HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
1
VTTM 3089
Avila Ranch Project
4240 & 4280 Earthwood Lane; 165 Cessna Court
ARCH-0197-2023
ARC Presentation for the
Avila Ranch Project – R-4 Product Review
October 2, 2023
Applicant: Wathen Castanos Homes
Representative: Carol Florence
Requested Feedback from ARC
Review the proposed R-4 residential design for
consistency with
Airport Area Specific Plan
Avila Ranch Development Plan
Community Design Guidelines
Provide Comments and Recommendations to the
Planning Commission
2
1
2
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
2
Previous Approvals
Avila Ranch Project was approved in 2017
Development Plan
Development Agreement
VTTM 3089
Certified Final EIR
Overall project was found consistent with City
policies, including the Community Design Guidelines
3
Previous or In-Progress Approvals
Other subsequent actions and approvals, including:
Phase 1 Final Map Recordation
Phase 1 Public Improvement Plans
Phases 1-6 grading plans
Phase 1-3 (R-2) development – 297 units
Phase 5 (R-1) development – 101 units
Other actions in progress, including:
Phases 2-6 Public Improvement Plans
Phases 2-6 jurisdictional permitting
4
3
4
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
3
Avila Ranch Location within the AASP
5
R-4 Portion of the Avila Ranch Plan Area
6
5
6
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
4
R-4 Project Includes Two Developments
R-4 Project Site is 4.05 acres
Market Rate Housing Project (“Anacapa”)
85 units in two freestanding three-story buildings
East of Earthwood Lane on one consolidated lot
Studios to 2 bedrooms, ranging from 401 to 917 SF
43 units in one building; 42 in the other
Contemporary/Mid-Century Architecture
Affordable Housing Project (“Sendero”)
60 units in one three-story building with a central courtyard
20 of the 60 units are proposed as a “density bonus”
West of Earthwood Lane on one lot
1 to 3 bedrooms, ranging from 748 to 935 SF
1,000 sf community room; 5,200 sf central courtyard
Contemporary/Mid-Century Architecture
7
Illustrative Site Plan
8
7
8
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
5
Rendering – Market Rate Project (“Anacapa”)
9
Rendering – Market Rate Project (“Anacapa”)
10
9
10
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
6
Elevations – Market Rate Project (“Anacapa”)
11
Rendering – Affordable Project (“Sendero”)
12
11
12
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
7
Rendering – Affordable Project (“Sendero”)
13
Elevations – Affordable Project (“Sendero”)
14
13
14
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
8
Colors and Materials
Colors
Grays
Whites
Beige
Muted plum
Materials
Stucco
Metal roofing and rails
Composite wood siding
See Sheets AX-1.0 through AX-4.1 for more details
15
R-4 Design Guidelines - ARDP
16
Applicant proposes
change of front
setback standard
from 15’ to 10’
Staff supports
proposed change
in order to better
meet housing and
design goals
10’ setback is
consistent with
recently updated
Citywide R-4
standard
15
16
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
9
Summary of Proposed R-4 Development
17
Summary of Proposed R-4 Development
18
17
18
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
10
Proposed Fence Height Exception
Municipal Code 17.70.070 Requirements
6 feet along side and rear setbacks
Up to 9 feet when combined with a retaining wall
Exceptions allowed for topography
Proposed
Requested to allow for topography and drainage
Along the north and west boundaries (non-residential areas)
9.1 feet along the north property line
13.1 feet on the west property line
Original swale concept not topographically possible
19
Proposed Fence Height Exception Locations
20
19
20
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
11
Proposed Fence Height Exception: North Side
21
Proposed Fence Height Exception: West Side
22
21
22
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
12
Monument Sign Exception
Municipal Code Requirements
Not allowed in residential zones unless exception approved
Illuminated signs not allowed
ARDP allows monument signs with an agrarian theme at
three major roundabouts in Avila Ranch
Proposed
Two illuminated monument signs, one for each development
5.5 feet high, 7.5 feet wide; total sign area 20 square feet
Reflect contemporary architecture of the development
These are in addition to the three signs described above
23
Proposed Monument Sign
24
23
24
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
13
Key Discussion Items Summary
Do you recommend finding the proposed site design and building
designs consistent with AASP, ARDP and CDG requirements?
