Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11-2016 ARC Agenda Packet City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 99 0 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Agenda Architectural Review Commission Monday, January 11, 2016 5:00 pm REGULAR MEETING Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Wynn ROLL CALL: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of October 19, 2015 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: At this time, the general public is invited to speak before the Commission on any subject within the jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Commission that does not appear on this agenda. Although the Commission will not take action on any item presented during the Public Comment Period, the Chair may direct staff to place an item on a future agenda for formal discussion. PUBLIC HEARINGS Note: Any court challenge to the actions taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. 1. 48 Buena Vista Avenue & 2390 Loomis Street. SDU-1521-2015; Recommendation to the City Council for the architectural review of a new single family residence and a Secondary Dwelling Unit in the S-Overlay zone, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; R-1-S; Lee Kraft, applicant. (Kyle Bell) San Luis Obispo - Regular Meeting Agenda of January 11, 2016 Page 2 COMMENT & DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT APPEALS Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $279 and must accompany the appeal documentation. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805)781-7107. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Recommendation to the City Council for the architectural review of a new single family residence (with attached Secondary Dwelling Unit) in the R-1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone, with a categorical exemption from environmental review. PROJECT ADDRESS: 48 Buena Vista Avenue BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner & 2390 Loomis Street Phone Number: (805) 781-7524 e-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: SDU-1521-2015 FROM: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION Recommend the City Council approve the construction of a single-family residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit, subject to findings and conditions of approval (Attachment 1). SITE DATA SUMMARY The applicant has proposed to construct a single-family residence in the R-1-S zone that includes a height and setback exception on a sloping lot. The Planning Commission has reviewed the project for the height and setback exceptions on October 28, 2015 and determined that the requests were minor, however, the Planning Commission denied the project based on the finding that the project would be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the neighborhood, due to the location of the driveway approach and the absence of street parking and sidewalks in the neighborhood. The proposed project requires architectural review as the project has been identified as a “sensitive site” and requires minor architectural review by the Community Development Director. Due to the amount of public input on the project as well as the Use Permit appeal to the City Council, the Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date June 15, 2015 Complete Date August 5, 2015 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines Meeting Date: January 11, 2016 Item Number: 1 ARC1 - 1 SDU-1521-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 2 Admin Review August 27, 2015 PC Review September 23, 2015 PC Denial October 28, 2015 PC Appeal October 29, 2015 ARC Review January 11, 2016 CC Review January 19, 2016 Review elevated to PC Review continued with direction Use Permit Denied Use Permit Appealed Design Review and Recommendation to Council Director has forwarded the design review to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for a recommendation to the City Council. The proposed residence includes an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU) which is also part of design review. 1.0 BACKGROUND For additional background information see Attachment 4, Project Background. 2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, the General Plan and applicable City standards and provide a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will take final action on the project for the Use Permit (USE-1520- 2015) and the architectural review (SDU-1521-2015). 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Site Information/Setting Site Size 13,321 Square Feet Present Use & Development Vacant Topography Slopes downward from Buena Vista Avenue, approximately 30% slope Access Buena Vista Avenue Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C/OS-5 (Conservation/Open Space) South: R-1-S (Low Density Residential with an S-Overlay) East: PF (Public Facility, Cuesta Park) West: R-1 (Low Density Residential) The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with direct access off of Buena Vista Avenue in Monterey Heights. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site, including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The property is a downward sloping lot from west to east with an average grade greater than 30%. The property borders an open space area to the north and undeveloped R-1-S property to the south. On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right-of-way bordering the site. The site is 650 feet west of, and 150 feet above Highway 101. ARC1 - 2 SDU-1521-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 3 3.2 Project Description The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment 3, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,921 square-foot home with a two car garage a. Attached 442 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit b. Two stories with a proposed max height of 28 feet above average natural grade 2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with; a. Glass panels b. Cement board panels c. Wood siding d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce the mass of the structure 3.3 Project Statistics Item Proposed a Ordinance Standard b Street Yard Setback (Buena Vista Avenue) 20 feet 20 feet Other yard setbacks North East South 12 135 13.5 15 (35 foot structure) 15 13.5 Max. Height of Structure (Average Natural Grade) 28 feet 25 feet Building Coverage (footprints) 12% 40% Parking Spaces 3 (1 space for SDU) 3 Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans b. City Zoning Regulations 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project site is located within one of the City’s Hillside Planning Areas (The Cal Poly-Cuesta Park Area) the applicant has designed the project in accordance with the Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 Hillside Development Standards and the Land Use Element 6.4 Hillside Policies. The Community Design Guidelines are intended to implement General Plan Hillside Policies by minimizing the visibility and other impacts of allowable hillside development. 4.1 Site Plan: The project has been designed on a legal residential property entirely within the urban reserve line. The proposed residence is located close to Buena Vista Avenue in order to design a driveway that minimizes the amount of grading to access the site (LUE 6.4.3.E). The garage has been designed to accommodate the full street yard setback of 20 feet with a 13% ARC1 - 3 SDU-1521-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 4 sloped driveway which complies with the Community Design Guidelines for site access 1. As discussed at the Planning Commission hearing, access from Loomis Street has been determined infeasible due to the 60% slope along Loomis Street and all utility connections have been provided for the site from Buena Vista Avenue. Grading: Per the City’s grading standards (MC J101.6), 100% of the site (exclusive of the building area) is to remain in its natural state due to the average natural grade of the site that exceeds 30%. The project has been designed to avoid a large single elevation graded pad and instead provides a more careful stepped foundation with piers that includes all required grading within the building area. The project complies with the City’s grading standards. Height and Setback Exceptions: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed height and setback exceptions and determined that they were minor and were not a concern for the project (Attachment 7, PC Hearing Minutes). The ARC is not being asked to consider the height/setback exceptions but can provide feedback on such items to the City Council if the ARC finds the height/setback to present inconsistencies with the Community Design Guidelines. 4.2 Building Design: The Community Design Guidelines state that the building design of an infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood. The Land Use Element Hillside Development Policies state that development of structures on hillsides shall keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes, avoid large continuous walls, and use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape (LUE 6.4.3). Hillside Integration: The residence has been designed and located on site that does not block views from adjacent properties. There are no privacy concerns from the roof deck as the adjacent property to the north is zoned Conservation Open Space. The property to the south has not yet been developed and can provide adequate room on the site for a building to be designed that includes private outdoor space, due to the odd L-shape of the lot. The structure is also located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101 or Cuesta Park; two existing residences are located approximately 30 feet above the subject property directly on the ridgeline 2. All hillside vegetation will be retained to the maximum extent feasible, so not to destroy the natural character of the site. The property can also be viewed from Highway 101 Southbound; the project site is located outside of the State designated scenic corridor as the project site is within city limits. The residence is only prominently visible from Highway 101 for approximately 18 seconds (when traveling at posted speed limits) from a distance of 3,000 feet, prior to this stretch of 1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development. Site Access. Each driveway shall follow natural terrain contours to the maximum extent feasible to minimize both the extent of grading and the visibility of the driveway… (c) A driveway shall not have a grade steeper than five percent within 10 feet of a garage or carport entry. Driveway finished grade shall not exceed an average of 15 percent. 2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development. Placement of Structures. Each proposed structure shall be located so that: (c) The silhouetting of a structure against the sky above the nearest ridge or knoll when viewed from a public street is minimized. ARC1 - 4 SDU-1521-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 5 Highway 101 the hillside that the project site is located on is insignificant when compared to the views of the surrounding hillsides. Views toward the property are also compromised by several billboards and existing residences on the hillside that project above the ridgeline. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories that decrease the mass of the structure when viewed from Highway 101. Required landscaping further integrates the structure into the hillside by providing a visual transition from development to open areas. Over time the proposed Oak trees will provide additional screening of the property when viewed from Highway 101 similarly to the two residences at the top of the ridgeline. Form and Mass: The proposed residence is located within an eclectically designed neighborhood with residences ranging in size from 4,230 square feet to 1,500 square feet. The average home size in the neighborhood is approximately 2,633 square feet (excluding the garage). The residence has been designed below the average at 1,921 square feet and is compatible with the neighborhood. The design utilizes vertical wall articulation, offsets, recessed windows and entries, balconies, and the slope of the lot to relieve the form and mass of the building. Colors and Materials: The design of the residence includes exterior colors that emphasize dark earth tones that blend the structure with the natural appearance of the hillside and emphasizes wood as the primary natural-appearing material. The structure demonstrates consistent use of colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the building. All elevations include interesting architectural treatments. Cantilevered decks create shading from the sun, which reduce glare from the exterior windows. Staff is in support of the proposed colors and materials because they are consistent with the Hillside Development standards for building design. Roof Deck: Per the City’s grading standards (MC J101.6), 100% of the site (exclusive of the building area) is to remain in its natural state due to the average natural grade of the site that exceeds 30%. