Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-2016 ARC Item 2 - 40 Buena Vista AvenueARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a new single family residence in the R-1-S (Special Considerations Overlay) zone that includes exceptions to the front yard building setback and height, with a categorical exemption from environmental review. PROJECT ADDRESS: 40 Buena Vista Avenue BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7524 E-mail: kbell@slocity.org VIA: Tyler Corey, Housing Programs Manager TAC FILE NUMBER: SDU-1521-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director DD RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. 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. On January 19, 2016, the City Council approved the construction of the home, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and ARC to redesign the project to conform to the Community Design Guidelines without the proposed height and setback exceptions. Applicant Jeff Kraft Submittal Date January 31, 2016 Complete Date February 11, 2016 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: March 7, 2016 Item Number: 2 ARC2-1 SDU-1521-2015 40 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 CC Approval January 19, 2016 Review elevated to PC Review continued with direction Use Permit Denied Use Permit Appealed Design Review Use Permit Approved ARC Review March 7, 2016 The proposed project is located on a “sensitive site” and requires architectural review by the Community Development Director. A project site is considered sensitive when it has been designated through an “S”, Special Considerations overlay zone. This project site has been designated with an “S” overlay through Ordinance 0755 to enable review of hillside development and adequacy of public utilities. Due to the amount of public input on the project as well as the Use Permit appeal to the City Council, the Director has forwarded the design review to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). 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, Hillside Development Standards, the General Plan and applicable City standards. 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, over 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 access from Buena Vista Avenue in the Monterey Heights neighborhood. 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. 3.2 Project Description: The proposed project includes the following features (Attachment 3, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,921 square-foot home with a two car garage ARC2-2 SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 3 a. Two stories with a proposed max height of 27.3 feet above average natural grade b. Attached 406 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit (Note: not part of this application review) 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) 18.5 feet 20 feet Other yard setbacks North East South 15 135 13.5 15 (35 foot structure) 15 13.5 Max. Height of Structure (Average Natural Grade) 27.3 feet 25 feet Building Coverage (footprints) 12% 40% Parking Spaces 3 3 Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans b. City Zoning Regulations 4.0 CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION On January 19, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to review the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the use permit. The City Council upheld the appeal of the Planning Commission action to deny the proposed project thereby granting final approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions. The City Council directed Staff and the ARC to review the project and address concerns including, but not limited to: a. Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood, b. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure, c. Appropriateness of the roof top deck, d. Visual appearance of the support columns, e. Landscaping plans, f. Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101. 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project site is located within one of the City’s Hillside Planning Areas known as the Cal Poly- Cuesta Park Area. The applicant has designed the project in accordance with the Community ARC2-3 SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 4 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 as close as possible 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 minimum street yard setback of 18.5 feet with a 14% sloped driveway which complies with the Community Design Guidelines for site access 1. As discussed at the Planning Commission/City Council hearings, 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. Height and Street Setback Exceptions: The City Council denied the originally proposed exceptions and directed the applicant to redesign the project to comply with property development standards and the Hillside Development Standards. The applicant has worked with staff to determine the impacts of full compliance with property development standards verses full conformance with the Hillside Development Standards. Full compliance with the Property Development Standards requires several exceptions from the Hillside Development Standards, and similarly full conformance with the Hillside Development Standards requires exceptions from the Property Development Standards. Therefore, development of the site without some type of exception does not appear feasible. The applicant has eliminated the side yard setback exception and redesigned the project to request the least impactful exceptions. A street yard setback of 18.5 feet, when 20 feet is normally required, provides for a slight decrease in the overall building height. Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020E.2a states that reductions in street yards may be approved for garages when the driveway is long enough to accommodate a parked car that doesn’t overhang the sidewalk (18.5 feet min.). If the building were to be located any closer to the street, the driveway would not comply with street yard requirements. Likewise, if the residence was located further down the hillside a steeper driveway grade would be required that would be out of compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and potentially create an unsafe driveway approach. Maximum building heights per zoning district have been established in order to preserve neighborhood character, and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The proposed 2.3 foot height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the structure will appear as less than one story as viewed from the public right-of- way on Buena Vista Avenue. The exception will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the 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 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. ARC2-4 SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 5 size. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101, and incorporates colors and materials that blend well with the surrounding hillside. 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 a site that does not block views from adjacent properties. The structure is located below the ridgeline as viewed from Highway 101 and Cuesta Park. There are two existing residences located approximately 30 feet higher on the ridge above the subject property directly on the ridgeline 2. All hillside vegetation will be retained to the maximum extent feasible, so as not to destroy the natural character of the site. Directional Item A (Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood): The proposed residence is located within an eclectically designed neighborhood with varying architectural styles, with residences range 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 garages and secondary units). The residence has been designed well below the average at 1,921 square feet and is compatible with the neighborhood’s architectural characteristics. 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. The contemporary 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. Directional Item B (Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure): The residence is located 150 feet above and over 1,000 feet from Highway 101. At this distance the reflectivity of the proposed windows will have insignificant impact on Highway 101. The proposed windows reduce the mass and the prominence of the structure as viewed from Highway 101. The project also includes cantilevered decks that create shading from the sun, which reduce glare from the exterior windows. The proposed colors and materials are consistent with the Hillside Development standards for building design. 2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2; Hillside Development: Placement of Structure: 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. ARC2-5 SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 6 Directional Item C (Appropriateness of the roof top 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, 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 provides usable outdoor space in the form of balconies and a roof deck consistent with this requirement. There are no privacy concerns from the roof deck as the adjacent property to the north is zoned Conservation Open Space and is vacant. The property to the south is zoned R-1-S and is also vacant. Directional Item D (Visual appearance of the support columns): 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 raised by the Planning Commission 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. 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. The columns below the lowest floor on the downhill side exceed six feet; however, the proposed unenclosed design is an integral feature of the architectural design that reduces the mass of the structure. Directional Item E (Landscaping plans): Landscape plans show eight new oak trees proposed on the site surrounding the home. The applicant has proposed these trees to integrate 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 and soften the appearance of the building when viewed from Highway 101, similarly to the adjacent residences at the top of the ridgeline. 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. ARC2-6 SDU-1521-2015 40 Buena Vista Avenue Page 7 Directional Item F (Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101): The property can be viewed from Highway 101 Southbound. The project site is located within city limits and is therefore outside of the State eligible scenic corridor, which generally runs from Los Angeles County to Paso Robles. The residence is visible from Highway 101 southbound for approximately 18 seconds (when traveling at posted speed limits) from a distance of 3,000 feet. During this view shed the site is partially obstructed from view by several freeway billboards. The scale of the residence has been reduced to two stories to decrease the mass of the structure and has been designed to integrate with the hillside well below the ridgeline when viewed from Highway 101. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that is in conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes, is consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards for hillside development. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1. Continue action on the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant regarding additional information needed to make a decision. 6.2. Recommend denial of the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines, General Plan, Zoning Regulations or other policy document. The ARC should specify findings. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Reduced Project Plans 4. Project Background 5. PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report & Meeting Minutes) 6. City Council Hearing January 19, 2016 (Staff Report & Resolution) Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board ARC2-7 RESOLUTION NO. ####-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING THE DESIGN OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1-S (SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY) ZONE THAT INCLUDES A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND HEIGHT EXCEPTION, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 7, 2016 (40 BUENA VISTA AVENUE, R-1-S ZONE; SDU-1521-2015) WHEREAS, on March 7, 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 on a sloping site, that includes a front yard setback and height exception (SDU-1521- 2015), Jeff Kraft applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 19, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-1520-2015; granting final approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denied the requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with the Community Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions; 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 approves the design of the single-family residence on a sloping site, including a front yard setback and height exception (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. Attachment 1 ARC2-8 Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-####-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 2 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 building design minimizes the need for grading activities through the use of stepped foundation with piers; 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 and softens the appearance of the home. 4. Consistent with 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 to decrease the mass of the structure and has been designed to integrate with the hillside well below the ridgeline 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. Front Yard Setback and Height Exceptions 6. The additional 2.3 foot building height exception will not obstruct views from any adjacent property due to the existing topography and will allow for the construction of covered parking that complies with the Hillside Development Guidelines and the Parking and Driveway Standards for the driveway. The proposed maximum building height exception is warranted due to the existing site slope and Engineering Standard requirement for maximum driveway slope. 7. The proposed height 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, and is consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood. 8. A reduced street yard setback is acceptable at the subject location because the adjacent property will not be deprived of reasonable solar access. Attachment 1 ARC2-9 Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-####-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 3 9. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full setback because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. 10. Granting of these exceptions will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the requested exceptions are minor and will not deprive any adjacent property from reasonable solar access, as the property that would be most affected by the shading of the structure is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) with each adjacent parcel over two acres in size. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA guidelines and will not have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project is a single-family residence in a residential zone that is in conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes, is consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards for hillside development. SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission does hereby grant final approval of application SDU-1521-2015 subject to the following conditions: Planning Department 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC and the City Council. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2 (SDU-1521-2015 & USE- 1520-2015). Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out all proposed colors and materials on elevation drawings. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit review shall include lighting fixture details. The locations of all lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning Regulations. Attachment 1 ARC2-10 Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-####-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 4 5. Plans submitted for construction permits will include elevation and detail drawings of all walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.16.050 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges). 