Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExample Current ARC reportARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A NEW 79,492 SF, THREE TO FOUR STORY PROJECT CONSISTING OF 59 ROOMS BETWEEN TWO STRUCTURES, WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY KNOWN AS THE VILLAGES. PROJECT ADDRESS: 55 Broad Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7524 Email: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0386-2020 FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner USE-0387-2020, PDEV-0001-2021 & EID-0528-2021 APPLICANT: Morrison I, LP REPRESENTATIVE: Jay Blatter RECOMMENDATION Review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING The project consists of the expansion of an existing Residential Care Facility (The Villages) to provide two new three to four story structures consisting of a total of 59 rooms. The proposed project includes the demolition of existing parking facilities to provide for the new project and includes site improvements such as site access upgrades, and associated landscaping. The project also includes the following exceptions: creek setback of 20 feet for the upper-stories where 30 feet is the standard, creek setback for paving and grading, front yard exception of 7 feet where 10 feet is normally required, front yard parking exception, parking in the creek setback, side yard setback exception, monument signs, and trash enclosure located within the street yard (Attachment B, Project Description). The project is located within a Planned Development (PD) Overlay that was originally established at this site to allow a student housing project. In 1997 the PD was amended to allow the senior housing project that exists today. ‘The Villages’ Planned Development currently consists of three three-story buildings, including: ‘Garden Creek’ an assisted living facility with 64 rooms along Broad St., ‘The Oaks’ a 50-unit senior living facility along Palomar Ave., and ‘The Palms’ a 127-unit senior living facility along Ramona Dr. The project includes an amendment to the existing PD Precise Plan to address the two new structures and a deviation from development standards1 to allow the maximum height of Building A to be 45 feet and 3 inches, and the maximum height of Building B to 1 Zoning Regulations Section 17.48.030.D. Deviation from Development Standards. The application of the PD overlay zone to property may include the adjustment or modification, where necessary and justifiable, of any applicable development standard of this Title 17 (e.g., building height, floor area ratio, parcel size, parking, setbacks, etc.)... Meeting Date: 11/1/2021 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 45 Minutes Item 4a 55 Broad Street – ARCH-0386-2020 Architectural Review Commission Report – November 1, 2021 be 58 feet and 4 inches, where the maximum height is normally 35 feet (Attachment B, Project Plans). General Location: The 4.55-acre project site is located at the corner of Broad Street, Ramona Drive, and Palomar Avenue, with direct access from all three streets. The site is located along Old Garden Creek, with a 3% average cross slope along the east side of the creek, and a 12% average cross slope on the west side of the creek. Zoning and General Plan: High Density Residential (R-4-PD) within a Planned Development (PD) Overlay. Surrounding Uses: East: (R-1) Single Family Residences West: (R-4) Multi-Family Residences North: (C-C) Foothill Plaza South: (R-4-PD) Residential Care Facility (The Oaks) 2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN Architecture: Spanish Style Design details: Clay “S” tile roof, decorative parapets, various arched openings, vertical windows, courtyards/patios, balconies, new trash enclosure, two story parking garage, new signage, and a creek walk. Materials & colors: Smooth plaster, decorative tiles, ornamental wrought iron railings, and clay tile roof. Colors: Primary off-white stucco, beige and light brown accent colors. Figure 1: 55 Broad Street Project Site Figure 2: Rendering of the project from Ramona Drive and Palomar Avenue Item 4a 55 Broad Street – ARCH-0386-2020 Architectural Review Commission Report – November 1, 2021 3.0 BACKGROUND The PD Overlay that was originally adopted by the City Council on January 4, 1965, through Council Resolution No. 1367 (1965 Series) included the Precise Plan to construct three buildings for student housing. On April 27, 1988, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Precise Plan to replace the third structure, which had not yet been constructed, with a new three-story structure with 42 residential units, known as The Gardens’. On May 20, 1997, the Planning Commission approved an additional amendment to the PD Overlay to convert the three residential structures into a senior housing facility, which remains as the current use today. On October 13, 2004, the City Council approved an additional PD Amendment to add two additional structures to the Precise Plan, with one residential structure to replace the parking lot between Old Garden Creek and ‘The Palms’ along Ramona Dr. and a two- story parking structure west of the creek along Palomar Ave., however, these two structures were not constructed and the entitlement approval of these two structures have since expired. 4.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW The project is scheduled for review by the Tree Committee on October 25, 2021, to evaluate the compensatory planting plan, and provide a recommendation to be considered by the Planning Commission along with the Architectural Review Commission’s (ARC’s) recommendation (Attachment C, TC Report 10.25.21). 