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 250 square feet of private outdoor space for the primary residence and the SDU and providing usable outdoor space on the project site is limited due to slope and grading requirements. The Zoning Regulations (Chapter 17.21.D.1(g)) allow provision of outdoor space within above ground decks or balconies as long as minimum space requirements are met including a minimum dimension of 6-feet in every direction; the project complies with this requirement. Figure 1: (Left) rendering from downhill (Right) rendering from Highway 101. ARC1 - 5 SDU-1521-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 6 Height of Lowest Floor Level: The applicant’s original design of the residence included a third level that was proposed in order to maintain compliance with the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development 3. In order to address concerns from the Planning Commission Hearing on September 23, 2015 the applicant met with city staff and evaluated removing the third level from the residence and alternatively cantilevering the main floor over the natural grade of the site to exceed a height of six feet on the north-east corner of the residence, see Figure 2. Staff supports the proposal because the removal of the third level helps reduce the overall mass and scale of the project and provides a more consistent design that maintains the natural character of the hillside. Staff is in support of the columns below the lowest floor on the downhill side to exceed six feet with an unenclosed design to be an integral feature of the architectural design. 4.3 Secondary Dwelling Unit: SDU’s are allowed by right when accessory to a single family residence so long as they comply with SDU Property Development Standards. The proposed project, with integrated SDU, meets all performance standards for SDU’s, set forth by the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.21.010). 5.0 CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s design of a single-family residence with an SDU. The property is a legal lot that is within an R-1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone, designated to address development on the hillside. The proposed project has been designed to minimize the amount of grading on the hillside slope consistent with Hillside Development Standards, the City’s Grading Ordinance, and the General Plan. 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development. Height of Lowest Floor Level. The vertical distance between the lowest point where the foundation meets grade and the lowest floor line of the structure should not exceed six feet. Figure 2: (top) Original three level design (bottom) Revised two level design. ARC1 - 6 SDU-1521-2015 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue Page 7 7.0 ALTERNATIVES 7.1. Continue the project and provide direction to the applicant to revise the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 7.2. Recommend denial of the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS 1.Draft Resolution 2.Vicinity Map 3.Project Plans 4. Project Background 5.PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report & Meeting Minutes) 6.Applicant Response Letter 7.PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report & Meeting Minutes) Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board ARC1 - 7 RESOLUTION NO. ####-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE DESIGN OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 11, 2016 (48 BUENA VISTA AVENUE & 2390 LOOMIS STREET, R- 1-S ZONE; SDU-1521-2015) WHEREAS, on January 11, 2016, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of reviewing the design of a single- family residence with attached secondary dwelling unit on a sloping site (SDU-1521-2015), Jeff Kraft applicant; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by the staff at said hearings. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve the design of the project (SDU-1521-2015) based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s zoning designation, and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. 2. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to compatible development (LUE 2.3.9), residential project objectives (LUE 2.3.11) and housing production (HE 6). Hillside Development 3. The project site is designated as a “sensitive site” by Ordinance No. 755 because of concerns relating to hillside development and public utility services. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the property’s sensitive site status because the buildings design minimizes the need for grading activities through the use of stepped foundation with piers; the building Attachment 1 ARC1 - 8 design is compatible with surrounding developments; and the conceptual landscape plan provides for native, drought tolerant plantings visible from the public right-of-way that provide a transition from developed to open space areas. 4. Consistent with the Planning Commission Direction, the structural support piers below the lowest floor are appropriate for the building design because the property that is adjacent to the piers is designated as Conservation Open Space. The unenclosed design is an integral feature of the architectural design that will have no visual impact toward any adjacent property. 5. Consistent with Section 7.2 of Community Design Guidelines, the project has been designed in consideration of views toward the property from Highway 101 and has been designed with colors and materials that are consistent with hillside development standards that blend the structure into the natural appearance of the hillside. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories which limits the mass of the structure when viewed from Highway 101. As conditioned, landscaping of the project site further integrates the structure into the hillside by providing a visual transition from development to open areas. Secondary Dwelling Unit 6. The secondary dwelling unit conforms to all applicable zoning regulations including allowable zone, height, yards, parking, size, and building coverage. 7. The project is consistent with Purpose “4” (Section 17.21.010) for secondary dwelling units because the project expands housing opportunities for low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby recommends final approval to the City Council for the project with incorporation of the following conditions: Planning Department 1. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans and project description, and incorporating the following conditions of approval, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approval. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Attachment 1 ARC1 - 9 2. Pursuant to Section 17.21.030 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, either the primary unit or secondary unit must be owner occupied at all times as the owner’s primary residence. A “Conditions of Use for Secondary Unit” agreement shall be recorded prior to occupancy of the SDU to ensure compliance with this requirement. If owner occupancy ceases, the use of the second unit will terminate and the structure can no longer be used as an independent dwelling unit. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 4. As shown in the Planning submittal, plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate a parking plan, showing designated parking spaces for both the secondary dwelling unit and existing single-family residence. 5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate a tandem parking plan, showing designated parking spaces for both the Secondary Dwelling Unit and existing single-family residence. The Secondary Dwelling Unit shall have one dedicated parking space, parked in the garage or driveway leading to the garage directly adjacent to the secondary dwelling unit, and two dedicated parking spaces for the primary residence provided in tandem, one parked in the garage near the primary residence and one space provided in the driveway leading up to the garage. The parking space in the garage allows direct and convenient access to the Secondary Dwelling Unit. 6. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. The final landscape plan shall be in full conformance with landscaping standards established in the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 7. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Engineering Division 8. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing frontage improvements be altered or upgraded to comply with city standard M.C. 12.16.050. Attachment 1 ARC1 - 10 9. The building plan submittal shall include a complete construction staging plan. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department prior to building permit issuance or the commencement of grading or construction. The plan should include any temporary changes to the street section, signage, curb alignments, and/or curb painting to support parallel street parking to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 10. Frontage improvements would generally be required for both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with this project. The city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue with the recordation of a covenant agreement to install the required improvements at a later date. A covenant agreement regarding the approval to defer frontage improvements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The city will prepare the agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be required. 11. The building plan submittal shall show the new driveway approach to be installed per ADA and city standards. The current ADA and city standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. The driveway slope shall comply with the parking and driveway standard #2130 for downsloping driveways. The building plan submittal shall include additional detail showing the vertical curve and critical spot elevations and/or contours to show compliance. 12. The driveway approach shall be generally aligned with the garage door opening. The driveway approach and improved driveway located within the public right-of-way shall be perpendicular to the adjoining right-of-way and shall not be offset or require access at an off-set angle. 13. The final driveway and approach design, guardrail materials, vertical curve, and plantings shall consider the line-of-sight from a backing vehicle to on-coming vehicle and pedestrian traffic from either direction. A line-of-sight analysis shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal to the approval of the Public Works Department. 14. The driveway approach and access along with the existing adjoining 12 inch high street curb shall consider the historic upslope tributary drainage area and curb capacity. The minimum curb height shall be sized in accordance with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. If supported by analysis, a transition to a lowered curb height could be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to accommodate a City Standard driveway approach design. 15. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes drainage and materials. Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Attachment 1 ARC1 - 11 16. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structure shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 17. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. If separate water meters are proposed for the residence and the secondary dwelling unit, then the service shall be installed with a meter manifold rather than adding a second service. 18. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the stormwater runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 19. The drainage report and analysis shall include a review of the existing upslope watershed that is tributary to Buena Vista Street. The analysis shall include reasonable street topo and an analysis of the curb capacity along the project frontage per City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual. The transition to a standard curb height may be approved to accommodate a standard driveway approach and to support potential curb side parking. 20. An engineered grading plan and drainage report prepared by a licensed civil engineer will be required for this development project. The plan and report shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. The plan and report shall evaluate the existing and proposed grading and drainage. The soils engineer and civil engineer shall collaborate on any requirements for slope stability, brow ditch construction or other diversion to direct the improved and/or existing drainage away from the existing Loomis cut slope, and to evaluate a non-erosive outlet or level spreader design to mimic historic drainage. 21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete drainage report showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include erosion control measures in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual and post-development stormwater quality management in accordance with Engineering Standard Section 1010.B. 22. A soils engineer shall review all levels of construction of this project that are recommended in the soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical Incorporation due to the sensitive nature of this hillside development. Attachment 1 ARC1 - 12 23. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 24. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals may require approve by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 25. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Street trees are required along Buena Vista Street at this time. Street trees along Loomis Street may be deferred until frontage improvements are installed. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 26. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Utilities Department 27. The existing water meter serving a neighboring property on Buena Vista Avenue shall be relocated outside of the proposed driveway apron consistent with City Engineering Standards. Fire Department 28. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 29. The structure(s) shall comply with the following requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, Chapter 7A, for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. This will include ignition resistant siding, a Class-A fire-rated roof assembly, and ignition resistant vents, including, roof, attic, and sub-floor vents. 