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 project shall be constructed to meet the maximum outdoor and indoor noise exposure levels of Noise Element Table 1 (60 dB for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor spaces). 8. 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 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. Attachment 1 ARC2-11 Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-####-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 5 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. The new water service and water meter(s) shall be sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. 19. 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 Attachment 1 ARC2-12 Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-####-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 6 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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 Attachment 1 ARC2-13 Architecture Review Commission Resolution No. ARC-####-16 SDU-1521-2015 (40 Buena Vista Avenue) Page 7 of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve tree species and planting requirements. 27. 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 28. 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 29. An NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system shall be required. 30. 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. 31. 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. 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 7th day of March, 2016. _____________________________ Doug Davidson, Secretary Architectural Review Commission Attachment 1 ARC2-14 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-1521-201540 BUENA VISTA ¯ Attachment 2 ARC2-15 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 M a r c h 7 , 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 2 - 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 L I M I T O F G R A D I N G BA L A N C E R E M A I N S P E R M I A B L E A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 2 - 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 4 . 0 2 T O W - 4 5 6 E G = 1 8 . 0 2 = 8 ' U P P E R L E V E L 4 6 4 . 0 2 T O W - 4 5 5 . 5 E G = 8 . 5 2 ' L O W E R L E V E L 4 6 2 . 0 2 T O W - 4 4 1 E G = 2 1 . 0 2 = 9 ' L O W E R L E V E L 2 T O W - 4 5 6 E G = 1 8 0 2 = = ( 8 ' 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 4 . 0 2 - E G 4 4 3 = 3 1 . 0 2 = 1 3 ' 6 " U P P E R L E V E L 4 6 2 . 0 2 T O W - 4 3 7 E G = 2 5 . 0 2 ' = 1 1 ' L O W E R L E V E L T O W 4 7 4 . 0 2 ' - E G 4 3 9 . 3 ' = 3 4 . 7 2 = 1 5 ' ( 1 5 ' M I N . S E T B A C K ) T O W 4 7 3 . 4 ' - E G 4 4 4 ' = 2 9 . 4 ' = 1 2 . 5 ' U P P E R L E V E L ( 1 2 ' 6 " M I N . S E T B A C K ) S T A I R T O W E R T O W 4 7 7 . 2 7 ' - 4 4 9 E G = 2 8 . 2 7 = 1 2 ' O W 4 7 7 2 7 ' 4 4 9 E G ( 1 2 ' M I N . S E T B A C K ) T O W 4 7 4 . 0 2 - 4 5 4 . 3 E G = 1 9 . 7 3 = 8 . 5 ' 1 0 ' 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 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 DE T A I L E D S E T B A C K S AV E R A G E G R A D E C A L C U L A T I O N S MA X I M U M H E I G H T C A L C U L A T I O N 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 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 ) 46 0 . 1 4 F L O W 45 7 . 4 4 F L O W 45 8 . 7 9 F L O W 12 ' - 6 " 46 4 . 0 2 A V E R A G E G R A D E 4 5 6 + 4 3 7 = 8 9 3 / 2 = 4 4 6 . 4 8 4 7 4 . 0 2 - 4 4 6 . 4 8 = 2 7 . 5 0 4 . 7 ( 1 0 ' 6 " ' M I N . S E T B A C K ) 8 ' 6 " 1 8 ' 6 " S E T B A C K H E I G H T A B O V E S T R E E T 2 8 ' H E I G H T E X C E P T I O N 4 7 3 . 4 0 - 4 6 7 = 6 ' 4 " 2 7 ' H E I G H T E X C E P T I O N 4 7 4 . 0 2 - 4 6 7 = 7 ' 2 5 ' H E I G H T N O E X C E P T I O N 4 7 4 . 9 1 - 4 6 6 = 8 ' 1 1 " M A X I M U M D R I V E W A Y D E S E N T U P P E R L E V E L S T A I R T O W E R S T A I R T O W E R U P P E R L E V E L CL O S E S T P O S S I B L E H O U S E 3 0 0 F E E T S T A I R S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S T O W E R O O 14 ' - 2 " 11 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 9 " 5' - 5 " 10 ' - 9 " 13 ' - 1 " 15 ' 13 ' - 5 " 24'-1" A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 2 - 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 C L O S E S T N E I G H B O R ' S WH I C H I S 1 5 - 2 0 H I G H E R 200' TO C L O S E S T N E I G H B O R ' S WH I C H I S 4 0 - 5 0 ' L O W E R 3 0 0 ' TO C L O S E S T N E I G H B O R ' S 18 ' 6 " A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 2 - 1 9 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 NO S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K IM P A C T S D E C K A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 2 - 2 0 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 2 4 ' - 1 1 " LI N E O F B U I L D I N G W I T H S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K E X C E P T I O N IM P A C T S N O O N E C L O S E S T P O S S I B L E N I E G H B O R 3 0 0 ' 1' - 3 " 3' - 0 " A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 2 - 2 1 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 F A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 2 - 2 2 A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 2 - 2 3 A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 2 - 2 4 ST E P P E D B A C K 3 ' F O R S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K CL O S E S T P O S S I B L E N I E G H B O R 3 0 0 ' 7. 0 6 f t ST R E E T L E V E L BE L O W S T R E E T L E V E L 9. 