City of Del Mar. Design Review Board Wednesday, May 27, 2015 Action Minutes

Transcription

1 ROLL CALL 6:03 p.m. City of Del Mar Design Review Board Wednesday, May 27, 2015 Action Minutes Present: Absent: Staff: Chair Curtis, Vice Chair Bekkar, Board Members Michalsky, Macdonald, Ehrenfeld, Levine and Haviland, and Ex-Officio Cecil None Planning Manager Birnbaum, Senior Planner Smith, Planning Intern McMahon APPROVAL OF MINUTES UPDATE MOVED BY CHAIR MICHALSKY, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BEKKAR, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING HELD ON APRIL 22, VOTE: (LEVINE, HAVILAND, MACDONALD ABSTAIN) Assistant to the City Manager Crane gave an update on Governor Brown s mandatory drought restrictions. Planning Manager Birnbaum gave an update on the following: City Council at their last meeting established a committee to review the Design Review Process and he stated that the staff report for that was available for review on the City s website. Board Member Macdonald explained that if the public wants to meet with the DRB members in advance of DRB review of an application they would like advance notice so that they have ample time to plan for such site visits. HEARING FROM AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA (ORAL COMMUNICATIONS) None. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD/STAFF DISCUSSION None. DISCUSSION AND BRIEFING Planning Manager Birnbaum noted that Item #1 (ADR15-015) and Item #2 (DRB14-21) have been continued date certain to the June meeting. He also stated that Item #3 (DRB14-062) has correspondence of concern therefore, it is not eligible while Item #4 (DRB14-052) is eligible for the consent calendar. City of Del Mar, 1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA Phone: Fax:

2 Page 2 of 8 CONSENT CALENDAR Item #4 has been nominated for the Consent Calendar BOARD MEMBER MICHALSKY MOVED, BOARD MEMBER MACDONALD SECONDED TO APPROVE ITEM #4 (DRB14-052) AS AMENDED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE ADDED CONDITION THAT ALL ADDED LIGHTING BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT. ITEM 4 DRB Item Moved to and Approved on the Consent Calendar with an added condition that all lighting must be dark sky compliant. APN: Location: 650 Rimini Rd. Applicant/Owner: Sandra Dijkstra Agent: Bruce Duggan Zone: R1-10 Overlay Zone: WUI Environmental Status: Exempt Contact Person: Shaun McMahon, Planning Intern Description: A request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 17 tall outdoor elevator on the northeast side of an existing single-family residence. VOTE: (BOARD MEMBERS HAVILAND AND LEVINE RECUSED); MOTION APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE ADDED CONDITION THAT ALL PROPOSED LIGHTING BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT; TEN DAY RIGHT OF APPEAL ADMINITRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW: ITEM 1 ADR Prior to meeting, Item continued to the June DRB meeting. APN: Location: 2928 Camino del Mar Applicants/Owners: 2928 Camino Del Mar LLC Agent: Guy West, Wallace E. Cunningham Inc. Zone: R1-5B Environmental Status: Exempt Contact Person: Matt Bator, AICP, Senior Planner Description: A request for an Administrative Design Review Permit to install one new ground-level window at the north elevation of an existing single-family residence. CONTINUED APPLICATION(S): ITEM 2 DRB CDP LC Prior to meeting, Item continued to the June DRB APN: Location: 445 Van Dyke Avenue Applicants/Owners: Jeff and Carolyn Levin Agent: Jim Sneed, Bokal and Sneed Architects Zone: R1-10 Environmental Status: Exempt Contact Person: Joseph Smith, AICP, Senior Planner Description: A request for Design Review, Coastal Development, and Land Conservation Permits to demolish a one-story, single-family

3 Page 3 of 8 meeting. ITEM 3 DRB CDP LC residence and construct a new two-story single-family residence with basement, pool and spa, grading and retaining walls, fencing, hardscape, landscaping, and associated site improvements. APN: Location: 1221 Umatilla Street Applicants/Owners: Brian and Elizabeth Wilson Agent: Kevin Mullinax, Edinger Architects Zone: R1-10 Environmental Status: Exempt Contact Person: Joseph Smith, AICP, Senior Planner Description: A request for a Design Review, Coastal Development, and Land Conservation Permits to demolish a single-family residence and construct a new, two-story, single-family residence with a basement and subterranean garage, outdoor covered areas, pool and spa, firepit, grading and retaining walls, landscaping, fencing, and associated site improvements. Senior Planner Smith presented the staff report. Board Member Haviland recused himself. Board Member Michalsky asked why a topo map was not included in the site plan. Senior Planner Smith stated that although the topo lines are faint, they are included on the grading plan. Disclosures Chair Curtis none. Vice Chair Bekkar none. Board Member Levine was not on the DRB during the first hearing but reviewed the previous meeting on video and read all the past documents. Board Member Ehrenfeld visited the site. Board Member Michalsky visited the site three times and met with the applicant. Board Member Macdonald visited the site. Applicant s Representative Pat Edinger 444 South Cedros Avenue, Solana Beach, explained how they incorporated the concerns of the Board from the last meeting and stated how they feel they mitigated those concerns. He also noted the changes to the mass as it would appear from Rimini Rd., as well as some other portions of the project that were exempt from FAR but contribute to bulk and mass. Board Member Macdonald asked about the height of the home compared to the grade on Rimini Rd. Pat Edinger stated that the pad of the home is about 10 feet higher than the grade of the road, therefore the roof line is about 33 feet above the intersection of Rimini and Umatilla Street. Board Member Levine asked if the proposed home will be higher than the existing residence. Applicant s Representative Kevin Mullimax stated that the height is the same as the

