Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-2016 Item 12, GoodwinCouncil Memorandum o Date: April 29, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Heather Goodwin, Deputy City Clerk VIA: Katie Lichtig,' i�ty Manager SUBJECT: Staff Report to Item 12, Appeal to 40 Buena Vista RECEIVED APR 29 2016 COUNCIL MEETING: ITEM NO.: 1 Z Due to a clerical error, page 215 paragraph number two entitled "Report In Brief' was inadvertently missing from the staff report. Please see the attachments to this memo. Attachments: Item 12 — Staff Report Meeting Date: 5/3/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY NAOMI HOFFMAN) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R-1-S ZONE THAT INCLUDES EXCEPTIONS TO THE FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK AND HEIGHT RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s approval of a single family residence at 40 Buena Vista Avenue, thereby allowing a single family residence located at 40 Buena Vista Avenue. SITE DATA REPORT IN BRIEF The Architecture Review Commission’s (ARC) approval of the project is based on findings that the project is 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 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 12 Packet Pg. 215 with the hillside well below the ridgeline when viewed from Highway 101. Should the City Council uphold the appeal, findings are needed to form an adequate basis for project denial. While the staff recommendation is to deny the appeal and approve the project, the City Council may choose to uphold the appeal, thereby denying the ARC’s decision. The staff recommendation to deny the appeal is reflected in Resolution A (Attachment A). Resolution B includes findings to uphold the appeal (Attachment B). The following discussion provides additional background and analysis of the proposed single family residence. DISCUSSION 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 “S” overlay a use permit is required for the construction of any residence. Typically, only a building permit is required to construct a single family residence within the R-1 zone. Background On October 28, 2015, the Planning Commission (PC) held a hearing to review the revised project that addressed concerns from the PC 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. The PC 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 PC also discussed concerns for the roof deck and views of the property from Highway 101 to be evaluated by the ARC. On October 29, 2015, the applicant, Jeff Kraft, filed an appeal of the PC’s decision to deny the project. The appeal letter expresses concerns that the PC’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 public hearing to review the appeal of the PC’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 use permit approval for the construction of a single-family residence in the S-Overlay zone. However, Council 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 (Attachment E, City Council Resolution & Meeting Minutes). The City Council directed Staff and the ARC to review the project and address concerns including, but not limited to: 12 Packet Pg. 216 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. As highlighted in the following action language from the Council’s resolution (Attachment E), which effectively denied the applicant’s previously requested exceptions, the Council did provide the ARC with the flexibility to grant different exceptions. Revisions to the project resulted in the elimination of the setback exception, reduction of the height exception, and added a minor street yard exception. On January 31, 2016, the applicant resubmitted the revised project plans to respond to the City Council’s direction and be reviewed by the ARC for final approval (Attachment G, Project Plans). On March 7, 2016, the ARC unanimously approved the architectural design of the proposed residence located at 40 Buena Vista Avenue and determined the project in compliance with the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development (Attachment F, ARC Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes). On March 15, 2016, Naomi Hoffman appealed the ARC’s decision to approve the project, specifically concerning the requested exceptions (Attachment D, Hoffman Appeal Letter). Project Information/Description 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 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. The downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right-of-way. The site is 650 feet west of, and 150 feet above Highway 101. The proposed project includes the following significant features (Attachment G, Project Plans): 1. Single-Family Residence: 1,921 square-foot home with a two car garage a. Two stories with a proposed max height of 27.3 feet above average natural grade b. Attached 445 square-foot Secondary Dwelling Unit (Note: not part of this application review) 12 Packet Pg. 217 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 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION On March 7, 2016, the ARC held a public hearing to review the architectural design of the proposed residence located at 40 Buena Vista Avenue and voted 6:0 (Commr. Root absent) to approve the design of the project. The ARC reviewed each directional item identified by the City Council at their January 19, 2016 meeting, and found the revised project to be in conformance with the Community Design Guidelines for hillside development. Each directional item including the revised height and front yard setback exceptions, were discussed and deliberated by the ARC, where minor concerns were identified and addressed through the final ARC Resolution 1003-2016. Specifically, the ARC addressed the following; Traditional architecture characteristics of neighborhood: The contemporary style is suitable for the hillside and not a basis for denial. The modern approach is suitable for the particular site and the ARC added that the flat roof works fine whereas a gabled roof would accentuate mass and visibility. Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure: The ARC recognized that residences are built on such sites for views and unless there are safety concerns, the amount of glazing is suitable. The ARC noted that the residence may be an illuminated box on the hillside at night as seen from the Highway 101. However, the ARC recognizes that there are already 5-6 other prominently-scaled homes on the hillside that contribute to the illumination of the hillside as viewed from Highway 101. Overall, the ARC agreed that the glazing of the windows and the rhythm and look are appropriate. Appropriateness of rooftop deck: The ARC observed that the rooftop deck for the proposed residence is the same as a yard, and that the distance from other residences will provide minimal noise. The ARC agreed that the existent freeway noise outweighs potential cocktail party noise and a well-maintained deck can be a visually appealing improvement. One Commissioner indicated they were unsupportive of the rooftop deck. Visual appearance of support columns: The ARC considered the columns to be an improvement from the original conception, while it is generally unsightly to have houses up on stilts, enclosing the area below makes the structure appear more massive. Landscaping plans: The ARC provided a revision to the conditions of the Resolution to address additional landscaping: underneath the house, between the street and house, and the rooftop deck. Height/front yard exception: The ARC Commissioners expressed that they would have used the same arguments and applied the same methodologies for the project design for 12 Packet Pg. 218 this difficult site, reasoning that the lot was made a legal lot long ago and the rules changed later. The ARC agreed with Staff’s direction in consideration of the give-and- take needed to make the project work on the hillside and that it is not feasible to develop much differently on the lot than what is proposed without violating some other principles of hillside development. Additional analysis of the directional items is provided in Attachment F, ARC Staff Report, Resolution, & Meeting Minutes. APPEAL SUMMARY On March 15, 2016, the appellant, Naomi Hoffman, filed an appeal of the ARC decision to approve the project. The appeal letter expresses concerns that the issues raised by the ARC approval of the height and setback exceptions did not meet the City Council’s direction “To redesign the proposed home without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions.” The appeal includes an attached email from a City Council Member that expresses the intent of the January 19, 2016, motion regarding the project (Attachment D, Hoffman Appeal Letter). Appeal Analysis During the January 19, 2016 City Council meeting, Council’s motion to approve the use permit had been amended to include the words “without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions”. This amendment was recommended by staff in the event that a redesign of the project to eliminate the request for the then proposed height and setback exceptions may result in the need for other exceptions. Staff had reviewed a proposed street yard reduction of 10 feet that would eliminate the need for a building height exception. However, the request for a street yard reduction of 10 feet is inconsistent with the Zoning Regulations and the Community Design Guidelines. The Zoning Regulations allow a street yard reduction of no less than 18.5 feet for garages that exit directly into the public right-of-way. A variance would be required to reduce the street yard less than 18.5 feet for a garage. While the project may have the ability to comply with the necessary findings for a variance, the reduction would conflict with other City standards. The Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development state that “Each structure shall be located in the most accessible, least visually prominent, most geologically stable, portion of the site, and at the lowest feasible elevation.” The proposed 10 foot street yard reduction would situate the residence higher up on the hill thus increasing the visual prominence of the structure as viewed from Buena Vista Avenue as well as Highway 101, and the project would no longer be located at the lowest feasible elevation. Hillside Development Standards also state that hillside grading to provide a building site and driveway access should be minimized, repositioning the structure closer to the street would increase the amount of grading that would be required to construct the proposed residence. 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 12 Packet Pg. 219 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 ARC included finding #11 to the final resolution (Attachment F) that states “The project site contains difficult constraints (slope), the exceptions are minor in nature, and while they may have some impacts, they are the least detrimental to any of the options that allow for reasonable development of the site.” Table 1: Project Statistics Item Original Design Proposed Redesign a Ordinance Standard b Street Yard Setback (Buena Vista Avenue) 20 feet 18.5 feet 20 feet Other yard setbacks North East South 12 15 13.5 15 135 13.5 15 (35 foot structure) 15 13.5 Max. Height of Structure (Average Natural Grade) 28 feet 27.3 feet 25 feet Building Coverage (footprints) 12% 12% 40% Parking Spaces 3 3 3 Notes: a. Applicant’s project plans b. City Zoning Regulations 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.2.a 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.). A reduction of less than 18.5 feet may potentially create an unsafe driveway approach as vehicles parked in the driveway may obscure the public right-of-way. Maximum building heights per zoning district have been established in order to preserve neighborhood character, and to protect access to adequate solar exposure. The new 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 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. 12 Packet Pg. 220 CONCLUSION Staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the ARC’s decision to allow a single-family residence that includes a minor street yard reduction of 1.5 feet and a height exception of 2.3 feet. The property is a legal lot within an R-1 zone with a Special Considerations Overlay designated to address hillside development. 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. The balancing of these policy objectives was a key factor in developing Staff’s recommendation. Den ying the appeal is consistent with the City Council’s previous direction on the project because the proposed exceptions are different than originally reviewed through the Use Permit process. The new proposed exceptions were unanimously approved by the ARC following the City Council’s direction for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines for Hillside Development. CONCURRENCES The project has been reviewed by Police, Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities staff. Their comments have been incorporated into the resolution as conditions or code requirements, as appropriate. 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. 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. Uphold the Appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council may uphold the appeal and deny the application, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City regulations. 2. Continue the project and provide direction to the applicant to revise the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, or applicable City regulations. Attachments: a - Resolution A 12 Packet Pg. 221 b - Resolution B c - Vicinity Map d - Hoffman Appeal Letter e - City Council January 19, 2016 Resolution & Meeting Minutes f - ARC March 7, 2016 Staff Report & Meeting Minutes g - Reduced Project Plans 12 Packet Pg. 222