Paseo. This will impact the history of the Sandpiper and will dominate all of Palm Desert because it will be the one thing you see when you are traveling on Highway 111. This proposed hotel will look like a battleship. It is thick, heavy and too much mass for the city. Read the General Plan to see what the G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 8 of 19

9 intent was of the 21 people who spent two years of their lives drafting the documents for the future of our city. We want to keep it an urban village, a small city where people can come and get away from the big cities. Let s create the boutique hotels like the Mojave, which is a beautiful 24 room hotel. They don t need all the condos. The Sandpiper can t even sell the ones it has right now; the economy is that bad. In reference to the traffic study, she asked them to come out there in January through April and listen to the motorcycles, trucks, cars and all the traffic accidents. She is concerned about building a deflection wall and doesn t want to lose her view. That is what makes our city beautiful and we need to protect ourselves. She stated that if they still choose to go through with the project, she asked if they could put up the orange netting instead of the balloon study at the height of the building along Highway 74. That way everyone can visualize the mass of the project and everyone can then get a sense of what they will be driving past every day. Ms. Heidi Hanskin Sandpiper. She stated that this would look like the Queen Mary in her backyard. She appreciates how the developers worked with the residents. She likes the new renderings and stated that they did a great job in redesigning it. However, it is still very large. We have an ordinance that says 35 and why you would even think of going any higher is beyond her. Her main concern is the traffic. She understands that a traffic study was done which informed them that the area would not be impacted; she begs to differ. She stated that she lives on the corner of El Paseo and Highway 74 and said just with J. Russell moving across the street has impacted the traffic. She can only extrapolate the coming of the hotel with staff, vendors, residents, hotel guests, and truck delivery; it will be huge. Her condo faces Highway 74 and it s already a nightmare; she is really concerned. She has lived here all her life and this is her daughter s legacy and she would like to protect it as much as possible. Mr. Mel Mays, 212 Sandpiper. He understands the need for revenue, but stated that he lives about 20 from the wall and is concerned with the density. He moved out here from Pasadena because he wanted a lower density environment. This is 4.5 acres and the average Sandpiper circle is 3.5 acres. The density in Sandpiper during high season averages about 65 people in 3.5 acres. The developer is trying to put about people at this hotel during season. He understands that the hotel will pay sales tax to the City to support a lot of the things that he enjoys about Palm Desert. He doesn t know that they have to build this project G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 9 of 19

10 at this size to make money. There are on 4.5 acres and they are trying to pump the value of those acres like it is New York City, and it s not. It is too much density. The Marriott was built in Palm Desert but it has a lot of land around it as well as a golf course. This isn t big enough for something like that. Ms. Diane Oliver Sandpiper. She requested a 3-D model of this project. Commissioner Gregory closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Joblon stated that he met with everyone here and stated that the traffic in all due respect... Mr. Austin interrupted and said that the traffic is huge and the developer made a comment to him that it s not that much. When people exit their art gallery to go up to Bighorn they can wait a minute and a half for the traffic coming down Highway 74. When the developer came to his building they took him up to the second floor to show him the height and he made a comment about hearing the traffic. With all due respect to the traffic studies, he doesn t think they are accurate. Mr. Mays made a comment about the traffic again and stated that it will get a heck of a lot nosier. Commissioner Gregory informed him that this Commission was a design review body and what he was referring to would be covered by the Planning Commission. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development addressed the public and informed them of the role of the Architecture Review Commission (ARC) verses the Planning Commission. The ARC primarily looks at aesthetics; the design, the nuances and the articulation of the shutters. They do look some at how it fits into the community, but generally they are looking at the details and architecture that is put before them. Issues such as density, height, setbacks, open space, circulation, and traffic are addressed by the Planning Commission. In turn, the Planning Commission doesn t address the aesthetic or the architecture itself. This project when and if it goes forward will go to the Planning Commission who will hold a public hearing that will address many of the concerns that have been addressed here today. If the Architectural Review Commission is focused on issues other than what you have mentioned today, please forgive them; that is not their fault. Their charge is to look at the details of the architecture and how it fits in the city. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 10 of 19