Are there modifications to the architectural style or design that
should be considered to ensure conformance to requirements?
Do you have any input with regard to the proposed fence height or
monument sign exceptions?
Do you have any input with regard to landscaping and lighting?
(Section 8.06 of the approved Development Agreement provides flexibility so
that design issues can be found consistent by meeting the intent of the
ARDP)
25
Discussion: ARDP Standard 1.1 - Setbacks
26
15-foot front setback required; 10 feet proposed
Staff is supportive of the proposal because of limited
design options, and because this is applied elsewhere
in the City
25
26
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
14
Discussion: ARDP Standard 1.2, 1.6, 7.35
27
Involve the relationship between building setbacks and
building heights
Intent is to avoid blocking distant views of hillsides
Staff is supportive of the proposal as it is consistent
with intent of the ARDP, as buildings are oriented away
from Earthwood Lane and need to be three stories to
support the density called for in the ARDP.
A strict application of ARDP standards would not allow
for sufficient density.
Discussion: ARDP Standard 7.1.1-7.1.4, 7.4
28
ARDP allows contemporary architectural style
Proposed project is potentially consistent with this style
Proposal provides architectural transition from adjacent
industrial and commercial areas
ARC should consider whether proposed modern style
is consistent with ARDP and compatible with
previously approved R-1 and R-2 developments and
provide direction if necessary
27
28
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
15
Discussion: ARDP Standard 7.10
29
ARDP calls for covered entries, porches and walkways
that front onto the street
Proposed project includes articulated elements on
building facades and changing building materials;
individual porches not feasible in multi-family complex
Staff recommends ARC discuss possible
enhancements to parking lot paving to provide visual
cues and to provide more visual interest
Discussion: ARDP Standard 9.2 - Signs
30
Monument signs not allowed in residential zones
unless exception approved
Illuminated signs not allowed
Staff recommends minor modifications to sign to be
externally lit, not internally
ARC should consider staff’s recommendation and
provide additional direction, if necessary
29
30
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
16
Discussion: ARDP Standards 9.3.2 – 9.3.8
31
These standards address lighting in Avila Ranch
Pole lights and locations are shown in the project plans
Staff recommends refinement of lighting plan to ensure
lights do not shine into residential units.
Standard utilitarian pole is proposed, and ARC may
have input on its design, as well as ask for more detail
about bollards or pedestrian-scaled lighting
Discussion: ARDP Standard 11.2 - Drainage
32
ARDP calls for landscaped drainage swale at north
property line
Technical review determined that a swale would be
insufficient to carry 100-year storm event
Solution requires concrete channel with a fence, which
requires a fence height exception
ARC may want to discuss possible landscape
screening, or ways to reduce visual impacts of
drainage
31
32
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
17
Discussion: Proposed Fence Height Exception
Municipal Code 17.70.070 Requirements
6 feet along side and rear setbacks
Up to 9 feet when combined with a retaining wall
Exceptions allowed for topography
Proposed
Requested to allow for topography and drainage
Along the north and west boundaries (non-residential areas)
9.1 feet along the north property line
13.1 feet on the west property line
Original swale concept not topographically possible
33
Discussion: Fence Design
34
To staff, exception to fence height is acceptable
because it allows for density called for in the ARDP,
and is needed for safety related to drainage
ARC may want to discuss whether fence as proposed
is compatible with project design and provide direction
to applicant as appropriate
33
34
10/2/2023 Item 4a ‐ Staff Presentation
18
Recommendation/Next Steps
Staff Recommendation: Find the project consistent
with the AASP, ARDP Design Framework, and
Community Design Guidelines, and forward the
project to the Planning Commission for action
If ARC recommends approval to the Planning
Commission, this could be done with or without
recommended conditions or further guidance
Planning Commission to consider application based
on ARC recommendations
35
Questions and Comments
36
35
36