4 Page 4 of 8 existing but the proposed home has a finished floor lower elevation than that of the existing home. Board Member Ehrenfeld asked if it would be possible for the applicants to lower the roof ridge of the home by two feet. Kevin Mullimax and Pat Edinger stated that reducing the ridge height is not possible, but reducing the pad elevation by two additional feet is. However they felt this was problematic to due to drainage concerns into the garage area. Vice Chair Bekkar asked the applicant to elaborate on the shading of the structure to reduce the bulk and mass. Pat Edinger stated that the articulation of the second floor, as well as the added logia in the front, creates shading at different times of the day. Board Member Levine asked if the second floor deck was increased in size or if it is the same size as the previous proposal. Kevin Mullimax stated that the deck did increase in size so that it could provide wrap around access to all of the bedrooms on the second floor. Senior Planner Smith stated that the deck has been increased in size by 300 square feet but they also removed a deck in the rear that was 290 square feet. Board Member Levine asked about mitigation of water usage relating to the installation of a pool and lawn area. Applicant Elizabeth Wilson, 1221 Umatilla St. explained that although an uncovered pool can lose water a covered pool operates similarly to drought tolerant plants. She also stated that they would like to keep the pool and the lawn area. Board Member Levine asked about greywater systems and onsite water retention. Applicant Brian Wilson 1221 Umatilla St. stated that they are currently researching those types of systems but have not chosen one as of yet. Vice Chair Bekkar asked if they have considered buffalo grass for the lawn area. Brian Wilson stated that they are researching that as well. Public Hearing Opened Jerry Hirshberg, 1227 Umatilla St., stated that he is in support of the project and believes that the applicant has done a good job mitigating all of the concerns of the neighbors and Board members. He also stated that the articulation of the home fits in well with the neighborhood and the City of Del Mar. Linda Hirshberg, 1227 Umatilla St. explained that she is in support of the project and believes that the applicants will be a great addition to Del Mar. Ellen Haviland, 693 Rimini Rd., stated that the siting and massing of the home is not in character with neighborhood and explained that although there has been some positive changes, she believes that there are still some changes that need to be made so that the

5 Page 5 of 8 home fits in with the character of Del Mar. Sandra Dijkstra, 650 Rimini Rd., agreed with the statements from Ellen Haviland regarding the home not fitting in with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Jill Coughlin, 565 Van Dyke, stated that she is in support of the project and believes that it is not the applicants fault that they are on a lot that sits at a height above the adjacent street. She also stated that she believes that the kids should have grass to play on that that they should not have to plant three new Torrey Pines. Rebuttal Elizabeth and Brian Wilson, noted that some of the neighbors are tucked away but also pointed out that some of the homes are not. They also stated that they feel as if the concerns of the DRB and the neighbors were met and do not think there is much else they can do to appease all of the neighbors. Board Member Macdonald asked about the vegetation surrounding the motor court. Elizabeth and Brian Wilson pointed out the trees and other vegetation that will provide screening for the driveway. Board Member Michalsky asked if they considered angling the entry way to the motor court. Brian Wilson stated that they considered it but after speaking with the architect he explained that it would reduce their accessibility into the driveway. Public Hearing Closed Deliberation Board Member Ehrenfeld explained that the articulation is great but also stated that if the home was at street level then he thought it could be approvable. He then cited DRO Section D.2 regarding the height of the home. Board Member Macdonald noted that he believes that the proposal is consistent with the DRO and believed that his concerns were mostly mitigated. Although he believed most of his concerns were mitigated he cited DRO Section C and agreed that the overall height of the building could be lower. Vice Chair Bekkar explained that he agrees with Board Member Macdonald and believes the applicant made significant changes to mitigate the Board s concerns. He also noted that he does not necessarily like the idea of more excavation to lower the home s elevations and cited DRO Section E regarding the wrap-around deck on the second floor. Board Member Levine echoed the sentiments of Vice Chair Bekkar and believes the deck on the second floor is excessive. Additionally she liked the idea of mature vegetation being planted at the beginning of the project to help screen the impact of the structure but still has a concern about the drought tolerance considerations of the project and cited Sections J and A of the DRO. Board Member Macdonald asked Ex-Officio Cecil about the feasibility of lowering the