11 Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was glad that this has taken a while because this is quite a lot to digest. He mentioned that he read through all the letters and there are several compelling arguments. He didn t notice any objections to the use; generally everyone is okay with the use. Personally the view argument has never affected him much when a proposal comes in and the developer is staying within the guidelines. He said we ve all heard that no one is entitled to a view. The vision of a project like Sandpiper is beautiful and is appreciated but it is not fair to prohibit a developer from using their site because of it. That being said, this is different because the developer is asking to build significantly over the height limit. He believes that property owners have a right to expect that the City will uphold the ordinance that will protect their views and property values when a developer is asking for an exception. He does think that it is a tough one with being harmonious with the neighborhood. He doesn t have a difficult time with heights, but some people are extremely sensitive to that. To him it has not been a significant factor. The Commission has approved many things that were over the height limit and have made height exceptions. He mentioned that he was involved in a presentation to the Planning Commission about why exceptions to the height can be beneficial. The argument presented involved small portions of a building that can be higher for artistic effect in the overall building mass. In that respect when we are talking about small portions of the building for artistic effect the spirit of the ordinance is preserved. We have approved some projects that have been well above height limit, but the difference is they are not impacting anyone. They are set back quite far and no one knows they are over the height limit. He expressed that when he is driving up Highway 74 and sees the Imago Gallery which is a big mass, then imagines the height of the hotel higher up the grade, he has a hard time with that and feels that it would not follow the spirit of the ordinance. He is worried that if this is approved what kind of precedent does that set for the next project. The averaging is not intended for something that is the length of two football fields because if you use that argument you are talking about a super long site. He likes the style of the architecture and everyone likes the use, but feels strongly that this is too much. In ten years, he has never really scrutinized the height of a project or thought the scale was too great. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 11 of 19

12 Commissioner Van Vliet agreed and said that height is an issue. He has always had a concern with the north corner and the height is what he has focused on. He thinks it is just substantially too tall down there. The developer has talked about stepping it down but it has to be substantially revised on that corner to get it down closer to 35 or stair step it back. He thought that maybe the whole tower element and the fourth story should move further down, or just get the whole building to come down. At previous meetings it was discussed that both buildings can be the same elevation with parapets or both buildings can be different heights. It will take substantial revisions to get that north building down to fit in more. Commissioner Stendell stated he is somewhat sensitive with what has been said. The General Plan is reviewed and updated every ten years and maybe in the next review it will increase the height limitations the Commission looks at. Nobody should deny the land owner the right to develop but there are a certain set of guidelines set forth. Height limitations have been superseded in situations where they architecturally make the project more appealing. He is not overly sure that the three corners of this building is necessary for that architectural feeling however, he does understand from a economic standpoint that they are looking for the space. They have creatively and innovatively reduced the square footage in trying to do that. As far as Imago goes, he would love to have that site because the clientele walking out of this five-star hotel will pass the gallery first on their way to the shopping district. He doesn t look at this town as a village anymore. In his eyes it hasn t been a village since the late 80s. It has become a very creative and innovative city over the years. Even if the Commission approves this project the developer will just be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire when they go before the Planning Commission and the City Council; because they will be much harder on this issue. Architecturally he likes the project but there it is too much above the height limitation. Commissioner Levin also had some issues with the height. He likes what they have done in terms of the reductions and setting it back. He understands where Mr. Austin is coming from with the hotel being immediately adjacent to his gallery. He stated that hotels are next to impossible to finance these days and it s not that easy to say you can reduce it or to do a 24-room hotel. He felt sure that the developer weighed hard and long before taking 30,000 square feet out of it because that is a serious chunk of change. As mentioned by the developer in a previous meeting, the residential portion is what carries this project and makes it worthwhile. It is a G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 12 of 19