6 5 f t ST R E E T L E V E L B E Y O N D OR I G I N A L S U B M I T A L M E E T S H I L L S I D E DE S I G N G U I D E L I N E S L O W E S T F L O O R WI T H I N 6 ' O F G R A D E P L A N N I N G CO M M I S S I O N D I D N O T L I K E T H E B U L K EL I M I N A T E D L O W E R L E V E L . T H I S E L E V A T I O N W I L L O N L Y B E SE E N F R O M U S 1 0 1 4 , 0 0 0 ' - 1 , 0 0 0 ' A W A Y 1 5 0 ' B E L O W F O R SE C O N D S W H I L E T R A V E L I N G 5 5 M P H . T H E C O L U M N S A R E I N TH E S H A D O W O F T H E D E C K A N D L A N D S C A P I N G G O E S U N D E R TH E H O U S E . T H E C O L U M N S W I L L N O T B E P E R C E P T I B L E , T H I S CO U L D B E A 6 ' F O U N D A T I O N W A L L A N D M E E T T H E G U I D E L I N E S . A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 2 - 2 5 1 2 . 1 3 f t 7.60 ft ne w r o l l e d c u r b an d g u t t e r ST E P P E D B A C K 3 ' F O R RE Q U I R E D S I D E Y A R D S E T BA C K M O V E S B A C K O F BU I L D I N G O U T B Y 1 ' 3 " 2 7 ' 4 " 2 7 ' 4 " 1 2 . 1 3 f t 2 7 ' 4 " BE L O W S T R E E T L E V E L BE L O W S T R E E T L E V E L 27 ' H E I G H T E X C E P T I O N 7 ' A B O V E ST R E E T 3 0 ' 6 " F R O M T H E S T R E E T 28 ' H E I G H T E X C E P T I O N 6 ' 4 " A B O V E ST R E E T 3 2 ' F R O M T H E S T R E E T 25 ' H E I G H T N O E X C E P T I O N 8 ' 1 1 " A B O V E TH E S T R E E T 2 2 ' F R O M T H E S T R E E T (L O O S E 2 P A R K I N G S P A C E S R E Q U I R E S 10 ' F R O N T Y A R D E X C E P T I O N ) 6' 4 " TO P O F W A L L 8' 1 1 " 7' ST R E E T L E V E L ST R E E T L E V E L ST R E E T L E V E L EX C E P T I O N C O M P A R I S I O N 1' 3 " IN C R E A S E S D U E T O N O S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 1' 3 " A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 2 - 2 6 A t t a c h m e n t 3 A R C 2 - 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. 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, Jeff Kraft, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project. The appeal letter expresses concerns that the Planning Commission’s decision for denial was not justified because the project is to construct a single family residence on a legal lot that has been evaluated by City Staff and recommended for approval. On January 19, 2016, the City Council held a hearing to review the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. The City Council upheld the appeal of the Planning Commission action to deny the proposed project hereby granting final approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone, but denying requested exceptions, providing direction to the applicant to work with staff and the ARC to redesign the proposed home to conform with Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions. The City Council directed Staff and the ARC to review the project and address concerns including but not limited to: a.Traditional architecture characteristics of the neighborhood, b.Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure, c.Appropriateness of the roof top deck, d. Visual appearance of the support columns, e.Landscaping plans, f.Prominence of structure as viewed from Highway 101. Attachment 4 ARC2-28 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 5 ARC2-29 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 5 ARC2-30 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 5 ARC2-31 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 5 ARC2-32 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 5 ARC2-33 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 5 ARC2-34 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 5 ARC2-35 Attachment 5 ARC2-36 Attachment 5 ARC2-37 Attachment 5 ARC2-38 Attachment 5 ARC2-39 Attachment 5 ARC2-40 Attachment 5 ARC2-41 Attachment 5 ARC2-42 Attachment 5 ARC2-43 Attachment 5 ARC2-44 Attachment 5 ARC2-45 Attachment 5 ARC2-46 Meeting Date: 1/19/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY JEFF KRAFT) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE S-OVERLAY ZONE THAT INCLUDES A HEIGHT AND SETBACK EXCEPTION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution upholding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a single family residence at 48 Buena Vista Avenue, thereby approving the use permit to allow a single family residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit at 48 Buena Vista Avenue. 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 REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant has applied for an Administrative Use Permit to request construction of a single family residence in the Single-family Residential Zone with Special Considerations Overlay (R- 1-S), 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 14 Packet Pg. 275 Attachment 6 ARC2-47 Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU) would be constructed on an existing legal lot. 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 sensitive nature of hillside development (Attachment H, S-Overlay Ordinance 0755). The project is subject to architectural review by the Architectural Review Commission as a result of its location on a hillside and the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance. 