6 Page 6 of 8 finished floor elevation and the potential problems that may cause. Ex-Officio Cecil stated that he agrees with the applicant that lowering the garage/basement floor elevation could pose potential problems for the drainage of the property and stated that whenever a project can utilize gravity rather than mechanics for drainage it should. Vice Chair Bekkar added that with the potential rains coming in the fall, drainage could be a major issue. Planning Manager Birnbaum explained that there is a 4 foot physical separation between the garage and basement areas. Chair Curtis recapped all of the issues brought up by the Board Members. Board Member Ehrenfeld asked Ex-Officio Cecil for strategies on how to lower the height of the home without lowering the finished floor elevation. Ex-Officio Cecil stated that without lowering the finished floor elevation, the only way to reduce height would be to reduce the plate heights by a few inches on every floor to reduce the overall height by a foot. Board Member Ehrenfeld stated that maybe the applicant could reduce the finished floor of the basement elevation and leave the garage as is. Board Member Michalsky stated that the only way he believes the applicant can lower the home is by reducing the finished floor elevation of the home due to the plate heights proposed. Board Member Macdonald stated that he would like to see the home lowered but does not believe that it is feasible. Board Member Ehrenfeld asked if the basement could be lowered thereby lowering the overall height of the residence. Chair Curtis asked if lowering the home by two feet would mitigate his concerns about the height of the house. Board Member Ehrenfeld stated that if the home was lowered he could approve the project. Chair Curtis recapped the concerns of the Board Members. Vice Chair Bekkar asked the applicant if they have any suggestions for reducing the mass and overall height of a home and if they would be amenable to varying floor heights on the first floor. Brian Wilson stated that he does not believe that lowering the basement two feet would be feasible and also stated that the plate heights are minimal as presented. Board Member Levine noted that she would like to see the home lowered and suggested that the Board give the applicant a continuance to research possibilities for lowering the home.

7 Page 7 of 8 Vice Chair Bekkar explained that he would like to see the project lower but also thinks he could approve it as is. Chair Curtis stated that the height of the project was never quite an issue for him and stated that the articulation that was added mitigated his concerns. Board Member Levine inquired if asking the applicant to lower the home is a feasible request without giving them a continuance. Ex-Officio Cecil asked the applicant if they would be opposed to having split levels for the first floor thereby reducing the basement elevation by two feet. Brian Wilson stated that he hopes to live in the home for a very long time and does not think having a split level design on the main floor is something he is willing to do. Pat Edinger explained that physically the home could be lowered but does not think that it would make a noticeable difference to the overall look. Board Member Macdonald stated that he would rather see the building at its current height than lower it and cause the applicants concerns with excavation and drainage. Board Member Michalsky added that although Board Member Macdonald believes that the drainage would be an issue he feels the residence still needs to be lowered. Board Member Levine stated that she isn t convinced that a 1-or 2-foot drop would change the look of the project all that much. Vice Chair Bekkar stated that his issue lies with the wrap-around deck on the second floor. Kevin Mullimax added that if they were to remove the wrap around deck that area would then just become traditional roof adding more mass. Chair Curtis additionally added that he too does not believe lowering the overall height by two feet would make that much of a difference. Brian Wilson responding to earlier questions about landscaping and drought concerns stated that if City Council were to approve stricter regulations on landscaping, he would comply with all of them. Board Member Ehrenfeld stated that the Board should either give them a continuance or take a vote. Planning Manager Birnbaum recommended that the Board make a motion and take a vote. MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER MACDONALD, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR BEKKAR, TO APPROVE APPLICATION DRB14-062, CDP AND LC14-019, SUBJECT TO THE ADDED CONDITIONS REGARDING ADHERENCE TO WATER CONSERVATION REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL AND THE INSTALLATION OF A POOL COVER AS WELL AS THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

8 Page 8 of 8 VOTE: 3-3 MOTION FAILED (BOARD MEMBERS LEVINE, EHRENFELD AND MICHALSKY OPPOSED) Board Member Ehrenfeld recommended a continuance. Planning Manager Birnbaum recapped the options of the applicant in accepting the continuance or asking for the Board to take a vote. He then explained why the Board was asking the applicant to take a continuance as opposed to taking another vote, because another (tied) failed vote would result in the item being forwarded to City Council for review. Brian Wilson amended the application to lower the finished floor of the project by one foot thereby lowering the roof height by one foot. The applicant clarified that this would be achieved by reducing the elevations by one foot (i.e., roof, floor plates, and basement / garage elevations). MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER MACDONALD, SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER LEVINE, TO APPROVE APPLICATION DRB14-062, CDP AND LC AS AMENDED BY THE APPLICANT TO REDUCE THE OVERALL HEIGHT BY ONE FOOT, SUBJECT TO THE ADDED CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A POOL COVER AND ADHERENCE TO ANY ADDITIONAL WATER CONSERVATION REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, AND THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. VOTE: 6-0 MOTION APPROVED TEN DAY RIGHT OF APPEAL Note: Approval subject to the added conditions for the installation of a pool cover and the acceptance of the City s drought measures at the time of building permit issuance, plus an added condition for the submittal of revised plans reflecting the applicants amended application. Adjournment 8:40 p.m.