5.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW The ARC’s role is to review the proposed project in terms of consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, Sign Regulations, and applicable City Standards and 2) provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission concerning the proposed project design, focusing on building architecture and site layout. The requested deviations from the maximum height under the PD Overlay will be evaluated in more detail by the Planning Commission proceeding the ARC’s recommendation, and subject to findings and conditions. Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104 6.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Sign Regulations, and Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Staff has identified the discussion items below related to consistency with CDG Chapter 2 General Design Principles), Chapter 5.3 (Infill Development), Chapter 5.4 (Multi-Family and Clustered Housing Design), Chapter 6 (Site Planning and Other Design Details), and Chapter 7.1 (Creekside Development). Item 4a 55 Broad Street – ARCH-0386-2020 Architectural Review Commission Report – November 1, 2021 Highlighted Sections Discussion Items CDG Chapter 2 – General Design Principles 2.1.B: Consider the Context The project site is located on a developed property within a High- Density Residential area with existing structures that are between 31-35 feet in height. The project proposes a maximum height of 45 feet for Building A, and 58 feet for Building B. The ARC should discuss how the project and request for additional height fits in with the best examples of appropriate site design and architecture in the vicinity of the site. 2.2.F: Coordinate the New with the Old The CDG states that when new construction is proposed on a site with existing structures, the new work should be designed to coordinate with old structures that have architectural and/or historic value. The ARC should discuss whether the proposed architectural style is compatible with existing structures on-site. CDG Chapter 5 – Section 5.3 (Infill Development) 5.3.A General Principles The CDG states that infill development should be compatible in scale, siting, and detailing with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood. The ARC should discuss whether design changes are necessary to address the compatibility of the height and bulk of the proposed structures in consideration of the existing neighboring character. 5.3.C Visual Impacts from Building Height The CDG states that the height of infill projects should be consistent with surrounding residential structures. The adjacent structure known as ‘The Palms’ has a maximum height of 31 feet, the adjacent structure known as ‘The Oaks’ has a maximum height of 34 feet. The project across Palomar Avenue known as ’71 Palomar’ has a maximum height of 35 feet. The ARC should discuss whether the requested maximum heights of 45 feet for Building A, and 58 feet for Building B are consistent or compatible with neighboring structures. CDG Chapter 5 – Section 5.4 (Multi-Family and Clustered Housing Design) 5.4.A Site Planning The CDG states that placement of new units should consider the existing character of the surrounding residential area. New development should respect the privacy of adjacent residential uses through appropriate building orientation and structure height, so that windows do not overlook and impair the privacy of the indoor or outdoor living space of adjacent units. The ARC should discuss whether design changes are necessary to improve considerations of preserving privacy of the adjacent existing residential developments. 5.4.A.2 & 4 Site Planning The CDG states that projects outside of Downtown should be designed in separate structures of six or fewer units, and that higher density projects should be designed with individual or courtyard style sidewalk entrances from the street. The ARC should discuss whether design changes are necessary along Palomar Avenue to enhance the residential entry from the street. Item 4a 55 Broad Street – ARCH-0386-2020 Architectural Review Commission Report – November 1, 2021 Highlighted Sections Discussion Items 5.4.C.2 Scale The CDG states that structures with greater height may require additional setbacks at the ground floor level and/or upper levels along the street frontage so that they do not visually dominate the neighborhood. The ARC should discuss the project’s scale and mass and discuss whether design changes are necessary to reduce the perceived scale of the project within the neighborhood. CDG Chapter 6 – (Site Planning and Other Design Details 6.1.F Trash/Recycling Enclosures & Service Areas The CDG states that if trash enclosures are located within the street yard then they should be located so that gates do not face the street, and finished with high quality materials to match the architecture of adjacent structures. The ARC should discuss whether any design changes are necessary to enhance or screen the proposed trash enclosure along Palomar Avenue. 