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 (PC) to address the concerns of the members of the public for developing a single-family residence at the subject location. On September 23, 2015, the PC reviewed the project and voted to continue the project to a date uncertain to give the applicant the opportunity to revise and address specific concerns including the configuration of the lower level, further evaluation of the roof deck, the height and setback exceptions, and review of the concerns regarding the curve of the street (Attachment I, PC Hearing September 23, 2015, Meeting Minutes). On October 28, 2015, the PC held a hearing to review the revised project that addressed concerns from the hearing on September 23, 2015. The PC 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” (Attachment K, PC Hearing October 28, 2015, Meeting Minutes). None of the PC’s concerns related to the height and setback exceptions noted above, which were noted in discussion to be inconsequential because they are minor in nature. On October 29, 2015, the applicant appealed the PC’s decision to deny the project (Attachment E, PC Appeal). DISCUSSION The PC’s recommendation for denial of the project is based on the finding that the project will be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood (Attachment C). If the City Council chooses to deny the appeal, findings are needed to form an adequate basis for project denial. While the staff recommendation is to uphold the appeal and approve the project, the City Council may choose to deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission decision. If the City Council chooses this path, staff has provided additional findings for consideration. The staff recommendation to uphold the appeal is reflected in Resolution A (Attachment A). Resolution B includes findings to deny the appeal (Attachment B). The following discussion provides additional background and analysis of the proposed development. Background 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 subject property meets all lot size requirements and was legally created in 1990 with access from Buena Vista Avenue. The property is a downward 14 Packet Pg. 276 Attachment 6 ARC2-48 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. The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment F, 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 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 A detailed description of the site, project description, statistics and project analysis can be found in Attachment G, Detailed Project Analysis. PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION/ACTION At the September 23, 2015 meeting, the PC requested additional information to address concerns that were identified at the public hearing. The Planning Commission recommended the following directional items to be reviewed and evaluated prior to taking final action on the project: Directional Item #1: Plans should be resubmitted and reviewed for the evaluation of the proposed lower level of the residence that was originally proposed as unconditioned space to be converted to habitable space. Directional Item #2: Plans should be resubmitted that address concerns related to the roof deck area associated with noise and privacy concerns. Directional item #3: Plans should be further evaluated to clarify the need for the requested height exception and setback reduction. Staff Response: Please see PC Staff Report from October 28, 2015 (Attachment K) for the evaluation of the applicant’s response to the PC Directional Items. At the October 28, 2015 meeting, the PC evaluated the applicant’s response and voted 5:1 Commr. Riggs absent) to deny the use permit, although recognizing that this property is anticipated to be a single family residence in the General Plan, and is consistent with many applicable City standards. The PC did not find that the project was in conflict with any specific City standard, but discussed concerns related to pedestrian 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 concluded that parking for the four-bedroom residence with an SDU may not be sufficient on-site within this neighborhood. The PC also discussed concerns about the roof deck 14 Packet Pg. 277 Attachment 6 ARC2-49 and views of the property from Highway 101 to be evaluated by the ARC . While the PC was not particularly concerned about the requested exceptions to property development standards, the City Council should carefully consider the proposed exceptions. APPEAL SUMMARY On October 29, 2015, the applicant, Jeff Kraft, filed an appeal of the PC decision to deny the project. The appeal letter expresses concerns that the Planning Commission’s decision for denial was not justified because the project is to construct a single family residence on a legal lot that has been evaluated by City Staff and recommended for approval. A letter from the applicant’s attorney addresses the specific concerns that the PC’s delineation was not based on the directional items that were provided by the PC during its hearing on September 23, 2015. The letter also asserts that the PC’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence and that the Commissioners themselves found no legal basis to deny the use permit (see Attachment E, Kraft Appeal Letter). STAFF EVALUATION History of the subject site and the S-Overlay zone Before addressing the specifics of the appeal and the PC’s decision, it is important to understand the history of the subject site and the creation and underlying purpose of the Special Considerations zoning overlay within this area. The lot is a legal lot and was created by a lot line adjustment (LLA 90-115), approved on March 26, 1990, that combined three existing lots into two lots, each having access from Buena Vista Avenue in compliance with an Initial Study mitigation measure conducted in 1989 (ER 16 - 89). In 1983, a study