13 tough call, but no one is entitled to a view and when we buy our homes with a view we get to enjoy them as long as we can, but you can t deny somebody else to develop. A lot of arguments have been made that he thought didn t have validity. The setback is not any closer to Highway 74 from where the frontage road exists and where it doesn t exist. You have to take out the things that are not real to the things that are real. Ms. Grisa mentioned that Desert Marriott Springs was approved at 78 with a height exception, as well as Starwood Vacation Ownership which was approved at 52. What Mr. Joblon is asking for is no different from what other applicants have requested and received approval for. She pointed out that this hotel and the site are different from the other properties because there was a lot of area in between them and the residents and even the public right of away. She referred to the concerns regarding the traffic and said that even though ARC is not looking at that, Public Works requests that a consultant perform a traffic study. The Public Works director wants to make sure that our streets are flowing smoothly. Commissioner Levin said that this project will also go through a fairly intensive environmental study. Noise, air quality, traffic all the environmental issues will be intensively looked into and recommendations made. Whatever gets decided here today is not the end all to this project. Commissioner Stendell stated that from a purely architectural standpoint he could get behind this project. He thinks it is an interesting project and not as massive as a battleship or aircraft carrier. He informed the applicant that they have done some creative things to get it where it needs to be and he commends their efforts. Commissioner Gregory thought the architecture from the beginning was excellent and is even better now. They now have the luxury of having less density so they can really make this sing a little more. He didn t think this was a big opaque slab, this is a breathing building and the architecture needs to be understood better by people who don t know how to look at elevation. At the previous meeting he suggested that a 3-D rendering be submitted, something that people will understand what the developer is doing and they will like the architecture more. He had suggested at a previous meeting to break the building in the middle to give them an opportunity to break the axis and the opportunity to drop the northern most building so that you don t create the problem that you have adjacent to the Imago Gallery. He understands why the G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 13 of 19

14 Imago Gallery is upset, it s like a giant canyon placed next to the gallery. It is way beyond the spirit of the height limit. In his opinion that is the major architectural focus that they need to take. He stated again that if they did a 3-D computer presentation, he would be much more inclined to be in favor. Right now he feels they have come a long distance in making this building much more palatable. The developer has made a very good effort, but they re not there yet and it s better to be beaten up here than in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Joblon stated that he and Mr. Bagato have discussed a 3-D model on a DVD, but in Mr. Bagato s opinion he thought the photos would be more effective. Ms. Aylaian stated that in fairness to Mr. Bagato staff preferred the 3-D model but the developer indicated that it would be too slow and too cumbersome to get through. Mr. Joblon agreed that it would be too cumbersome. Commissioner Gregory stated that when you have so much obvious opposition and concern a 3-D presentation would benefit their cause in helping people understand the project. Commissioner Gregory called for a vote. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the developer would prefer the ARC to deny or continue. The Commission discussed the options and Mr. Joblon asked for a continuance. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Stendell, to continue Case PP Motion carried , with Commissioners Lambell and Touschner absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: MISC APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PONDEROSA HOMES II INC. Attn: Pamela Hardy, 6671 Owens Drive, Pleasanton, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review of fireplaces on tracts and tract LOCATION: Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 14 of 19

