The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-03-2016 Item 12, Hoffman (3)Appeal of ARC Approval The appeal should be upheld because the ARC did not apply the hillside development standards or the special consideration overlay requirements. The project does not conform to: •the S-Overlay Zone •the Community Design Guidelines •the Hillside Development Standards •the General Plan and is not compatible with the neighborhood. 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e Appeal of ARC Approval The ARC purview included the items referenced in the previous slide, however it does not appear that they applied the more rigorous standards of the S-overlay. Features that could have been eliminated or mitigated: •Intensity of the dwelling in relation to the site •Boxy shape that does not maintain a low profile or conform to the slope •Rooftop deck •Massing of windows, exacerbating daytime glare and nighttime illumination •Support columns 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e Zoning of Project In 1978 the project site and several properties were designated with a “Special Consideration Overlay” by Resolution of City Council. 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e Zoning of Project The re-zoning of this R-1 lot and surrounding area to R-1-S, with a special consideration overlay, was adopted for the following reasons: •To ensure consistency with the general plan; •To ensure public health, safety and general welfare; •To ensure compliance with the hillside development guidelines and adequacy of public utilities and services. THE AREA WAS REZONED 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e Zoning of Project PROPOSED PROJECT EXHIBIT CONTAINED IN REZONING ORDINANCE OUTLINES THE ‘R-1-S’ ZONE 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e Zoning of Project A LARGE PORTION OF THE ‘R-1-S’ ZONE WAS LATER CONVERTED TO ‘C/OS –5’ “Conservation/Open Space” PROPOSED PROJECT R-1-S C/OS-5 C/OS-5 C/OS-5 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e Zoning of Project PROPOSED PROJECT R-1-S C/OS-5 C/OS-5 C/OS-5 PROPOSED PROJECT C/OS-5 C/OS-5 C/OS-5 PROPOSED PROJECT C/OS-5 C/OS-5 C/OS-5 R-1-S SINGLE FAMILY SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY R-1 SINGLE FAMILY PF PUBLIC FACILITY C/OS-5 CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE This R-1-S zoned property is on a “sensitive site” hillside HIGH VISIBILITY HILLSIDE LOTS 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE RIDGE & ADJACENT LOTS R-1 OTPROPOSED PROJECT Properties in S-Overlay ZoneOther Properties in the S-Overlay Zone CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE THE PROJECT IS ADJACENT TO SEVERAL UNDEVELOPED RIDGELINE LOTS AND WILL SET A PRECEDENT FOR DEVELOPMENT HOME HOME EXISTING HOMES LOWER ON THE HILL 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE R-1 OTPROPOSED PROJECT Properties in S-Overlay ZoneOther Properties in the S-Overlay Zone CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE UPPER HILL 1.PROPOSED PROJECT . 40 & 42 Buena Vista 2.Undeveloped Lot . Buena Vista 3.Undeveloped Lot . Buena Vista 4.Undeveloped Lot . Buena Vista LOWER HILL 5. Undeveloped Lot 6.2302 Loomis 7.2306 Loomis 8.Undeveloped Lot 9.Undeveloped Lot 10.2330 Santa Ynez 11.2290 Santa Ynez 1 The house is proposed for the top of the hillside. HOME HOME 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e View of Home from 101 Freeway THE TWO TREES ON THE LOT GIVE PERSPECTIVE 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e View of Home from 101 Freeway EAST VIEW NORTH VIEW 20’ 36’ RENDERING PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT (Foliage does not presently exist) 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e PLANNING COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE ‘S’ OVERLAY ZONE AND DENIED THE PROPOSED 2-STORY PROJECT Commissioner Larson:A few weeks ago I was totally confused about his project…Here’s my summary observations.The first point,important. What’s before us as a commission is two different approvals or conditions. The first item relates to is the ‘S’overlay zone,special consideration. Commissioner Draze:The density of the house is more than it should be on this kind of a lot. Commissioner Multari:I’ve really considered Staff’s analysis,Mr.Kraft’s suggestions and the testimony.I still feel this is too much house for this particular lot.And because it is a discretionary review,there is an S- designation on this,and that was purposeful.Because it is special.It’s not a typical lot.It would be a lot easier if it were. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e PLANNING COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE ‘S’ OVERLAY ZONE AND DENIED THE PROPOSED PROJECT Commissioner Larson:The debate centers on the necessary findings to approve the special considerations overlay zone and consider consistency with that… The very first finding we have to make is that the project will not be detrimental to the health,safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site and in the vicinity. THAT’s the key thing…The geometry of the street,the traffic,intensity of the house. Those are really,really important factors in making that judgement call… I have difficulty with that very first finding that we need to make relative to the special consideration overlay.And that has to do with the safety of the road,the geometry of the road and the extent to which the intensity of the proposed house would contribute to that. Commissioner Fowler:There’s a reason why they have an S overlay and we need to consider that when looking at a project.Where I’m going to come down on this…It’s the S overlay…There’s a reason why they have an S overlay and I think they really wanted us to consider that when looking at a project. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e THEY ASKED THE DEVELOPER TO COME BACK WITH A SMALLER DESIGN IN CONSIDERATIN OF THE S-OVERLAY ZONE Commissioner Larson:Thank you,Mr.Kraft…I look forward to something that is acceptable on this lot, hopefully in the not-too-distant future. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING BUT THE DEVELOPER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO HE APPEALED TO CITY COUNCIL ‘The [Planning Commission’s] findings for denial are not justified. I am requesting to build a single family home on a legal lot and have met all of the criteria and have planning staff recommendation for approval.’ -Jeff Kraft’s Appeal THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL WAS BASED ON THE S-OVERLAY AND THE FINDINGS WERE CLEARLY STATED It is a legal lot but not a legal building as designed. 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e STAFF URGED APPROVAL OF THE USE PERMIT. CITY COUNCIL WAS ASSURED THE LOT COULD BE DEVELOPED WHILE STAYING WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES. City Council Appeal, online video (120:37): Michael Codron: We have evaluated the project for compliance with all of our ordinances and standards. And for the components of the Special Use Permit that are relevant under the Special Consideration Zone. There is nothing in our review that indicates that the lot cannot be developed for a single family home in compliance with the City requirements. Mayor Marx: Including the Scenic Requirements of the General Plan and the Land Use Element? Michael Codron: Correct. CITY COUNCIL APPEAL 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e CITY COUNCIL APPEAL A Use Permit to build a single-family home with an attached SDU was approved with direction to the Applicant to work with staff and ARC to redesign the home to conform with Design Guidelines without the currently proposed height and setback exceptions. We expected a redesign that would: •Adhere more closely to Hillside Development Guidelines, particularly LUE 6.4.3 •Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slope •Reduce large, continuous walls and •Reduce prominent features such as poles / columns and glass that could reflect •Remove the rooftop deck •Minimize exterior lighting The project was sent to ARC and APPROVED The project was only minimally redesigned.It still does not conform to the Hillside Development Standards.Other than minimal grading it does not address this as a sensitive site. 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e Community Design Guidelines Agenda Packet p.218: “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….” They did not consider the precedent-setting aspect of approving a rooftop deck,especially in an established neighborhood. The rooftop deck is not needed to provide the required ‘private outdoor space.’Each of the two balconies meets or exceeds the City’s requirements for private outdoor space. The rooftop deck is not a balcony,porch or courtyard and it is not the same as a ‘front yard.’A porch or front yard is not elevated 6’or more above street level. The rooftop deck has several electrical outlets for lighting use at night.This is contrary to LUE 6.4.3 H and CDG 7.2 E to minimize exterior lighting. There are ZERO other properties in the R- 1-S Zone with rooftop decks.In fact,there are no rooftop decks in Monterey Heights. ROOFTOP DECK ORIGINAL PLAN 1,056 sf Roof Deck CURRENT (RE-WORDED) PLAN 1,056 sf Front Porch, Deck, Front Yard 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e Community Design Guidelines Planning Commissioners voiced concern or objection to the rooftop deck. Commissioner Dandekar:That roof deck is a problem … It would make me happy if the roof deck and the stairway to the roof deck disappeared. I think we should condition that ARC really look at that. Commissioner Malak: I have an issue with the rooftop deck. We’re talking about a scenic view and you’re driving down the 101 at night you see the lights on your rooftop lawn, for example. I still have an issue with that. I’m uncomfortable with that… I do not want to see a rooftop deck there. So if we approve it I’d like to see a condition for that. Commissioner Larson: The rooftop deck is clearly an issue. Commissioner Draze: I do have a problem with the upper deck… … I really don’t like the roof deck. I’d like to see a different solution on the yard requirements. The ARC is probably going to approve that so we need to make strong language to the ARC… We can deny features. I’d like to see the upper deck disappear. THE ROOFTOP DECK BECAME A MOOT POINT ONCE THEY DENIED THE USE PERMIT ROOFTOP DECK Agenda Packet p. 218: “Reflectivity of the amount of glazing and glass on the structure:…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.” 