was conducted to establish hillside development areas that included reconfiguring the Urban Reserve Line. The Cal Poly-Cuesta Park hillside, also known as Area 1, was originally proposed to exclude the three subject properties outside of the Urban Reserve Line. After considering public testimony which included letters from certain property owners discussing their right to develop these properties, both the Planning Commission and the City Council determined to include the subject properties within the Urban Reserve Line. The Urban Reserve Line has been established along the north property line of the subject property, rendering the properties south of this line appropriate for residential development. On an R-1 lot, a single family house is allowed “by right,” provided the proposed building complies with the City’s development standards (i.e. setbacks, height restrictions, etc.) and City’s building code. Typically, the review process for a single family home is ministerial. In other words, staff merely reviews the project application for compliance with adopted development standards using no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision, and issues a permit if objective compliance is demonstrated. However, in this case, the property is subject to a “Special Considerations Overlay” zone (“S-Overlay”) which makes a property owner’s right to construct a single family residence conditional, by use permit. Section 17.56 of the City’s Municipal Code (“SLOMC”) sets forth the City’s rules and regulations regarding the processing and implementation of development within a Special Consideration Zone. SLOMC section 17.56.010 states, in pertinent part: 14 Packet Pg. 278 Attachment 6 ARC2-50 The use permit requirement is intended to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings or conformance with the general plan, or to determine if a proposed development solves problems such as noise exposure, flood hazard, airport hazard, or slope instability which are particularly severe on a given site. Such development review may also be used to protect areas of scenic or ecological sensitivity, wildlife habitat, or wildland fire hazard. The ordinance adopting the S zone will specify the considerations to be addressed, and the ordinance number will be incorporated in the official zone map designation; The S-Overlay zone for this property was enacted in 1978 by Ordinance No. 755 (Attachment H) which requires a use permit for the construction of a single family residence on this property due to special considerations. Specifically, Ordinance No. 755 states that a “…use permit requirement is necessary to enable review of hillside development and adequacy of public utilities and services.” Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 755, the City has adopted hillside development standards, which set forth the specific standards against which hillside projects are to be evaluated. For the reasons described in the City’s previous staff reports (Attachments I and K) and for the reasons discussed below, the proposed project complies with the City’s hillside development standards if the requested exceptions to building height and setbacks are approved. Appeal Analysis During the October 28, 2015 hearing, four Planning Commissioners stated that there was no concern regarding the height and setback exceptions (Commrs. Larson, Fowler, Draze, and Dandekar). The Commission stated that the reason for denial was the finding that the project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity, due to concerns with steepness and narrowness of the dead-end road, lack of on- street parking, and lack of pedestrian sidewalks and connectivity. The following evaluation has been provided in response to the Planning Commission’s concerns related to denial of the project. Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic: Public Works Traffic Engineering staff have reviewed the project. Buena Vista Avenue at the subject location is a cul-de-sac neighborhood that provides access to five existing residences. The property is located on the curve along Buena Vista Avenue with a traffic line of sight greater than 150 feet from either direction for oncoming vehicles, with a speed limit of 25 mph. Vehicles approaching the property, driving either uphill or downhill, have sufficient time to stop in order to let a vehicle exit the property from the subject location. The driveway is approximately 33 feet long and provides enough space for a vehicle exiting the property to wait for oncoming vehicles to pass before entering the public right-of-way. The addition of a single family residence with an SDU will not negatively impact traffic safety in this neighborhood because the 14 Packet Pg. 279 Attachment 6 ARC2-51 proposed project complies with all, access, parking and driveway standards for residential development. In addition, the ability to control the design and improvement of public infrastructure such as public streets is authorized through the subdivision process, not an administrative use permit absent specific and identifiable project impacts to the contrary. Sidewalks & Street Parking: Buena Vista Avenue provides enough space for three on- street parking spaces, the rest of the neighborhood in proximity to the project site is painted with a red curb to provide access for emergency vehicles in the event of a fire on the hillside. Staff has evaluated the neighborhood for on-street parking and has determined that the addition of street parking will not be supported