30. The under floor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of R327 of the CRC or the underfloor area shall consist of non-combustible construction materials. Attachment 1 ARC1 - 13 On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11th day of January, 2016. _____________________________ Marcus Carloni, Liaison Architectural Review Commission Attachment 1 ARC1 - 14 PF C/OS-5 R-1-S R-1 R-1-SR-1-S R-1 R-1 LO O M I S B U E N A V I S T A VICINITY MAP SDU-1521-201548 BUENA VISTA ¯ Attachment 2 ARC1 - 15 Co v e r S h e e t CS . 1 SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G AR C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W C O M M I S S I O N J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 1 6 4 0 & 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a F o r m e r l y k n o w n a s 4 8 B u e n a V i s t a A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 1 - 1 6 10 5 0 S o u t h w o o d D r i v e Sa n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 P 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 7 4 0 7 F 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 3 8 6 3 NO . 6 5 3 2 8 J O H N C . R O G E R S I V R E G I S T E R E D P R O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N EER S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A EX P . C I V I L 9- 3 0 - 1 7 50 C . Y . 20 C . Y 20 C . Y . 19 ft 1 9 . 0 0 ' 19.00' A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 1 - 1 7 10 5 0 S o u t h w o o d D r i v e Sa n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 P 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 7 4 0 7 F 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 3 8 6 3 4 7 6 . 5 T O W - 4 5 5 E G = 2 1 . 6 5 = 9 ' u p p e r l e v e l 4 6 6 T O W - 4 5 4 E G = 1 2 ' l o w e r l e v e l 4 6 1 . 5 T O W - 4 3 9 . 2 E G = 2 2 . 3 ' = 9 ' l o w e r l e v e l T O W - 4 5 5 E G = 2 1 6 5 = 9 = ( 9 ' M I N . S E T B A C K ) ( 1 3 ' 6 " ' M I N . S E T B A C K ) T O W 4 7 3 . 4 - E G 4 4 1 . 6 = 3 1 . 8 = 1 3 ' 6 " u p p e r l e v e l 1 3 ' - 6 " 4 6 1 . 5 T O W - 4 3 5 . 9 E G = 2 5 . 6 ' = 1 1 ' T O W 4 7 3 . 4 ' - E G 4 3 8 . 4 ' = 3 5 ' = 1 5 ' W 4 7 3 . 4 ' - E G 4 3 8 . 4 ' = 3 5 ' = 1 3 8 4 = 3 5 ' = ( 1 5 ' M I N . S E T B A C K ) 1 5 ' - 1 " 1 4 s f T O W 4 7 3 . 4 ' - E G 4 4 4 ' = 2 9 . 4 ' = 1 2 . 5 ' T O W 4 7 3 4 ' - E G 4 4 4 ' = 2 9 4 ' = 1 2 5 ' T O W 5 2 ( 1 2 ' 6 " M I N . S E T B A C K ) 1 2 ' - 2 " S T A I R T O W E R T O W 4 7 6 . 6 5 ' - 4 4 8 . 7 ' E G = 2 7 . 9 5 ' = 1 2 ' 1 3 ' - 5 " O W 4 7 6 6 5 ' 4 4 8 7 ' E G ( 1 2 ' M I N . S E T B A C K ) T O W 4 7 6 . 6 5 ' - 4 5 2 . 7 ' E G = 2 3 . 9 5 ' = 1 0 ' 1 3 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' 5 ' - 6 " T O W 4 4 8 . 6 - 4 3 0 . 6 E G = 1 8 ' = 8 ' p a r c e l n e x t d o o r C / O S 5 8 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 7 " U N C O V E R E D P E R M I A B L E D E C K S H A D E D A R E A D E C K L E S S T H A N 3 0 " T O G R A D E S H A D E D A R E A S E T B A C K E X C E P T I O N R E Q U E S T E D 1. E X I S T I N G F I R E H Y D R A N T 2. E X I S T I N G F I R E H Y D R A N T 4 5 0 ' S W O N B U E N A V I S T A 3. E X I S T I N G F I R E H Y D R A N T 8 5 0 ' S W O N B U E N A V I S T A FI R E S P R I N K L E R R I S E R 1 , 7 0 6 s f 4 6 3 s f N O N P E R M I A B L E N O N P E R M I A B L E DE C K O W 4 4 8 . 6 - 4 3 0 . 6 E G = 1 8 ' = 8 ' * ( 8 ' M I N . S E T B A C K ) SE E D R I V E W A Y UT I L I T I E S E X I S T I N G TR E E S A N D DR A I N A G E P L A N FO R D E T A I L S SE T B A C K A N D M A X I M U M H E I G H T C A L C U L A T I O N S EX C E P T I O N S L A Y O U T SE T B A C K A N D M A X I M U M H E I G H T C A L C U L A T I O N S RE Q U E S T E D E X C E P T I O N S L A Y O U T GR A D I N G L I M I T S P E R M I A B L E C A L C U L A T I O N S 00 7 AP N 0 5 2 - 2 7 1 - 0 0 7 (Z O N I N G C / O S ) AP N 0 5 2 - 2 7 1 - 0 0 7 (Z O N I N G C / O S ) * U n c o v e r e d b a l c o n i e s , u n c o v e r e d p o r c h e s , o r d e c k s m a y e x t e n d i n t o t h e r e q u i r e d y a r d n o t m o r e t h a n f o u r f e e t o r o n e - h a l f t h e r e q u i r e d y a r d d i s t a n c e , w h i c h e v e r i s l e s s . F i r e e s c a p e s , e x i t s t a i r s o r o t h e r r e q u i r e d e x i t s m a y b e r e q u i r e d t o m e e t g r e a t e r s e t b a c k s t o c o m p l y w i t h B u i l d i n g C o d e 30 ' - 1 " PO S S I B L E F U T U R E B U I L D I N G , H O W E V E R T H I S I S A V E R Y S M A L L P A R T O F A 5 . 8 5 A C R E P A R C E L PO S S I B L E F U T U R E B U I L D I N G , H O W E V E R T H I S I S A V E R Y S M A L L P A R T O F A 1 2 . 5 A C R E P A R C E L 20 ' FO R P E D E S T R I A N P A T H 46 0 . 1 4 F L O W 45 7 . 4 4 F L O W 45 8 . 7 9 F L O W 1 2 ' - 6 " 3 2 ' - 2 " ) C L O S E S T H O U S E T O H O U S E D E M E N S I O N 1 0 ' - 0 " A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 1 - 1 8 SI T E P L A N SC A L E : 1 : 1 0 EX . 1 6 " P I N E TR E E RU N O F F D I S S I P A T I O N SW A L E ( 1 2 " D E E P W / LE V E L T O P ) 20 ' S E T B A C K 5 . 8 6 ' ( 5 ' M I N . S E T B A C K ) 9 . 1 7 ' ( 9 ' M I N . S E T B A C K ) 1 2 . 0 4 ' ( 1 2 ' M I N . S E T B A C K ) 1 3 . 1 8 ' ( 1 3 ' M I N . S E T B A C K ) Si t e P l a n A 1. 0 SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G SE E C I V I L D R A I N A G E P L A N F O R T H E F O L L O W I N G : 1. F R O N T A G E I M P R O V E M E N T S 2. U T I L I T Y S E R V I C E S ( E X I S T I N G A N D P R O P O S E D ) 3. S I T E D R A I N A G E I M P R O V E M E N T S 4. E X I S T I N G & P R O P O S E D G R A D E S 5. C O N T O U R S & S P O T E L E V A T I O N S 6. F I N I S H F L O O R E L E V A T I O N S 7. R E T A I N I N G W A L L S 8. P U B L I C W A T E R , S E W E R , S T O R M D R A I N S LA N D S C A P E N O T E S 1. N O A D D I T I O N A L S P E C I E S W I L L B E P L A N T E D . 2. T H E N A T U R A L L A N D S C A P E I S T O R E M A I N TH R O U G H O U T T H E P R O P E R T Y . 1, S E E S E P A R A T E L A N D S C A P E P L A N S 2. A L L P L A N T S A R E N A T I V E D R O U G H T T O L L E R A N T S P E I C E S T O B E I R R A G A T E D B Y R A I N W A T E R / G R A Y - W A T E R S Y S T E M 3. A L L E X I S T I N G T R E E S T O R E M A I N 9. D E T A I L E D S E T B A C K A N D E L E V A T I O N S F R O N T Y A R D KI D S P L A Y A R E A U NO F F D I S S UP P E R D E C K ADU DECK MAIN LEVEL DECK 11 0 ' TO N E I G H B O R ' S H O U S E A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 1 - 1 9 10 5 0 S o u t h w o o d D r i v e Sa n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 P 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 7 4 0 7 F 8 0 5 . 5 4 4 . 3 8 6 3 Ex i s t i n g Pi n e T r e e to r e m a i n LA N D S C A P E A N D IR R I G A T I O N P L A N AL L P L A N T S S H O W N A R E N A T I V E LO W W A T E R U S E TR E E S A R E T O B E O A K S LI V E O A K S A N D B L U E O A K S 2 4 " / 4 8 " BO X O R L A R G E R WA T E R D U R I N G F I R S T S E V E R A L YE A R S T O B E S U P P L I E D B Y RA I N W A T E R C O L L E C T I O N U S I N G DR I P S Y S T E M MA J O R I T Y O F T H E S I T E T O R E M A I N NA T U R A L L A N D S C A P E P L A N NN O O MM OO NN N OO 5 C 10 B B 8 F F 9 F F 3 B B O O 8 E 12 G 5 B B 5 C 5 L 5 I 10 J 15 H H 12 J NN NN O I R R I G A T I O N N O T E S BA C K F L O W D E V I C E P E R C O D E DR I P I R A G A T I O N O N A U T O M A T I C T I M E R PR I M A R Y S O U R C E R A I N W A T E R C A T C H M E N T WI T H C I T Y W A T E R B A C K U P S Y S T E M EL I M A N A T E A F T E R P L A N T S A R E E S T A B L I S H E D OR E Q U A L BU I L D I N G P E R M I T JK 9/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 20 ' FO R P E D E S T R I A N P A T H 3 V A L V E B O X 2 V A L V E B O X 3 V A L V E B O X BA C K F L O W D E V I C E FL O A T V A L V E W I T H A I R GA P F R O M W A T E R L I N E 50 0 G A L L O N R A I N W A T E R CA T C H M E N T T A N K I N CR A W L S P A C E W I T H P U M P WA T E R F E A T U R E MAIN LIVING LEVEL DECK BA L A N C E O F S I T E T O RE M A I N N A T U R A L L- 1 1 2 3 A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 1 - 2 0 A B C D1 FL O O R P L A N : R O O F L E V E L SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 A4 . 1 1 A3 . 0 2 A3 . 0 3 A3 . 0 4 A3 . 0 2X W O O D D E C K I N G 2X W O O D S L E E P E R TP O R O O F M E M B R A N E RO O F D E T A I L SC A L E : 1 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 Fl o o r P l a n s Ro o f L e v e l A 2. 0 SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G 1. A L L W A L L L A Y O U T D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O F A C E O F S T U D , U N O . 2. W H E R E I N D I C A T E D , R E Q U I R E D M I N I M U M C L E A R A N C E S A R E M E A S U R E D T O F A C E O F FI N I S H M A T E R I A L A N D S H A L L B E V E R I F I E D B E F O R E W A L L S A R E F R A M E D . 3. P R O V I D E A P P R O P R I A T E W A L L D E P T H W H E R E A N Y E Q U I P M E N T I S T O B E R E C E S S E D I N WA L L . 4. W A L L S A R E T O B E B U I L T F U L L H E I G H T T O U N D E R S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M I N G , TY P I C A L U . N . O . 5. V E R I F Y A L L N E W P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D A P P L I A N C E S W I T H O W N E R O R AR C H I T E C T , P R I O R T O P L A C I N G O R D E R . 6. A L L N E W E X T E R I O R G R A D E , C O N C . P A T I O S , D E C K S , W A L K W A Y S S H A L L S L O P E 1 4 I N C H PE R F O O T M I N . A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G , T Y P I C A L . 7. S E E M E P F O R G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C A L , M E C H A N I C A L , P L U M B I N G N O T E S A N D ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . RO O M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 8. C E I L I N G H E I G H T A T A L L H A B I T A B L E R O O M S S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M O F 7 ' - 6 " ( R E F E R TO P L A N S F O R A C T U A L C E I L I N G H E I G H T S ) . 9. G L A Z I N G I N N E W D O O R S A N D N E W W I N D O W S S H A L L B E S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G ( F U L L Y TE M P E R E D G L A S S ) , P E R C B C 2 4 0 6 . 3 , S E E W I N D O W A N D D O O R N O T E S F O R S P E C I F I C RE Q U I R E M E N T S , A N D E L E V A T I O N S A N D D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E F O R T E M P E R E D GL A S S L O C A T I O N S . 10 . P R O V I D E S M O K E D E T E C T O R S A T A L L B E D R O O M S , H A L L S L E A D I N G T O B E D R O O M S AN D O N E A T E A C H F L O O R P E R 2 0 1 3 C B C S E C T I O N 9 0 7 . 1 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 1 - 1 / 2 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R S W I N G S O V E R L A N D I N G . 2 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 7 - 3 / 4 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R D O E S N O T S W I N G O V E R L A N D I N G , F R O N T Y A R D KI D S P L A Y A R E A FR O N T P O R C H U P P E R D E C K A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 1 - 2 1 6 5 43 2 12 11 13 14 F E A 10 Ki t c h e n 12 ' - 0 " x 1 1 ' - 0 " 14 0 F T ² Li v i n g 12 ' - 0 " x 1 6 ' - 0 " 20 0 F T ² Be d r o o m 1 9' - 0 " x 1 3 ' - 0 " 12 5 F T ² Ga r a g e 20 ' - 0 " x 2 0 ' - 0 " 40 0 F T ² En t r y AD U SL O P E T O D R A I N SL O P E T O D R A I N SL O P E T O D R A I N FU T U R E S T A I R FU T U R E R O L L I N G BA R N D O O R FL O O R P L A N : T O P L E V E L SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 A4 . 1 1 A3 . 02A3 . 0 3 A3 . 0 4 A3 . 0 Fl o o r P l a n s To p L e v e l A 2. 1 SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G 1. A L L W A L L L A Y O U T D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O F A C E O F S T U D , U N O . 2. W H E R E I N D I C A T E D , R E Q U I R E D M I N I M U M C L E A R A N C E S A R E M E A S U R E D T O F A C E OF F I N I S H M A T E R I A L A N D S H A L L B E V E R I F I E D B E F O R E W A L L S A R E F R A M E D . 3. P R O V I D E A P P R O P R I A T E W A L L D E P T H W H E R E A N Y E Q U I P M E N T I S T O B E RE C E S S E D I N W A L L . 4. W A L L S A R E T O B E B U I L T F U L L H E I G H T T O U N D E R S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M I N G , TY P I C A L U . N . O . 5. V E R I F Y A L L N E W P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D A P P L I A N C E S W I T H O W N E R O R AR C H I T E C T , P R I O R T O P L A C I N G O R D E R . 6. A L L N E W E X T E R I O R G R A D E , C O N C . P A T I O S , D E C K S , W A L K W A Y S S H A L L S L O P E 1 4 IN C H P E R F O O T M I N . A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G , T Y P I C A L . 7. S E E M E P F O R G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C A L , M E C H A N I C A L , P L U M B I N G N O T E S A N D ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . RO O M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 8. C E I L I N G H E I G H T A T A L L H A B I T A B L E R O O M S S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M O F 7 ' - 6 " (R E F E R T O P L A N S F O R A C T U A L C E I L I N G H E I G H T S ) . 9. G L A Z I N G I N N E W D O O R S A N D N E W W I N D O W S S H A L L B E S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G ( F U L L Y TE M P E R E D G L A S S ) , P E R C B C 2 4 0 6 . 3 , S E E W I N D O W A N D D O O R N O T E S F O R S P E C I F I C RE Q U I R E M E N T S , A N D E L E V A T I O N S A N D D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E F O R TE M P E R E D G L A S S L O C A T I O N S . 10 . P R O V I D E S M O K E D E T E C T O R S A T A L L B E D R O O M S , H A L L S L E A D I N G T O BE D R O O M S A N D O N E A T E A C H F L O O R P E R 2 0 1 3 C B C S E C T I O N 9 0 7 . 11 . A L L A P P L I A N C E S T O B E B Y O W N E R A N D E N E R G Y S T A R R A T E D . 1 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 1 - 1 / 2 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R S W I N G S O V E R L A N D I N G . 