6.3 Parking Facilities The CDG states that when parking lots are proposed along street frontages they shall be screened by a three-foot high wall, fence, or hedge. The project proposes a six-foot solid wall along the corner of Palomar Ave. and Ramona Dr. intended to screen the proposed parking lot from view of the street. The ARC should discuss whether the project includes sufficient screening and landscaping of the parking area from view of the street. CDG Chapter 6 – Signs 6.6 Signs The CDG allows approval of signs not normally allowed in exceptional circumstances such as visibility or unique design. The project includes three new monument signs located within the R-4 zone which are not a permitted sign type within the R-4 zone (located along the driveways at Ramona and Palomar, and at the corner of Ramona and Palomar). The ARC should discuss whether the requested sign exceptions for the three new monument signs with an area of 24 sq. ft. each (Project Plans Sheets A1.1 and A6.1), are consistent with the findings for an exception from the Sign Regulations 2. 2 Sign Regulations. Section 15.40.610. Findings for Approval of an Exception. Exceptions to the Sign Regulations must meet all of the following findings: (A) There are unusual circumstances applying to the property which make strict adherence to the regulations impractical or infeasible, such as building configuration, historic architectural features, architectural style, site layout, intervening obstructions, or other unusual circumstances. Exceptions shall not allow for additional signage in number or size beyond what is necessary to compensate for the unusual circumstances. Unusual circumstances may also include sign designs which are not expressly provided for or exempted in this Chapter, but which represent superior or innovative design appropriate for the building and location. (B) The exception is consistent with the intent and purpose of the sign regulations (see Section 15.40.110) and the exception is not being granted in cases where alternative options of allowed signage in this Chapter could provide an adequate alternative for sufficient visibility to the public with equal or superior design. (C) The sign exception is for superior design and complies with Design Principles of this Chapter and will not result in: visual clutter; excessively sized signage in comparison to the building or surroundings; signage that is inconsistent with the character of the surroundings; or approval of signs that are prohibited in this chapter. Item 4a 55 Broad Street – ARCH-0386-2020 Architectural Review Commission Report – November 1, 2021 Highlighted Sections Discussion Items Chapter 7 – Section 7.1 (Creekside Development) 7.1.B.2 Creek Setback Development Guidelines The CDG states that paths or trails along the creek may be located within the creekside setback, however, parking or other paved areas should not be located within the setback area. The project includes a permeable pathway and pavers along both sides of the creek within the setback area, however, seven parking spaces are located within the creek setback area on the west side of the creek. These parking spaces are proposed to replace the existing parking spaces which are also located within the creek setback area (Attachment D, Creek Setback Exhibit). Plans indicate that the amount of replacement paving within creek setback area will be reduced by 154 square feet from existing conditions. The ARC should discuss whether design changes are necessary for the proposed replacement of paving area within the creek setback for the parking lot at the corner of Palomar Avenue and Ramona Drive. 7.0 PROJECT STATISTICS Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required* Setbacks Street Yard (Ramona) Corner Yard (Palomar) Trash Enclosure (Palomar) Side Yard 23.2 feet 7 feet 6.5 feet 12.7 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Creek Setback – Building A First and Second Stories Third and Fourth Stories 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet Creek Setback – Building B First and Second Stories Third and Fourth Stories 25 feet 28 feet 20 feet 30 feet Maximum Height of Structures Building A Building B 45.25 feet 58.3 feet 35 feet 35 feet Max Lot Coverage 33% (total) 60% Affordable Housing In-lieu fee On-site or In-Lieu fee Monument Sign Zone Height Size Illumination Exception Requested 4.5 feet 24 square feet Non-illuminated Not allowed in R-4 zone 6 feet 24 square feet Externally Illuminated Item 4a 55 Broad Street – ARCH-0386-2020 Architectural Review Commission Report – November 1, 2021 Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required* Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Number of Vehicle Spaces EV Spaces 37 3 (EV ready) 7 (EV capable) 28 1 (EV ready) 7 (EV capable) Bicycle Spaces Short-term Long-term 2 6 2 5 Motorcycle Parking 3 1 Environmental Status An Initial Study (IS) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment E). 2019 Zoning Regulations 8.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 8.1 Recommend findings of consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. An action recommending approval of the application based on consistency with the Community Design Guidelines will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final action. This action may include recommendations for conditions to address consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 8.2 Continue the project to a hearing date certain, or uncertain. An action continuing the application should include direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 8.3 Recommend findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines. An action recommending denial of the application should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents. 9.0 ATTACHMENTS A – Project Description B – Project Plans C – TC Report 10.25.21 D – Creek Setback Exception Exhibit E – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community- development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-2192