in this location. Additionally, on-street parking is not a requirement for residential development, all required parking for residential development is required on-site. The proposed project provides all required parking for the single family residence and the SDU on-site. The existing neighborhood along Buena Vista does not have sidewalks, but does provide space along the street for pedestrians to walk out of the way of traffic. As conditioned, the city will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue to install the required improvements at a later date (Attachment A, Condition #17). The applicant has offered to provide sidewalks at this time, in order to relieve concerns for pedestrians on the street as vehicles pass by. Four Bedrooms: Aside from the general development standards and the City’s Building Code, the City does not regulate the number of bedrooms allowed in a single family residence. A High Occupancy Use Permit1 is required for any residence with six or more adults. In any event, the existing neighborhood has an average size of 2,633 square feet with three bedrooms (ten residences surveyed, excluding garages and SDU’s); the proposed residence has been designed as one of the smallest residences in the neighborhood at 1,921 square feet with four bedrooms. As a requirement for a SDU on the site, the property is required to be owner occupied Attachment A, Condition #2) which is authorized by State law and consistent with City requirements for single family homes with a SDU. With this narrow exception, a decision on the project or conditions of approval imposed on a use permit cannot be based upon individuals who may occupy the residence absent substantial information included in the record. 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 incorporates the SDU into the design of the residence, the evaluation of the architectural review of the residence has been provided in Attachment G, Detailed Project Analysis The administrative use permit cannot be denied because of the inclusion 1 Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.93 High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations: Upon approval of an administrative use permit… a high occupancy residential use may be established with occupancy of six or more adults. The purpose of the use permit is to ensure compliance with the performance standards described in this section, and to ensure the compatibility of the use at particular locations. 14 Packet Pg. 280 Attachment 6 ARC2-52 of an SDU. Roof Deck: 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. Attachment K provides a detailed analysis regarding the PC’s concern for the proposed roof deck design. The roof deck will be evaluated under the architectural review application SDU-1521-2015. Height and Setback Exceptions: The PC discussed that the height and setback exceptions were minor in nature and not a concern for the proposed project. See Attachment G, Detailed Project Analysis for a full analysis of the height and setback exceptions for consistency with the Zoning Regulations. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to allow a single-family residence with a Secondary Dwelling Unit that includes a minor setback reduction of 3 feet and a height exception of 3 feet. 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. Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit (USE-1520-2015) to allow the construction of single family residence at this location. If the City Council cannot support approval of the requested setback and height exceptions, then changes would be needed to the building design to comply with those standards and hillside development standards. CONCURRENCES The project has been reviewed by Police, Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities staff. Their conditions have been incorporated into the resolution and these departments support the project if incorporated conditions of approval are adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As noted above, 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. 14 Packet Pg. 281 Attachment 6 ARC2-53 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. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council can deny the project by upholding the PC’s decision and denying the appeal, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City regulations. Staff does not recommend this alternative. Public safety and land use compatibility issues have been addressed through design measures and the conditions of approval. If this action is taken, the applicant would have the ability to redesign the proposed residence and submit a new application for City review. 2. Uphold the Appeal and provide direction to the ARC. The Council may uphold the appeal and approve the use permit, but provide additional direction to the ARC regarding issues it should consider during its review of the project’s design. Attachments: a - Draft Resolution A b - Draft Resolution B c - PC Resolution d - Vicinity Map e - PC Appeal (Jeff Kraft) f - Reduced Project Plans g - Detailed Project Analysis h - S-Overlay Ordinance 0755 i - PC Hearing September 23, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) j - Applicant Response Letter k - PC Hearing October 28, 2015 (Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes) 14 Packet Pg. 282 Attachment 6 ARC2-54 Attachment 6 ARC2-55 Attachment 6 ARC2-56 Attachment 6 ARC2-57 Attachment 6 ARC2-58 Attachment 6 ARC2-59 Attachment 6 ARC2-60 Attachment 6 ARC2-61 Attachment 6 ARC2-62