15 Ms. Grisa presented the project and stated that this was a review of the fireplace units on the Ponderosa homes. This project came before the ARC previously and at that time it was approved with a list of conditions. One of the conditions was to have the fireplace units side-vented out the walls of the house. It came through plan check several times with things being changed back and forth and the vents were shown on the roof. At the last meeting, the Commission recommended that an aesthetic feature be wrapped around the vent to make it look more aesthetically appealing. The applicant feels that a chimney cover or aesthetic feature around the vent is not needed and will present photos of a B-vent that will go from 12 to 24 above the roof. Ms. Pam Hardy, Ponderosa Homes stated their existing homes at the Masters and the Legions have stacked chimneys, however these homes do not. These are optional fireplaces and the buyer would have to elect to have them. She said that the applicant was not aware that a decorative element on the chimney was a requirement; they thought they were to provide a detail only if they were side-vented. There will be some problems when they do a direct side-vent out the back of the house because it will conflict with a trellis element on the back. She pointed out that there would only be a B-vent when two things occur; when the buyer takes the optional fireplace and at the same time they take the optional trellis overhang on the back. She presented the Commission with a couple photos of a standard B-vent for their review and pointed out that at the Palm Desert community the B-vents will be on the back ridge of the house it will not be apparent from the front of the house. The maximum is 24, but some are between 12 to 24. She also presented photos of D.R. Horton s project, Renaissance that showed the B-vents on one of their models. She stated that the B-vent is a pretty straight forward roof vent and said that there are a multitude of different kinds of vents on all homes. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they probably would only sell a few in those conditions and asked what the problem was with building an enclosure around them and making them nice. Ms. Hardy stated that one reason was they didn t want to draw attention to it. Commissioner Van Vliet expressed that it wasn t that small and was very visible. Ms. Hardy stated that it was 24 and said that if you were to go out to those houses you would see quite a few vents; some are much more visible and higher up on the roof than this B-vent would be. This is a cost element and they don t feel that this is a visible element they need to draw their eye to. To build a G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 15 of 19

16 few stacked chimneys for a B-vent seems like a lot to do. This project was not conditioned to have a chimney on the design. Commissioner Levin in response said that the units were to be side-vented so there was no reason for the Commission to ask for a chimney. Ms. Hardy said that it was their understanding that they were not required to have a decorative chimney element. The optional fireplaces are in the center of the homes not on the back wall of the house. They do have the ability to do the side vent on two of the three plans, the third being the direct vent up which is the one they want to do. To her knowledge there is no decorative cap required for that housing. Commissioner Stendell stated that you see these B-vents sticking up 24 to 38 above the roof line, above the ridge line because the wind causes a back draft of noxious gases throughout the units. He felt that it would be very inexpensive to include some sort of cover to make them have a little more substance. Ms. Hardy said there is no doubt that any decorative cap would help, but they did check with the manufacturer and were told that they do not allow any type of modifications to that element without voiding the warranty. She stated that they are clearly not in a position to modify what is a very standard typical B-vent. She is surprised that this hasn t come up before because they are so straight forward and you see them on houses all the time and unless you are looking for them they fade into the roof element itself and there is a multitude of different flues on these houses. Commissioner Stendell asked Mr. Russell Grance, Director of Building and Safety what the code requirement was for the B-vent as the one presented and Mr. Grance stated that he would have to defer to the manufacturer s specifications because they are all different. Commissioner Stendell asked if the building inspectors have the ability to inform someone to raise them if noxious gases may back draft into the appliance. Mr. Grance stated that when they are out there in the rough stage they look at the manufacturer specs based upon the appliance served. Ms. Hardy again stated that these roof vents are on the back of the house behind the ridge line and will only be seen from the back of the house. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they will be visible and Ms. Hardy said along with all the other houses. Commissioner Stendell stated that you have this nicely finished new house with all the B-vents, painted nicely and six months later due to conditions a galvanized piece of extension will need to be G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 16 of 19