2 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 7 - 3 / 4 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R D O E S N O T S W I N G O V E R L A N D I N G , 3 4' - 1 0 " X 4 ' - 4 " E L E V A T O R . M O D E L T B D 44 2 S Q U A R E FO O T A D U ADU DECK AD U A C C E S S S L O PE T O D R A I N S L O PE T O D R A I N TO D R A I N T T S L O PE T T T 20 - 0 x 2 0 - 0 4 00 F T ² A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 1 - 2 2 Li v i n g 18 ' - 0 " x 1 6 ' - 0 " 28 8 F T ² Ki t c h e n 18 ' - 0 " x 1 5 ' - 0 " 26 0 F T ² Ma s t e r B e d r o o m 12 ' - 0 " x 1 4 ' - 0 " 16 8 F T ² Gu e s t B e d r o o m 11 ' - 2 " x 1 3 ' - 3 " 14 8 F T ² Gu e s t B e d r o o m 11 ' - 5 " x 1 3 ' - 3 " 15 1 F T ² FL O O R P L A N : M A I N L E V E L SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 G H i J K L MN 4 A4 . 1 1 A3 . 0 2 A3 . 0 3 A3 . 0 4 A3 . 0 X X Fl o o r P l a n s Ma i n L e v e l A 2. 2 SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G 1. A L L W A L L L A Y O U T D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O F A C E O F S T U D , U N O . 2. W H E R E I N D I C A T E D , R E Q U I R E D M I N I M U M C L E A R A N C E S A R E M E A S U R E D T O F A C E OF F I N I S H M A T E R I A L A N D S H A L L B E V E R I F I E D B E F O R E W A L L S A R E F R A M E D . 3. P R O V I D E A P P R O P R I A T E W A L L D E P T H W H E R E A N Y E Q U I P M E N T I S T O B E RE C E S S E D I N W A L L . 4. W A L L S A R E T O B E B U I L T F U L L H E I G H T T O U N D E R S I D E O F S T R U C T U R A L F R A M I N G , TY P I C A L U . N . O . 5. V E R I F Y A L L N E W P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D A P P L I A N C E S W I T H O W N E R O R AR C H I T E C T , P R I O R T O P L A C I N G O R D E R . 6. A L L N E W E X T E R I O R G R A D E , C O N C . P A T I O S , D E C K S , W A L K W A Y S S H A L L S L O P E 1 4 IN C H P E R F O O T M I N . A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G , T Y P I C A L . 7. S E E M E P F O R G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C A L , M E C H A N I C A L , P L U M B I N G N O T E S A N D ME C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . RO O M R E Q U I R E M E N T S 8. C E I L I N G H E I G H T A T A L L H A B I T A B L E R O O M S S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M O F 7 ' - 6 " (R E F E R T O P L A N S F O R A C T U A L C E I L I N G H E I G H T S ) . 9. G L A Z I N G I N N E W D O O R S A N D N E W W I N D O W S S H A L L B E S A F E T Y G L A Z I N G ( F U L L Y TE M P E R E D G L A S S ) , P E R C B C 2 4 0 6 . 3 , S E E W I N D O W A N D D O O R N O T E S F O R S P E C I F I C RE Q U I R E M E N T S , A N D E L E V A T I O N S A N D D O O R A N D W I N D O W S C H E D U L E F O R TE M P E R E D G L A S S L O C A T I O N S . 10 . P R O V I D E S M O K E D E T E C T O R S A T A L L B E D R O O M S , H A L L S L E A D I N G T O BE D R O O M S A N D O N E A T E A C H F L O O R P E R 2 0 1 3 C B C S E C T I O N 9 0 7 . 11 . A L L A P P L I A N C E S T O B E B Y O W N E R A N D E N E R G Y S T A R R A T E D 1 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 1 - 1 / 2 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R S W I N G S O V E R L A N D I N G . 2 PR O V I D E L E V E L L A N D I N G A T M A X I M U M E L E V A T I O N O F 7 - 3 / 4 - I N C H E S L O W E R T H A N TO P O F D O O R T H R E S H O L D W H E N D O O R D O E S N O T S W I N G O V E R L A N D I N G , 3 4' - 1 0 " X 4 ' - 4 " E L E V A T O R . M O D E L T B D MAIN LEVEL DECK AD U DE C K AB O V E A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 1 - 2 3 1 2 . 1 3 f t 7.60 ft A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 1 - 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 1 - 2 5 LI V I N G R O O M KI T C H E N SE E S T R U C T U R A L 1 0 ' - 0 " +0 ' - 0 " LE V E L 1 +1 0 ' - 0 " CE I L I N G +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 +2 2 ' - 1 1 " CE I L I N G +2 4 ' - 6 " LE V E L 3 +3 4 ' - 6 " CE I L I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K +3 9 ' - 8 " T. O . S T A I R T O W E R 1 ' - 0 " 1 1 ' - 1 1 " 1 ' - 7 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 2 " 3 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 11 3 4 " 2 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 3' - 1 " 1' - 6 " 2' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 4 " 1 ' - 1 1 " 9' - 1 0 1 2 " 6" 1 ' - 4 " 4 " 5' - 1 1 2 " 10 ' - 4 1 2 " +1 5 ' - 9 " LE V E L 2 . 5 +2 4 ' - 8 " CE I L I N G +2 6 ' - 6 " EN T R Y L E V E L +3 4 ' - 6 " CE I L I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K 1 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 1 1 " 8 ' - 0 " +3 9 ' - 8 " T. O . S T A I R T O W E R 1 ' - 1 0 " +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 . 5 4 ' - 2 " 1 5 ' - 9 " AD U K I T C H E N GA R A G E CL O S E T BU I L D I N G S E C T I O N 1 SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " +4 3 8 . 5 4 Bu i l d i n g Se c t i o n s A 4. 0 SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 1 - 2 6 3' - 6 " 1' - 0 " 6 " 8' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 6 " 2 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " S1 S2 S2 S3 ST A I R 1 : S E C T I O N SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 ST A I R T O W E R : R O O F L E V E L - 3 5 ' - 6 " SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 S1 S2 S3 +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K 4 ' - 6 " +3 1 ' - 0 " LA N D I N G +2 6 ' - 6 " EN T R Y L E V E L +2 0 ' - 3 1 / 2 " LA N D I N G +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 4 ' - 6 " 6 ' - 2 1 2 " 9 ' - 3 1 2 " +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K +3 1 ' - 0 " LA N D I N G +3 5 ' - 6 " RO O F D E C K 4 ' - 6 " +3 1 ' - 0 " LA N D I N G ST A I R T O W E R : E N T R Y L E V E L - 2 6 ' - 6 " SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 3' - 9 " 8' - 0 " 6 " 1' - 0 " 8' - 3 " 7 1 2 " 11 " 3' - 6 " ST A I R T O W E R : S E C T I O N SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 S4 S4 +2 0 ' - 3 1 / 2 " LA N D I N G +1 1 ' - 0 " LE V E L 2 9 ' - 3 1 2 " ST A I R T O W E R : S E C T I O N SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 5 ST A I R 4 : L E V E L 3 - 1 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 7 1 2 " 11 " A 6. 0 St a i r D e t a i l s SH E E T N o . 1 0 9 No . D a t e I s s u e 12 1 P r e f o n t a i n e P l . S . Se a t t l e , W A 9 8 1 0 4 [2 0 6 ] 3 2 9 - 1 6 5 4 © C h r i s P a r d o D e s i g n , L L C 2 0 1 5 Th e s e d r a w i n g s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r "K r a f t H o u s e " p r o j e c t i n S a n L u i s Ob i s p o , C A . T h e y a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r us e o n a n y o t h e r p r o j e c t . el e m e n t a l a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m St a t e d d r a w i n g s c a l e i s b a s e d o n 3 6 x 2 4 s h e e t . Kr a f t H o u s e Sa n L u i s O b i s b o , C A 15 5 6 N . P a l m C a n y o n D r i v e Pa l m S p r i n g s , C A 1 0 9 . 0 2 . 1 5 W O R K I N G A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 1 - 2 7 Project Background – Kraft Residence File No. SDU-1521-2015 BACKGROUND On August 27, 2015, an Administrative Hearing was held to review the project. Members of the public attended the hearing and expressed concerns regarding developing the site and allowing exceptions for the project. At the hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer determined that the project should be elevated to the Planning Commission to address public concerns over site development. On September 23, 2015, the Planning Commission held a hearing to review the proposed project and voted 6:1 (Fowler) to continue the item to a date uncertain with direction (Attachment 6, PC Hearing Minutes). Specific Planning Commission directional items to be addressed by the applicant included: 1) Evaluate the proposed lower level of the residence, originally proposed as unconditioned space, for its ability to be converted to habitable space. 2) Address concerns related to the roof deck area associated with noise and privacy. 3) Clarify the need for the requested height and setback exceptions. On October 28, 2015, the Planning Commission held a hearing to review the revised project that addressed concerns from the hearing on September 23, 2015, see Attachment 7 for an evaluation of the applicant’s response to the directional items. The Planning Commission voted to deny the project based on the finding that the project will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. The Planning Commission discussed concerns related to pedestrians and vehicular traffic along the curve of Buena Vista Avenue which is a narrow street with no sidewalks and no on-street parking available, and that parking for the four bedroom residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit will not be sufficient on-site within this neighborhood. The Planning Commission also discussed concerns for the roof deck and views of the property from Highway 101 to be evaluated by the Architectural Review Commission (Attachment 8, PC Hearing Minutes). On October 29, 2015, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project. On January 11, 2016, the Architectural Review Commission will review the architecture of the proposed residence and Secondary Dwelling Unit and provide a recommendation to the City Council. On January 12, 2016, Staff will provide a memorandum to the City Council that will summarize the outcome of the Architectural Review Commission hearing. On January 19, 2016, the City Council will review the appeal of the Planning Commission, and the recommendation from the Architectural Review Commission. The City Council will take final action on the project for the Use Permit (USE-1520-2015) and the architectural review application (SDU- 1521-2015). Attachment 4 ARC1 - 28 Meeting Date: September 23, 2015 Item Number: #2 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a new single-family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit in the S-overlay zone that includes a height exception and a setback exception, with a categorical exemption from CEQA (Section 15303 – New Construction). PROJECT ADDRESS: 2390 Loomis Street & BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner 48 Buena Vista Avenue Phone Number: 781-7524 e-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: USE-1520-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) to allow development of a single-family residence with exceptions to property development standards, subject to findings and conditions of approval. SITE DATA Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date June 15, 2015 Complete Date August 5, 2015 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines BACKGROUND The applicant has applied for an Administrative Use Permit to request to allow construction of a single family residence in the Single Family Residential Zone with Special Considerations overlay (R-1-S) zone, with exceptions to allow a maximum height of 28 feet from average grade where 25 feet would be allowed, and a 12 foot yard setback where 15 feet would be required. The home and secondary dwelling would occupy an existing legal lot and also be subject to architectural review. A use permit is required to allow the establishment of any new use within the Special Considerations (S-overlay) zone. The S-overlay is in place at the subject location due to the visibility of Highway 101 and the sensitive nature of hillside development. Attachment 5 ARC1 - 29 On August 27, 2015, an Administrative Hearing was held to review the project, members of the public attended the hearing and expressed concerns regarding developing the site and allowing exceptions for the project. At the hearing the Administrative Hearing Officer determined that the project should be elevated to the Planning Commission to address the concerns of the members of the public for developing a single-family residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit at the subject location. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW At the discretion of the Community Development Director, an Administrative Use Permit may be referred to the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director has referred this review to the Planning Commission given the public controversy of developing the site. The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City standards. The design review of the proposed house and secondary dwelling unit will occur separately from this Use Permit through a minor architectural review permit SDU-1521-2015. Secondary dwelling unit regulations state that all requests shall be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines and no additional application fees for architectural review shall be required (Zoning Regulations 17.21.010). Because the secondary dwelling unit is attached to the residence, the architectural design of both the residence and the secondary dwelling unit will be reviewed through the application SDU-1521-2015. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting Site Size 13,321 Square Feet Present Use & Development Vacant Topography Slopes downward from Buena Vista Avenue, approximately 30% slope Access Buena Vista Avenue Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C/OS-5 (Conservation/Open Space) South: R-1-S (Low Density Residential with an S-Overlay) East: PF (Public Facility, Cuesta Park) West: R-1 (Low Density Residential) Lot Coverage Existing: 0% Proposed: 12% Allowed: 40% The project site is an existing 13,321 square foot lot with direct access off of Buena Vista in Monterey Heights. The site has all necessary utilities currently at the site, including sewer, water, power, and a fire hydrant. The property is a downward sloping lot from west to east with an average grade of approximately 30%. The property borders an open space area to the north and undeveloped R-1-S property to the south. On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right-of-way bordering the site. The site is 650 feet west of, and 150 feet above Highway 101. Attachment 5 ARC1 - 30 2.2 Project Description The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment 3, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,802 square-foot home with a two car garage a. Attached 438 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit b. Three stories with a max height at 28 feet above average natural grade 2. Design: Contemporary architectural style with; a. Glass panels b. Cement board panels c. Wood siding d. Metal panels with dimensional variation and coloring to create interest and reduce the mass of the structure Outdoor space for both units is provided through a combination of decks facing westward and on the roof, keeping all hardscape under 2,500 square feet. The remainder of the site would remain in its natural state. Cantilevered decks create shading from the sun, reduce glare, and screen freeway views from inside the house. As conditioned, landscaping to undisturbed portions of the site will be limited to native trees and plantings, which will help the home blend into the site. A rain catchment system has been proposed to provide controlled overflow release to maintain historical sheet flow of site drainage. 2.3 Project Statistics Item Proposed a Ordinance Standard b Street Yard Setback (Buena Vista Avenue) 20 feet 20 feet Other yard setbacks North East South 12 135 13.5 15 (35 foot structure 1) 15 13.5 Max. Height of Structure (Average Natural Grade) 28 feet 25 feet Building Coverage (footprints) 12% 40% Parking Spaces Lot 1 3 (1 space for SDU) 3 Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans b. City Zoning Regulations 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 3.2 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations 1 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.B.3; Measurement of Yards: The height of a building in relation to yard standards is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured at a point which is a specific distance from the property line. Height measurements shall be based on the existing topography of the site, before grading for proposed on-site improvements. Attachment 5 ARC1 - 31 Other Yard Building Height Exception: Upon approval of a use permit, the director may allow exceptions to setbacks when the exception is of a minor nature, involves an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure; and the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure 2. The applicant is requesting a 12 foot setback on the northeast corner of the home where 15 feet is normally required for a structure that is 35 feet from the existing grade. Approximately 0.79% or 17 square feet of the structure would intrude up to three feet into the required 15 foot setback. Due to property lines that are not parallel, the steep slope of the site, and the yard adjustment is for the yard adjacent to land designated C/OS-5, a setback exception at this location is warranted to allow for a logical floor plan for the residence that will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access. Height exception: The applicant is also requesting an exception to allow a 28 foot maximum height from average natural grade 3 where 25 feet is normally allowed (See Figure 1). With the approval of an administrative use permit an exception can be requested in the Low Density Residential zone for a maximum height of up to 35 feet 4. From Buena Vista Avenue the building will appear as a one story building due to the steep slope of the site. In order to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, the design of the building has minimized the amount of grading required to develop the site by locating the structure close to where street access is available and by maintaining a smaller building footprint. The steep slope of the site in this location means that the average height calculates to 28 feet instead of 25 feet above the average natural grade. The height exception for the additional 3-feet is warranted due to the existing constraints of the site including topography, setbacks, and grading requirements. The additional 3 feet will not deprive the adjacent lots of any solar exposure as seen in the solar study provided in Attachment 3 Project Plans page A5.0. 2 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.E.2.e; Other Yard Building Height Exceptions: Upon approval of a use permit, the Director may allow exceptions to the standards… Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar circumstances…: When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning. 3 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Height: The height of a building is the vertical distance from the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roof, including parapets. The average level of the ground is determined by adding the elevation of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building, and divided by two. 4 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Table 5.5: Maximum Height by Zone: R-1 zone maximum height is 25 feet (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit) Figure 1: Height measurement from average natural grade. Attachment 5 ARC1 - 32 Secondary Dwelling Unit: The purpose of Chapter 17.21 is substantially served. The proposed project meets all performance standards for secondary dwelling units, set forth by the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.21.010). Table 1 below summarizes the performance standards and indicates if each is met, not met, or not applicable. Table 1: Summary of Performance Standards - Secondary Dwelling Units # Performance Standard Status 1 Secondary dwelling units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes. Complies 2 Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. Complies 3 Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants. Complies 4 Secondary dwelling units should also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the primary residence. (Ord. 1004 1 (part), 1984; prior code 9930) Complies 5 The height of second units should be consistent with surrounding residential structures. Unless adequate setbacks justify otherwise, secondary dwelling units that result in two-story construction shall be setback from the first floor to allow for solar access and reduced overlook. Complies 6 Site planning: Secondary dwelling units should be located behind or above the existing dwelling on the site. Designs that significantly alter the street appearance of the existing residence shall be discouraged. Complies 7 Private Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space must be provided for secondary dwelling units exclusive of a minimum of 250 square feet to be provided for the primary residence on the property. Complies 8 Significant alterations to landform or removal of native trees or significant landscape trees shall be discouraged. Complies 9 A landscape plan shall be required for new secondary dwelling units. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape planter with screening shrubs shall separate parking areas from adjacent properties. Landscape shrubs and trees shall be required for areas between secondary unit and adjacent properties Complies 10 Parking: Secondary dwelling units that are 450 square feet or smaller shall require 1 parking space, regardless of zoning district. Parking for secondary dwelling units may be provided in tandem to allow one parking space in the driveway for the secondary dwelling unit. Complies 11 Alterations to designated historic properties or structures to allow new construction of a secondary dwelling unit shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee for consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of a historic property. N/A The project is also consistent with Purpose “4” (Section 17.21.010) for secondary dwelling units because the project expands housing opportunities for low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods. Attachment 5 ARC1 - 33 3.2 Consistency with the General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element Residential Project Objectives (LUE 2.3.11) because the project includes adequate usable outdoor area, allows for pleasant views towards the project, and adequate parking is provided. The project design is consistent with the Land Use Element policy for Compatible Development (LUE 2.3.9) because the project continues the rhythm of development that reflects the existing development in the area including front yard setbacks, street orientation, and architectural design. The project is also consistent with Housing Element Program 6.10 5 because it increases residential density at an appropriate location and the incorporation of Assembly Bill 1866 (2003) which encourages creation of Secondary Dwelling Units. 4.0 CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to allow a single-family residence with a minor setback reduction and a height exception of 3 feet. The additional 3 feet will not deprive the adjacent lots of any solar exposure. The setback reduction is warranted due to the abnormal lot lines that are not parallel, the steep slope of the site, and the adjacent land designation C/OS-5, that will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access. The property is a legal lot that is within an R-1 zone with a Special Considerations Overlay designated to address development on the hillside. The proposed project has been designed to minimize the amount of grading on the hillside slope consistent with Hillside Development Standards, the City’s Grading Ordinance, and the General Plan. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 5.2 Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and applicable City policy. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Administrative Hearing August 27, 2015 (Staff Report) 4. Project Plans 5. Solar Study 5 General Plan Housing Element Program 6.10: To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate. Attachment 5 ARC1 - 34 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 35 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 36 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 37 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 38 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 39 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 40 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 41 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 42 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 43 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 44 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 45 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 46 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 47 Attachment 5 ARC1 - 48 PROJECT MODIFICATION OUTLINE FOR OCTOBER 28TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 48 Buena Vista (approximate) | San Luis Obispo, CA | APN# 052-136-045 1. Use Permit a. R1 S zone (requires use permit) b. Requesting 2 minor exceptions 2. Secondary Dwelling Unit Applications After two public meetings I have made some major changes and additions to address the concerns and comments of the public, and the commissioners’ feedback. 1. A lower level was originally added to the house to meet the Hillside Design Guidelines: lowest level floor should be within 6’ of grade. As this lower level was met with a great deal of concern both on the long term use of the space and the overall mass of the house, we have eliminated it. The result is a 38% reduction of mass from the Eastern elevation, view from 101. The house now floats on the hillside with no large foundation wall. The subtle support system will fade into the shadow of the house and the natural landscape that goes under the house will blur the actual height of the house from grade as it will only be seen from 600 feet away and 150 feet below from 101 or from Loomis. This was our initial design and think it will be brilliant. 2. We have reduced the upper deck by 60% based on the neighbors’ and commissioners’ comments, however the SLO General Plan specifically encourages front porches and front yards to promote community connectivity. The space that was formerly deck will become the front yard with irrigation free turf. After learning from all of my neighbors how dangerous the road in front of my house is, I am sure the neighbors, the city, and I, do not want my grandchildren to have to play in the street on what is known as Dead Man’s Curve. The slope of the lot does not allow for a rear yard so this solution meets the intention of the general plan and keeps my grandchildren safe. Additionally, the upper deck is like a front porch, as it is only 6’ above the road, that may encourage community connectivity. As one of the speakers pointed out, she rarely got to talk to her neighbors; maybe the neighbors will join us for a glass of wine or at least a chat as they pass by in the street. Asking for this to be removed would go directly against the city’s General Plan. I believe the noise attenuation aspect of the use permit would be more of an issue if you had different zones/uses, in this case it is all residential and the noise caused by a deck is within the allowable decibel levels for a residential zone. In addition, the closest neighbor to the deck is 110’ away and 20’ above the deck. 3. There were a lot of concerns expressed about the safety aspects of this particular location. So to increase neighborhood safety we have added a very space efficient rolled curb and gutter with sidewalk along our entire property to help get pedestrians off of the street on what is reported to be a dangerous curve. Additionally, I am Attachment 6 ARC1 - 49 proposing to install five speedbumps, one before my driveway and four coming down the hill toward the curve to help control the speed of the cars coming down the hill. I am sure the neighbors will support this to improve the safety of pedestrians, particularly those walking their dogs in the neighborhood. Even though we have more than the required line of site in both directions on the curve to our driveway, the speed bumps will insure we will not have speeding cars coming down the hill when we are backing out of our driveway. 