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e REFLECTIVITY Community Design Guidelines EASTERN SUN EVENING ILLUMINATION It is not true that there are already 5-6 other homes on the hillside. Other homes in the S-overlay are located low on the hill.The proposed home is highly visible from the 101 at the top of a barren hill. Three additional undeveloped lots adjacent to his project will potentially be “illuminated boxes visible from the 101”if this property is allowed to set a precedent. DAYTIME REFLECTION EAST ELEVATION 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e The Staff Report does not indicate ARC considered the hillside integration requirement of the Design Guidelines. This was an important element according to the Planning Commission and was included by City Council in their direction to the ARC. Commissioner Dandekar:When I went out to the site I thought this should never have been a lot.It meets the conditions from what I’ve read from the Staff Report except that there’s something wrong about the house.It’s not really built into the hillside.You see others as you drive up Buena Vista, they’re built into the hillside,you don’t see them.It’s not the architecture,either …There’s something that says this house is going to be very visible regardless of the trees that are built from Highway 101. HILLSIDE INTEGRATION Community Design Guidelines The guidelines in this section are intended to assist in implementing General Plan hillside policies by minimizing the visibility and other impacts of allowable hillside development. 3.Placement of structures.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.Siting structures in the least prominent locations is especially important on open hillsides where the visibility of structures should be minimized by placement that will provide screening by existing vegetation,depressions in topography,or other natural features. 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e VERTICAL COLUMNS Community Design Guidelines Agenda Packet p.218: “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.” ARC did not require any design changes to the vertical support columns.The columns are not compatible with the Design Guidelines.The ‘S’Overlay makes the column design even more critical under the restrictive zone and the Hillside Development Guidelines. Commissioner Dandekar:There’s something that says this house is going to be very visible regardless of the trees that are built from Highway 101…From the point of view of how to make this house recessive into the hillside as opposed to standing on stilts,even as you look at it from the freeway.Because when you look at the back,it’s on very high stilts and there is no foliage around it to mask that… As an architect while in L.A.I’ve built some of those things on Mulholland Drive and have regretted it ever since,when I drive by there.They still don’t look good,and I thought they would 25 years later.But they still stick out.So -- 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e LANDSCAPE Community Design Guidelines 6.2 –Landscaping,B.4.Plant selection. Where planting is intended to perform a function such as screening or shading,its initial size and spacing should be selected to achieve its purpose within two years,or it should be supplemented by temporary architectural features such as screen fencing or an arbor. 36” Box Live Oak 24” Box Ironwood Chris Stier, ISA Certified Arborist: SLOPE AND SOIL:Much of the steep lot is loose alluvial soil and not far below is rock. Exposed rock from cuts throughout this area shows underlying serpentine rock.There is very little organic matter in this soil.The area is grassland with Oaks along Loomis and one Oak. SIZE OF TREES:A 48”box oak will likely be 8-12 feet in height.A Live Oak will grow 8-12 inches per year.Planting trees that are 8-12 feet high will have very little screen impact.It will take many years before Oaks could significantly screen this residence. VIABILITY:Oaks prefer loose well-drained soils,lots of organic matter,and a healthy rhizosphere.The rhizosphere is an area of soil (10-16 inches deep)that contains microorganism,beneficial fungi,worms and bugs that break down organic matter.Lack of a suitable rhizosphere or conditions to create one limits the viability of an Oak. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTORS (slope,type of soil,need to screen view within a reasonable amount of time)OAKS MAY NOT BE A GOOD SELECTION FOR THIS PROPERTY.HAVING SAID THAT,THERE PROBABLY IS NO TREE THAT WILL MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS GIVEN THE CHALLENGES POSED BY THE CONDITIONS OF THIS LOT. 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS Agenda Packet p.218: 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 this difficult site, reasoning that the lot was made a legal lot long ago and the rules changed later…it is not feasible to develop much differently on the lot than what is proposed without violating some other principles of hillside development. Community Design Guidelines Commissioner Dandekar:I would wish that the height level…there’s the 6 foot you can see from the road,the roofline,and then there’s the stairwell,another four foot six inches,so really you have a small piece of architecture that’s ten feet that you see when you go around the curve,where the stairwell comes,at a point where the view is nice,in your car,the view is nice.I wish there wasn’t the height exception… 39’8” to Stair Tower 4’ 2 ” 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e CONCLUSION The project does not conform to The S-Overlay Zone Community Design Guidelines Hillside Development Standards The General Plan Neighborhood Compatibility The City Council’s purview includes the ability to specify design elements and require that the project be designed in compliance with city requirements. 4 0 a n d 4 2 B u e n a V i s t a D r i v e CONCLUSION Request you uphold the appeal and condition the redesign to: •Reduce the intensity of the proposed house •Minimize the prominence of the structure to keep a low profile and conform to the slope •Eliminate the rooftop deck and stairwell tower extension •Reduce the massing of windows, minimize glare during the day and illumination at night •Minimize exterior lighting