17 added to stop the back drafts. He stated that they are offering the fireplace units as an option and you can literally enclose the B-vent you just have to have the specs above that exposed to the elements. Ms. Hardy stated that they will be painted along with all the other vents using standard conditional approval as seen on a lot of homes being built in Palm Desert. Again she is surprised that this is coming up on their project and trying to understand this. She said that they have built a pretty detailed home and said that they always go the extra mile. She expected to have discussion on a lot of other things but not this. She stated that they just can t build the enclosure. If that is the case, they will do one of two things. They will either vent it off the back but they will have to take a long direct vent from the center of the house out of the house and vent it under the trellis, and they could eliminate the fireplace as an option, but they don't want to do that in order to remain competitive. They just are not in a position to enclose the B-vent. Commissioner Van Vliet was astounded that she said they will go the extra mile, but they are not willing to incur a minimal cost to put something around the vent. Ms. Hardy stated that there are B-vents on other roofs right next to theirs. She said that she came down here to try and find out why and is having a hard time explaining it to the corporate office. She said that they really want to start this community in Palm Desert, but they have to be cost conscious; it is just a fact of life. Ms. Grisa pointed out that the fireplace units on the D.R. Horton homes in this same development are side-vented. Ms. Hardy argued that they have top vents. Ms. Grisa said they provided documentation after this came up and they are side-vented. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this may have slipped by but it is something that is not consciously allowed, never have. Ms. Hardy understands that this is a big aesthetic item for the Commission but this is something that is in the back of the house and their only other option would be to take the line and run it all the way to the back of the house with a vent under a trellis. Commissioner Lambell said to either make the big run all the way to the back or move the fireplace that is strictly up to them. Ms. Hardy asked them to understand that they were already in construction drawings when this issue came up and they aren t going to redesign the product. Commissioner Lambell said that the Commission was told that they would be side-vented and now you are asking for something different. Ms. Grisa said that two plan checks stated the same issue with the chimneys so it is an issue that has been brought up since the beginning. Ms. Hardy stated that there was some communication breakdown with their draft person who inadvertently put the chimney back on the house. Commissioner G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 17 of 19

18 Lambell wanted to clarify with Ms. Grisa that there is documentation that the D.R. Horton homes have nothing coming through the roof. Ms. Grisa said that was correct, but she would check on it again. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this looks similar to A/C units, but appears to be more bulky. With other models coming in it may set a precedent where we are not requiring fireplace vents to be screened and over time it could be disastrous. Ms. Hardy stated that they didn t want to invest a lot of money in this housing project and end up having an ugly vent. She understands the precedent issue, but this is a standard B-vent. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was an ordinance against this and how they would handle it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he wasn t aware of an ordinance it is just a standard question that is asked when looking at housing project submittals. The Commission needs to be sure that they are not looking at meters and chimney flues and half-baked architectural solutions that would cheapen the quality of the project. Ms. Hardy stated that if they go ahead and build an enclosure around the B-vent it will be higher than the current B-vent. Ms. Grisa stated that with wood burning fireplaces the chimneys height limit is two feet, she wasn t sure of Building and Safety requirements. Mr. Grance stated that the wood burning fireplaces have to be two feet higher and within ten feet but not gas; that is per manufacture s specifications. They take into consideration elevation and BTUs. He informed the Commission that in the future when people upgrade a standard water heater to a high efficiency instantaneous one it will require bigger vents. Bigger the vents the bigger the BTUs and the higher it will go up. You are going to see these things popping up higher by virtue of people doing energy efficiency and it could be on the front or the rear of the house. Commission Gregory stated that the Commission has been very careful with air conditioning units on the roof, but they are much more massive. This is the first time this has come up to his knowledge. Commissioner Vuksic agreed and said that he wasn t too familiar with them but it looks a bit bulky and would be concerned with approving it without knowing more about it. Ms. Hardy stated that she had the manufacturer s specifications with her. Commissioner Gregory asked how much of a hurry they were in for a decision. Ms. Hardy stated that they have not yet started the development, and have not yet made the official decision to go G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 18 of 19

19 forward with the project. Commissioner Gregory wondered if they continued it they could give themselves time to review the specifications. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he understands the scale of it relative to a heater vent and if it s going to look like that then he doesn t see a big deal because they do not require those to be screened. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue Case PP subject to applicant submitting manufacturer specifications of the fireplace units for the Commission s review. Motion carried , with Commissioner Touschner absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried , with Commissioners Touschner Lambell absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. MISSY GRISA ASSISTANT PLANNER G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 19 of 19