4. The concern over parking does not take into account that with the length of the driveway and the garage we have room for up to six cars. The Secondary Dwelling Unit is less than 450 square feet, a studio apartment sized for one person, a couple at most. I would hardly describe the house as a multifamily situation. The SDU requires the house or SDU to be owner occupied so the concern of this being a student rental has no basis. One of the Commissioners kept referring to my request for variances. I am not asking for any variances. I am asking for two minor exceptions, both of which are addressed in the ordinances and I meet the guidelines for being granted both exceptions. Per 17.21.010 Secondary Dwelling Units, D. 1. b. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. The recommendation by one of the planning commissioners to not grant me any (variances) exceptions because I am asking for a Secondary Dwelling Unit, is not appropriate or understanding of why SDUs are allowed by rights per the state of California. The two requested exceptions to the City’s Property Development Standards are in the first case absolutely necessary to build the house, and the second case is well within the guidelines for granting such request for exceptions. No one is affected negatively by either one. 17.16.040 Height Maximum height R1 residential 25 ft. (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit) 1. Requesting 28’ Maximum Height exception. This exception is required based on the maximum allowable driveway slope and height needed for the required garage. Due to the slope of the property and the above stated facts the minimum height based on average slope is 27’10”. This height is set back the required 12’ from the property line. This exception is below the maximum allowable exception of 35’ and is necessary to meet the covered parking requirement. Please note that even with this exception, the highest point on the house is only 6’ above the street level and does not affect the view of any neighbor. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 50 17.16.020 Yards 2. Requesting a 12’ yard setback on less than 1% portion of the structure, when a 15’ is required. On the Northeast corner I am asking for an exception on the required yard setback due to the extreme slope. If I use the average grade dimension, I meet the setback but my understanding is you must use the most restrictive method. In this case I have a very small area that is less than the required yard based on the existing grade. The corner of the building measures 35’ from existing grade which requires a 15’ setback and I am proposing a 12’ setback. The area in question equates to .79%-- less than 1% of the total building square footage. In support of this request the bordering property is zoned COS 5. This zoning allows for 1 house per 5 acres. In addition, it requires a 20’ minimum yard, so that means that if someone chose to build a house as close as they could to mine, which is unlikely given their large 5-acre parcel and this is the steepest part of their property, the closest it could be is 32’. Additionally, there is a property line between two lots splitting my house so no one will build there. This exception is a total of less than 13’ over a 240’ common property line or less than 1 %. I believe this clearly meets the criteria outlined below. Director may allow exceptions to the standards provided in Tables 3, 4, and 5 of subsection C2 of this section. Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar circumstances, but in no case shall exceptions be granted for less than the minimum yard required: (Ord. 1365 (2000 Series) (part)) i. When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning; ii. When the exception is of a minor nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure. My request meets both of these findings and therefore should be granted. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of my request as well as your input on ways to improve my project. Please call or email me with any questions or additional information you may require. Jeff Kraft 503-575-5320 jkraft503@gmail.com Attachment 6 ARC1 - 51 Meeting Date: October 28, 2015 Item Number: #1 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Second review of a new single-family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit in the S-overlay zone that includes height and setback exceptions, with a Categorical Exemption from CEQA (Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). PROJECT ADDRESS: 2390 Loomis Street & BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner 48 Buena Vista Avenue Phone Number: 781-7524 e-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: USE-1520-2015 FROM: Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving height and setback exceptions for the development of a single-family residence, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. SITE DATA Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date June 15, 2015 Complete Date August 5, 2015 Zoning R-1-S, Low-Density Residential with a Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 13,321 square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines SUMMARY The applicant has requested to construct a single-family residence in the R-1-S zone that includes height and setback exceptions on a sloping lot. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on September 23, 2015, and voted 6:1 (Fowler) to continue the project to a date uncertain with direction (Attachment 6). Staff has reviewed the applicant’s response to Planning Commission direction items and finds the modified project plans and supporting information in compliance with Planning Commission direction. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the Attachment 7 ARC1 - 52 project based on findings, and subject to conditions. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Planning Commission continued the project on September 23, 2015, to a date uncertain with direction (discussed in Section 3.0 below). The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City standards. The Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU) and architectural design of the residence will be reviewed through a separate application SDU-1521-2015. The SDU regulations state that nothing prohibits an applicant from requesting exceptions or variances from any other section of the Zoning Regulations 1. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Background On August 27, 2015, an Administrative Hearing was held to review the project. Members of the public attended the hearing and expressed concerns regarding developing the site and allowing exceptions for the project. At the hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer determined that the project should be elevated to the Planning Commission to address public concerns over site development. On September 23, 2015, the Planning Commission held a hearing to review the proposed project and voted 6:1 (Fowler) to continue the item to a date uncertain with direction (Attachment 6). Specific Planning Commission directional items to be addressed by the applicant included: 1) Evaluate the proposed lower level of the residence, originally proposed as unconditioned space, for its ability to be converted to habitable space. 2) Address concerns related to the roof deck area associated with noise and privacy. 3) Clarify the need for the requested height and setback exceptions. 2.2 Site Information/Project Description/Project Statistics A detailed description of the site, project description and statistics can be found in the September 23, 2015, Planning Commission staff report which is Attachment 5 to this report. 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS At the September 23, 2015, Planning Commission meeting the following directional items was provided to the applicant prior to taking final action on the project; 3.1 Directional Item #1: Evaluate the proposed lower level of the residence, originally proposed as unconditioned space, for its ability to be converted to habitable space. 1 Zoning Regulations 17.21.010.D.1; Performance Standards: Design Standards: Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for any other use. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 53 The applicant has revised project plans to remove the lower level of the residence and cantilever the middle floor (now, the lowest level) over the existing slope. The applicant has expressed that the intent of the residence was not to include a third level, however, a third level was provided to satisfy the Hillside Development Guidelines (Attachment 8, Applicant Response Letter). Conclusion #1: Hillside Development Guidelines state that the lowest floor level should not exceed a vertical distance of six feet from the lowest point where the foundation meets grade and the lowest floor line of the structure. To meet this requirement a third level was originally proposed. To determine compliance with the Hillside Development Guidelines a finding will have to be made through the architectural review application SDU -1521-2015 that the removal of the lowest level helps reduce the overall mass and scale of the project and provides for a more consistent design that maintains the natural character of the hillside. This evaluation will occur following the Planning Commission’s review and action on the project. 3.2 Directional Item #2: Address concerns related to the roof deck area associated with noise and privacy. Due to the steep slope of the site there is limited space to provide private usable outdoor space for the residence. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 250 square feet of private outdoor space for the primary residence and the Secondary Dwelling Unit. In order to meet this requirement and maintain consistency with the Hillside Development Standards, the least impactful location on the site to provide this outdoor space is through the use of the roof and balconies. The size of the roof deck has been designed as the primary outdoor area for the primary residence. A balcony has been provided for the SDU that meets required private outdoor space. Absent adequate usable outdoor space on the site, the applicant has expressed concerns that his children may choose to play on the street. The applicant has revised the roof deck design to include artificial turf for a portion of the space (Attachment 8, Applicant Response Letter). Conclusion #2: The closest existing residence to the property is located approximately 20 feet in elevation above the roof deck and over 110 feet away. It is not anticipated that noise generated from use of the roof deck will negatively impact adjacent neighbors more than any other usable outdoor area on any neighboring property, due to its location in relation to neighboring properties. In addition, the proposed roof deck does not generate any overlook concerns because the immediate adjacent properties are undeveloped. The property to the south that may accommodate future development has sufficient developable space that will not be affected by this project because the project complies with all applicable setback requirements along the adjoining property line shared between these two properties. The property to the north is designated as permanent open space that is over two acres in size; the project proposal will have no effect on this property. For these reasons staff is in support of the roof deck as proposed. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 54 3.3 Directional item #3: Clarify the need for the requested height and setback exceptions. Conclusion #1: Staff has provided additional information to further clarify the requested exceptions and findings to support their approval consistent with the Zoning Regulations, please see sections below; Special Considerations Overlay: Chapter 17.56 of the Zoning Regulations stipulates that a property with a Special Considerations (S) zone overlay requires approval of an Administrative Use Permit before any use may be established. The intent of the Permit is to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings and conformance with the General Plan. The Special Considerations zone overlay was added to this location to address development on the sloping site and views from Highway 101. An Administrative Hearing Officer (now the Planning Commission) may establish conditions relating to improvements, building location, or access which are more restrictive than provided in the underlying zone, in order to fulfill the intent of Special Consideration zone overlay. The proposed single-family residence at this location has been designed in a way that minimizes impacts related to development on the sloping site in conformance with the City’s Grading Ordinance and Hillside Development Guidelines. By locating the residence as close to the street as possible, while maintaining adequate street yard setback requirements, significantly reduces the amount of grading (35 cubic yards) that would otherwise be necessary for the driveway. The proposed single-family residence has been designed in a way that keeps a low profile and conforms to the natural slope by stepping the building foundation. The structure will appear approximately six feet in height as viewed from the public right- of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. In conclusion, the single family residence has been designed in way that minimizes the impacts from development on a steep slope and reduces the amount of grading required to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the intent of the Special Considerations (S) zone overlay. A full project evaluation for compliance with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the City’s Grading Ordinance will be conducted as part of the architectural review application SDU-1521-2015. Height exception: Section 17.16.040 of the zoning ordinance establishes the maximum building height per zone. Any variation from these limits requires the approval of a variance except for buildings within the Low Density Residential (R-1) zone and the Office (O) zone that may be approved through an Administrative Use Permit for a maximum height of 35 feet 2. The use permit may be approved upon findings that the 2 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Table 5.5: Maximum Height by Zone: R-1 zone maximum height is 25 feet (up to 35 feet with approval of an administrative use permit). Attachment 7 ARC1 - 55 exception will be consistent with the existing conditions of the neighborhood and that the exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow a 28 foot maximum building height from average natural grade 3 where 25 feet is normally allowed in the R-1 zone (see Figure 1). From Buena Vista Avenue the building will appear as less than a single story structure due to the downslope of the driveway. In order to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, the design of the building has minimized the amount of grading required to develop the site by locating the structure close to where street access is available and by maintaining a relatively small building footprint. The Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020, Yards, state that a 20 foot setback is required in the R-1 zone as measured from the right-of-way line to the nearest point of the wall of any building. The Parking and Driveway Standards state that driveways that descend are allowed a maximum slope based on the length of the driveway measured from the worst condition between the back of the sidewalk extension and the finished floor grade at the garage entrance (Code Section: 2140 Upward & Downward Driveways). The maximum slope allowed at this site for the proposed driveway is approximately 14%. The garage has been designed to accommodate the full street yard setback of 20 feet with a 13% slope of the driveway, which places the ceiling of the garage at 28 feet above the average natural grade. The minor height exception of three feet is warranted due to the existing constraints of the site that limit the location of a required covered parking space in the R-1 zone. Maximum building height per zone has been established in order to preserve neighborhood character, and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The proposed three foot exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than a one story structure from the public right- of-way surrounded by one and two story structures within the neighborhood. The exception will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the 3 Zoning Regulations 17.16.040; Height: The height of a building is the vertical distance from the average level of the ground under the building to the topmost point of the roof, including parapets. The average level of the ground is determined by adding the elevation of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the lot covered by the building, and divided by two. Figure 1: Height measurement from average natural grade. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 56 property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each parcel over two acres in size, as seen in the solar study provided in Attachment 4, Solar Study. The structure will appear approximately six feet in height as viewed from the public right-of-way on Buena Vista Avenue. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. Other Yard Building Height Exception: Section 17.16.020 Table 3 establishes the minimum required other yard setback for the R-1 zone. Other yard setbacks, more commonly known as side yard setbacks, are measured from the property line to the nearest point of the wall of any building 4. The height of a building in relation to a yard setback is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured from a specific distance from the property line. For reference, a structure with a wall that is 35 feet tall that faces the side yard property line requires a setback of 15 feet in the R-1 zone. Section 17.16.020.E.2 identifies specific exceptions from the setback requirements that are discretionary through the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. These discretionary exceptions have to meet specific findings in order to grant approval. To clarify, these exceptions are not variances and are not required to meet variance findings. Any exception that is not identified in Section 17.16.020.E.2 would require the approval of a variance. The discretionary exception that is being requested for the proposed project is an exception to the other yard setback in relation to building height which may be granted upon finding any of the following circumstances identified in Section 17.16.020.E.2.e.5 Upon approval of a use permit, the director (now Planning Commission) may allow exceptions to setbacks when the exception is of a minor nature, involves an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure; and the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure. The applicant is requesting a 12-foot setback on the northeast corner of the home where 15 feet is normally required for a structure that is 35 feet from the existing grade. Approximately 0.79% or 12 square feet of the structure would intrude up to 3 feet into the required 15 foot setback. Due to property lines that are not parallel, the sloping nature of the site, and the fact that the setback adjustment is for the yard adjacent to land designated C/OS-5, (open space), this minor setback exception will not deprive the adjacent property of reasonable solar access or privacy. 4 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.B.3; Measurement of Yards: The height of a building in relation to yard standards is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the roof, measured at a point which is a specific distance from the property line. Height measurements shall be based on the existing topography of the site, before grading for proposed on-site improvements. 5 Zoning Regulations 17.16.020.E.2.e; Other Yard Building Height Exceptions: Upon approval of a use permit, the Director may allow exceptions to the standards… Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar circumstances…: When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 57 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In 1989 the project site consisted of three lots approximately 5,000 square feet each that were proposed for a development project of three 3,000 square foot residences with access from Buena Vista (ARC 89-27 & U 1433). An Initial Study was required to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of developing the three lots (ER 16-89). The Initial Study identified several mitigation measures requiring that the three lots be reconfigured into two legal lots. In 1990 the existing property was reviewed and approved for a Lot Line Adjustment that reconfigured the three lots into two legal lots (LLA 90-115). The two lots have been vacant since this that time and are individually owned. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that will not have a significant effect on the environment. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 5.2 Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and applicable City policy. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Project Plans 4. Solar Study 5. PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report) 6. Draft PC Hearing Minutes 7. Applicant Response Letter Attachment 7 ARC1 - 58 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 59 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 60 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 61 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 62 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 63 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 64 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 65 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 66 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 67 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 68 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 69 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 19, 2015 ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Amy Nemcik, Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn Absent: Commissioners Ken Curtis and Allen Root Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Interim-Community Development Liaison Marcus Carloni, Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill, Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, Consulting Planner Dave Watson, and Recording Secretary Sarah Reinhart ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was modified to move Item 2 (224 Tank Farm Road) into the Item 1 position. MINUTES There were no minutes presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 224 Tank Farm Road. ARCH-1407-2015; Review of the construction of a new Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a water tower, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; Verizon Wireless, applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Continue to a date uncertain to allow time to consider and take action on the Use Permit application associated with this project. On motion by Commissioner Andreen, seconded by Commissioner Nemcik, to continue to a future Architectural Review Commission Meeting. AYES: Commissioners Andreen, Nemcik, Soll, Vice-Chair Ehdaie, and Chair Wynn NOES: None RECUSED: None Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 2 ABSENT: Commissioners Curtis and Root. The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. 2. 2223 Monterey Street. ARCH-1992-2015; Conceptual design review of a proposed hotel adjacent to the historic Motel Inn. Project proposes 52 one and two story units, up to 25 Recreational Vehicles, two pools, a restaurant, and associated parking and site improvements; C-T-S and C/OS-5 zones; Motel Inn, LP, applicant. Chair Wynn and Commissioner Soll recused from this item due to conflict of interests and left the conference room at 5:05 p.m. Community Development Director Codron summarized the purpose of a Conceptual Review, noting that in these cases applicants seek feedback before the project is presented for approval and for public notification; explained that due to the complexity of the project, the format is altered, thus allowing applicants the opportunity to present before providing staff with a framework for the conversation. The Applicant provided an overview and brief history of the project; stated the project met ordinance requirements, noting the improvements to the current design. The applicant answered Commission’s questions regarding the patio and picnic areas for the RV parking, indicating that each RV space would have its own picnic area, and would have access to all of the Motel amenities. In response to Commissioner Nemcik, the Applicant noted the surface on the street would be made of pavers and asphalt. Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni provided a quick overview of the project site, recommending that the commission formulate discussions regarding the RV Park creek buffering; stated that the City’s Natural Resource Manager recommended a wooden rail fence with signs to address potential trespassing into the riparian area; suggested a discussion on the Motel bungalow units, stating that the decks or patios facing the creek area should be screened with walls or removed from the proposed building design. Vice-Chair Ehdaie acknowledged correspondence received by Bob Lucas; reviewed the contents of an email from Commissioner Root, expressing his support for the project; and noting that the project meets Ordinance 1130 and setback requirements. In response to Commissioner Nemcik, Community Development Director Codron, stated the fence would be a split-rail fence, which is the City standard design for creek corridors. Commissioner Andreen, asked staff for interpretation on the meaning of the word “should” as opposed to “shall” in City Ordinance 1130. Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 3 Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni clarified that the language in question is generally designed to provide flexibility. Community Development Director Codron expounded on the previous comment, noting the use of the word “should” is subject to intent; explained the intent in this case is to preserve the residential feel of the surrounding area. In response to Vice-Chair Ehdaie, regarding the reason for the rail fence as opposed to a wall fence that could potentially help mitigate noise and light issues, the Applicant stated that the Planning commission was pleased with the rail fence noting that a solid wall was not needed due to distance, thick riparian area and the fact that RV guests will not be using the space as a recreational area. In response to Vice-Chair Ehdaie, the Applicant stated the studies submitted between 2003 and 2005, including a noise study, remain current; declared that a masonry wall would be a mistake in this area and would not be needed due to the kind of activities that would take place in the RV area, noting that noise from the highway would be greater than the noise generated in the RV area. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dave Garth, San Luis Obispo, affirmed his support for this project from a neighbor’s perspective; opined the project represents a low intensity type of recreation appropriate for this particular property, noting that he does not anticipate an excessive amount of noise; expressed his belief that the project would be an enhancement to the city. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Andreen expressed appreciation for Mr. Garth’s perspective; voiced concerns over the use of the word “should” in section 7 of Ordinance 1130; acknowledged the general consensus that RV users are typically a respectful group; opined that she does not believe this would be a major noise generator; asserted interest in seeing noise studies; opined that this project would be appropriate and attractive, posing no major concern with regard to the open spacing of the creek or fencing choices; voiced support for seeing the project move forward. Commissioner Nemcik noted that the design is elegant and beautiful; stated the applicants are heading in the right direction and have been cautious in addressing all of the points in Ordinance 1130; opined that the split rail fence would be appropriate; indicated support for the project. Vice-Chair Ehdaie stated this project would add value to the community; expressed satisfaction with the way ordinance 1130 was addressed; asserted interest in reviewing Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 4 the noise study; noted no concerns with the patio spacing; voiced support for seeing the project move forward. There were no further comments made from the Commission. The project was continued to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to return to the ARC for final design review. No specific directional items were provided from the ARC. Chair Wynn and Comm. Soll rejoined the meeting room at 5:50 p.m. 3. 1299 Orcutt Road. ARCH-0224-2014; Continued review of the “West Creek” project design for a new residential development in the northeastern area of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Project includes 172 residential units on approximately 18 acres of land; Robbins/Reed, applicant. Scott Martin, Architect with RRM Design Group, provided an update on the changes made to the project since the previous conceptual hearing and addressed previous directional items; noted adding a round-a-about which created changes in circulation and connectivity. The applicant pointed out changes in geometry, including additional retaining walls, based on recommendations from the Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill; stated the project meets pedestrian connectivity based on the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; provided a new grading plan to help balance the site and proposed implementing innovative parking solutions such as decupling the garages from the properties and selling the garages separately; suggested having a shared “fun car” that could be made available for rent as well as providing plenty of long and short-term bike storage; noted ample parking in the single-family residential area as well as on the streets near Orcutt Road; stated the neighborhood would not be impacted by parking issues. In response to Commissioner Andreen, the applicant stated the pool would not be accessible to the single-family dwellings due to costly ADA requirements and would only be used by the multi-family residents. In response to Chair Wynn’s inquiries regarding parking, the applicants noted they would have no problem allocating some of the parking spaces in the PG&E easement area to multi-family parking, and would have no issues for making the shared fun car or truck available to all residents. In response to Commissioner Wynn’s inquiry, the applicants confirmed storage requirements would be met notwithstanding the decupling concept and indicated there would be long-term bicycle parking all throughout the site. Applicants stated that they would like to receive feedback regarding parking, grading and architecture. Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 5 City Consultant, Dave Watson, presented the staff report, reviewed improvements and changes to the site-plans, evaluated directional items from the previous conceptual review, and went over additional topographic information. Pointed out competing policies relative to grading in the setback areas; advised the commission to establish a minimum number of parking spaces and to discuss pedestrian linkage; noted that staff agrees with mixing land usage but suggested common areas should stand-alone; expressed support for the design styles and for positioning the garages in the rear areas; suggested focusing the conversation to the directional items from the previous conceptual review; noted that the information gathered from this review would be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Andreen, Natural Resource Manager, Bob Hill, stated that he visited the site on two occasions, in two different seasons; noted that the riparian area was highly denuded; attested to the lack of strong concerns for the removal of what is on site; explained that a 2 to 1 slope is steeper, indicating that it could be made stable and has the potential for ample restoration; believes a more robust riparian canopy could be achieved; confirmed the project is fully compliant with the creek setback regulations as well as the setbacks specified for both creeks and wetlands in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; explained that the community design guidelines have language about grading in setbacks which would be used as the policy in this case; expressed not having concerns with erosion, asserting that the site wou ld have a water erosion control plan which would be monitored by the water board. In response to inquiry by Vice -Chair Ehdaie, Natural Resource Manager Hill indicated there are no proposed bridges on the creek. Community Development Director Codron, noted that the specific site policy does not require additional discussions for bridges; asserted the applicant is working with staff to develop a two-part parking reduction strategy with a proposal that could be effective; noted confidence in the process. In response to Commissioner Andreen’s inquiry, Community Development Director Codron, stated the City is responsible for maintaining the streets. Civil Enginner Hal Hannula provided an overview of the PG&E easement area; opined that fewer pavement and parallel parking spaces might be a better use of the area. Staff clarified that all perpendicular parking on A2 Street is additional and not a part of the parking requirement. Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni clarified that the plans indicate 26-feet back up space available for vehicles in the alleys between units. Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Wynn acknowledged receiving correspondence from the applicant and Mr. Flores. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Community Development Director Codron responded to questions regarding decupling, stating it is not a new concept but a widely recognized way for dealing with the need for single-occupancy parking; noted that the Tolosa Ranch Apartments offer parking separately; stated that analysis will be done to see how this would impact parking. Chair Wynn stated that the idea of decupling is good, but noted concerns about its sustainability; suggested a need to review Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville’s input on the matter. Also voiced concerns with R-2 guest parking. Commissioner Nemcik stated the rationale items for reducing parking are a good idea but does believe they would warrant a parking reduction; noted that even if people bike, they would most likely also own vehicles; voiced concerns regarding sufficient parking. In response to Chair Wynn, Consultant Watson clarified that in the R-4 zone the applicants fall seventeen percent below the parking requirements. Commissioner Andreen expressed apprehension over the lack of parking; opined that people in California rely on their cars and do not change quickly; stated the gap is too far from the normal requirements. In response to Commissioner Soll, Consultant Watson, clarified that the proposal has 160 spaces of the 194 space requirement; suggested a viable solution would be to set a threshold and let the applicants work with Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville and staff to develop a plan. Vice-Chair Edhaie concurred with Commissioners Nemcik and Andreen, voicing concerns over the reduced parking; noted being in favor of setting a threshold and allowing the applicant time to work through the issues. Commissioner Andreen stated that a 17 percent is not an acceptable reduction. Consultant Watson suggested reducing to a ten percent threshold, noting that staff can include contingency plans that would allow for more parking to be created to satisfy demand. Community Development Director Codron clarified that the additional parking reduction is allowed within the zoning regulations. Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 7 The Applicant clarified that they are asking for a seven percent reduction on a project that requires 200 spaces. Chair Wynn expressed support for developing a contingency plan built into the parking plan. The Commission, having established concerns over parking, agreed to have the applicant work with staff and Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville to come up with a solution that could incorporate a contingency plan. Chair Wynn shared concerns over the creek channel looking manufactured; suggested adding bumps and pockets to add more naturalness; noted concerns with bicyclists’ ability to ride up the steep areas. Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni, acknowledged concerns and constraints due to grading; noted that staff is not against grading; stated that the goal was to make the commission aware of those constraints. Chair Wynn, expressed satisfaction with the grading; acknowledged the positive direction of the project; requested to see the overall stepping of the site. During the course of discussion, the Commission concluded there is connectivity; suggested adding more pathways to Orcutt Road. The applicant provided an overview of the new architectural styles, noting the addition of a craftsman style house for which Chair Wynn and Commissioner Andreen voiced support. In response to Commissioner Andreen, the applicant stated that the homeowners would have an option to choose from a set of colors to ensure an eclectic color palate in keeping with the San Luis Obispo style; noted that there will be trees in between the single family homes. The Applicant noted remaining concerns over parking; stated a commitment to working toward the City’s requirements; voiced misperception over lack of consistency in the requests made by the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission with regard to number of parking spaces; expressed appreciation for Commission feedback. There were no further comments made from the Commission. The project was continued to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to return to the ARC for final design review with the following directional items: 1. Note: The ARC’s broad conceptual review of the subject project is based on conceptual information and plans provided by the applicant. Upon full Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 8 application submittal for project entitlements and detailed review of final plans, the ARC may require additional changes and or modifications to the project that were not previously known, specifically addressed, or provided as directional items. 2. Provide all of the required information for final architectural review per City checklists. 3. With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of any on- street parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk). 4. Provide details on the pedestrian connection to the adjoining Mobile Home Park with final design plans. 5. Explore pedestrian connectivity from the connection of Street A-4 and Street A- 3 to Orcutt Road (between the residential lots). 6. Explore alternatives to proposed grading along the creek (especially within the creek setback) to provide a more varied/naturally appearing slope bank. 7. Explore additional parking reduction options to be considered by the ARC with final design review plans, based on a 10% reduction, with a minimum of 174 parking spaces (21 guest parking spaces and at least 153 resident spaces) required unless an acceptable alternate or contingency plan can be implemented with the final design. 8. In conjunction with Public Works review of the project, introduce extensions of the two Park Lots 69 and 70 southerly towards A-2 Street to break up the extent of common street parking, as a part of final design review by ARC. 9. Provide a digital model of the project to better understand the massing of structures and relationship to topography. 10. Provide 3D renderings to illustrate the proposed use of taller retaining walls (in particular: the tiered walls along Orcutt Road and the taller retaining walls associated with the condo structures). Include landscaping/screening proposals with these renderings. Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 9 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 1. Staff: a. Agenda Forecast Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni provided a forecast of upcoming agenda items; noting an upcoming hearing on November 2, 2015 for 222 Tank Farm, and stated there will be a conceptual review on November 16, 2015 of the San Luis Ranch Project and an appeal of a guest house at 128 Chorro Street. 2. Commission: The Commission discussed the new format for conceptual review hearings. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Sarah Reinhart Recording Secretary