Architectural Review Board Report

Transcription

1 Architectural Review Board Report To: From: Subject: Architectural Review Board Architectural Review Board Meeting: June 15, 2015 Steve Traeger, Principal Urban Designer Grace Page, ARB Liaison Agenda Item: 7.6 ARB request to approve a modification to the R1 zoning standards to allow a new single-family structure with a non-conforming front porch encroachment. Address: Applicant: 529 Palisades Avenue Ron Ritner, Ritner Group, Inc. Recommended Action It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board disapprove ARB application based on the findings contained within this report. Executive Summary The applicant is proposing to construct a two story single-family structure on a 17,000 SF parcel in the R-1 District. While Staff believes the project yields a strong architectural design and street oriented façade, the proposed front porch element requires a modification which may only be approved by the Architectural Review Board. The applicant and property owners have supplemented the submittal materials with a written explanation of design options considered and limitations encountered to justify the requested modification. Upon review of the submitted materials, Staff is unable to make all of the necessary R1 modification findings with regard to the front porch modification request and cannot support the proposal. Staff recommends that the Board consider the application and any additional information provided at the hearing to determine if the findings for a modification can be made. If such findings cannot be made, Staff recommends that the ARB disapprove the application. Background 15ENT-0223: The applicant has requested a Use Permit to permit a single-story accessory structure to exceed the 14-foot height limitation. The Zoning Administrator considered the request at its June 9, 2015 hearing. A Determination is pending. Project / Site Information The following table provides a brief summary of project data: Zoning District / Design Guidelines: Parcel Area (SF): Parcel Dimensions: R1 (Single Family Residential) District (North of Montana) Approximately 17,243 SF Approximately 100 W x 175 D 1

2 Existing On-Site Improvements (Year Built): Historic Resource CEQA Adjacent Zoning & Use: None, demolition permits have been issued and the residence is under construction. Existing property not listed on the Historic Resource Inventory. Exempt pursuant to Section (b)(3)] North South East West The subject property consists of parcel that is generally rectilinear in shape and approximately 100-feet in width and 175-feet in depth with an area of 17,243 square feet. The parcel is located between Fourth Street and Seventh Street, on the north side Palisades Avenue and sits just west of the Goose Egg Park (0.69 acre pocket park). Vehicular access to the property is provided from the rear alley allowing for an optimal front yard area. The block is predominantly developed with two-story homes of varying construction dates and architectural styles. While the subject site is not listed on the City s Historic Resource Inventory, approximately 21 parcels within the 400 and 700 block are on the inventory. Analysis R1 Modification Request, Front Porch The applicant is proposing to build a new 2-story, 6,400 square foot home in the R-1 District on a 17,243 square foot parcel. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section (j), permits a front porch open on at least two sides with a maximum height of 14-feet, which does not exceed 50% of the front building width measured at the front façade, to project up to six feet into the required front yard. The applicant is requesting a modification from the ARB from above code section to allow for a front porch design that exceeds the 50% limitation. Specifically, the porch encroachment would occupy 53-feet (77%) of the front façade, exceeding the 34-feet (50%) limitation stipulated by the Code. Pursuant to SMMC Section (k), the applicant may request the Board approve the modification request if certain findings are made. In considering this modification request, the following findings of fact are required: 1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, surroundings, or location of the existing improvements or mature landscaping on the site. 2

3 2. The granting of the design modification will not be detrimental nor injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located. 3. The granting of the design modification will not impair the integrity and character of this R1 neighborhood, nor impact the light, air, open space, and privacy of adjacent properties. 4. In the case of additions to the building s listed on the City s Historic Resources Inventory, the design modification is compatible with the buildings historic architectural character, does not result in the removal of historic building features, and the addition is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Note: Since the site is currently under construction and is not listed on the City s Historic Resources Inventory, finding No. 4 is not applicable. From a design standpoint, Staff feels that the proposed porch provides a welcoming façade and fundamentally embraces the concept of street oriented design and visual connection to the neighborhood. However, in reviewing the findings necessary for the front porch modification request, Staff did not identify any special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, surroundings, or location of the existing improvements or mature landscaping on the site. Examples of conditions that might be considered special circumstances or exceptional characteristics include having an irregularly shaped lot, a significant grade differential, or a substandard sized lot. The subject property is generally rectilinear in shape, does not experience any significant grade differential, and significantly larger than a standard size lot. The applicant states that the proposed modification is in keeping with North of Montana Design Guidelines and that the design represents a series of buildings rather than a monolithic structure. As stated in the applicant s submittal letter, careful consideration to the overall scale, form, articulation, varied massing, rooflines and neighborhood context were made as part of the design development. The applicant is requesting that the ARB consider the 40-foot front yard setback requirement as a special circumstance and exceptional characteristic specified in the first modification finding. Specifically, the applicant asserts that while a porch encroachment spanning 77% of the façade for a residence on a typical R1 lot (7,500 square foot with a 20-foot front yard setback) would appear looming, the subject porch design maintains 34-foot front yard setback that is coupled with layers of landscaping in the foreground and a subtle transition of grade with hardscape leading up to the porch. Staff believes that other design alternatives would eliminate the need for the modification and recommends the ARB assess whether the information provided would support the findings for the modification. 3

4 Neighborhood Compatibility The project s mass, scale, choice of materials and residential quality relate well within the context of the neighborhood. Included in the applicant s submittal are images of other residential porches in the immediate area that are designed with expansive front porch elements. Other facades were obscured by mature hedges and vegetation at the front property line and could not be documented. Staff feels that the proposed porch design provides a welcoming façade and fundamentally represents the concept of street oriented design to create a visual connection to the neighborhood. In light of these factors, Staff feels that findings No. 2 and No. 3 can be made since the granting of the design modification will not be detrimental nor injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located, and that the granting of the design modification will not impair the integrity and character of this R1 neighborhood, nor impact the light, air, open space, and privacy of adjacent properties. Impact on Historic Resources The subject property is vacant and not listed on the City s Historic Resources Inventory. CEQA Status The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section (b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that the proposed project does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment in that the project involves the review of design-related issues associated with the proposed structure(s) in terms of general architectural design, proposed materials, colors, mechanical screening and/or landscape plans. Code Compliance This application has been preliminarily reviewed for compliance with the base district s development standards which address aspects of the plan that could result in significant changes to the project s design. A Use Permit application is pending to allow a onestory accessory structure to exceed the 14-foot height limitation. A complete codecompliance review will not occur until the scope of work is submitted for plan check. It is the applicant s responsibility to ensure that the plans comply fully with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The applicant has been notified of any significant non-compliant aspects of their plans, and a condition has been added requiring full compliance with all applicable regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit. FINDINGS: (to allow a modification to the R1 development standards) There are no special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, surroundings, or location of the existing improvements or mature landscaping on the site in that the subject property is regularly shaped, does not experience any significant grade changes, and is a standard sized lot. In addition, other alternatives may exist that eliminate the need for the modification. Prepared by: Attachments Grace Page, ARB Liaison 4

5 A. Applicant s Submittal Material B. Correspondence from Neighbors F:\CityPlanning\Share\ARB\STFRPT\SR15\15ARB-0003 (529 Palisades Ave).doc 5