CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT

Transcription

1 CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: March 19,2009 TO: CASE: Design Review Variance APPLICANT: LOCATION: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTIDESIGN REVIEW BOARD Lance Polster, Architect Ceanothus Drive APN # ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically Exempt, Class 1 PREPARED BY: Nancy Csira, Principal Planner (949) REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board approval for a 327 square-foot addition to a single-family residence in the R-1 Zone. Design review is required for upper level additions, elevated decks (58 square-feet), spa, tandem parking, and landscaping. A variance is required to maintain the existing nonconforming building height [LBMC BACKGROUND: The original single-family residence and attached 2-car covered parking (1 carport & 1 garage) was built under County jurisdiction. A new lower level was permitted and constructed in 1994 and later legalized as a second residential unit prior to the South Laguna annexation. The project includes alterations to the existing garagelcarport area, a bedroom suite addition at the middle level within the existing footprint, and exterior fa~ade changes. STAFF ANALYSIS: The required parking for the existing single-family residence and second residential unit is 4 on-site spaces - 3 covered and one uncovered. The required parking has been provided. The existing carport meets the minimum depth requirements to accommodate the proposed tandem parking arrangement. The existing 1-car garage will be altered to accommodate two cars. The project does not meet the 50% thresholds to require any street improvements. A portion of the existing carport rear roof is proposed to be demolished. This rear roof area currently encroaches into the additional building setback at the rear and its removal may help reduce the appearance of mass and scale from the north. The applicant is proposing to change the exterior architectural style to contemporary. The existing wood siding is proposed to be replaced with smooth troweled stucco and limestone veneer. Bronze anodized metal roofing is also proposed. The color selections are identified in the property file. The project includes removing some skylights and adding several new skylights.

2 Landscape plan check review comments include the note that the Ligustrum could exceed hedge height restrictions and it may not be accurate to describe the mostly paved front area as "rustic7. The typical pattern of development in the immediate vicinity includes large contemporary styled residences. The proposed additional floor area infilling at the middle level within the existing footprint does not add to the appearance of mass and scale. The applicant was encouraged by staff to discuss the proposed elevated deck addition with the adjacent neighbor to the north and mitigate any privacy concerns. The proposed spa and associated spa equipment is located on the lowest level at the center of the property adjacent to the existing rear wall of the residence. No sound attenuation for the equipment is proposed. Requested Variances: The existing structure exceeds the allowable height measured above the lowest finished floor by approximately 4". The proposed project does not include rebuilding the upper most roof ridge to lower it. COMMUNITY INTEREST: A letter has been submitted by the neighbor at Holly Drive with concerns including privacy, mass, and usable tandem parking. ATTACHMENTS: Pre-Submittal Site Meeting 12/9/08 Vicinity Map

3 Evaluation Meeting Number: Date: 12/9/08 Planner: Alicia Crump (met with Lance Polster and David McCarley of LPA, and Farrell Atlassi, representative ofproperty owner) Site Address: Ceanothus Drive BACKGROUND The subject property - -. is located in South Laguna and was annexed into the City of Laguna Beach in No original building permit is on-file; the existing square-footage &ill be determined from the floor area calculations to be submitted with the design set. City records indicate that the property maintains a single-family residence, second residential unit (approved in 1995), one-car garage, and two-car tandem carport. The existing structure is three stories with the single-family residence on the second and third floors, and the second residential unit on the first floor. The utilities were undergrounded in The property is currently in code enforcement for the construction of unpermitted walls on the property line. This issue should be resolved in conjunction with the current application. There is also a current issued building permit (BP ) to replace damaged wood members in-kind, handrails, windows, and doors, and to demolish an unpermitted master closet and exercise room at the second level. The current application will supersede this permitted work. The applicant's current request is for an additiodremodel to the residence. The additions will include an additiodremodel to the second story, remodel of the third story, addition to the existing garage, exterior changes, a new spa, site walls, hardscaping, and landscaping. ZONE: R1 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: None as noted on GIs CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA): No issues noted at this time. CEQA status will be determined during Zoning Plan Check. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (TO BE VERIFIED DURING ZONING PLAN CHECK): Front Setback: 5' Garage11 0' House [topography condition per LBMC (E)(l)] Rear Setback: 14.3' [shallow lot per LBMC (E)(3)] Side Setback: 22' combined with min. 4' distributed to one side Additional Building Setback: Refer to LBMC (D) Maximum Building Height: 15' above the paved street centerline 30' above natural grade, finish grade or lowest finish floor, whichever is most restrictive. Building Site Coverage: 38% Parking: Two covered spaces for the single-family residence, and one covered space and one uncovered space for the second residential unit. One additional uncovered space is required if the square-footage of the single-family residence is 3,600 square-feet or more. Recommended Landscaping: Area #12 of the City's Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document [ Ceanothus Drive] Page 1 of 4

4 DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA Reference LBMC $ (H) Note: The applicant is advised to consult with surrounding property owners in the preliminary phases of design to discuss the applicant's desire to improve the subject property. 1. ACCESS Design Review Criteria: Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specijically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Staff Notes: The subject property is located on Ceanothus Drive, which is currently not improved with curbs and gutters. Access requirements, including possible street improvements, will be necessary if the project scope includes an addition exceeding 50% of the original structure - at the time of annexation. The currently proposed scope of work does not meet this 50% addition threshold; therefore, the access requirements will not be required. Parking is required to be brought into compliance when any additional floor area is proposed. Please refer to the parking requirements specific to this property under the Development Standards section above. Excess covered parking is subject to design review approval. 2. DESIGN ARTICULATION Design Review Criteria: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass. Staff Notes: The proposed second floor addition is under the existing garagelcarport, and therefore does not contribute to the mass and scale of the structure as viewed from the street. The applicant is proposing to extend the garagelcarport toward the street about two feet; this should not negatively affect the appearance of mass. The applicant has been advised that the garagelcarport may not extend along the front of the lot for a distance greater than 25' if the 5' reduced garagelcarport setback is utilized [per LBMC (E)(l)]. 3. DESIGN INTEGRITY Design Review Criteria: Consistency with the applicant's chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture. Staff Notes: The applicant is proposing to change the exterior architectural style to a soft contemporary design. The existing wood siding is proposed to be replaced with stucco and stone, and the shallow sloped roof will most likely remain gravel, or be changed to sheet metal. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT Design Review Criteria: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city's scenic natural setting. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized. Staff Notes: The proposed second level addition is within an existing void space under the garage, and therefore does not require any grading. The applicant is proposing to maintain [ Ceanothus Drive] Page 2 of 4

5 the existing terraced rear yard, and anticipates only minimal grading for hardscaping and landscaping. 5. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE Design Review Criteria: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the general plan, including all of its elements, applicable specljic plans, and the certijied local coastal program. 6. LANDSCAPING Design Review Criteria: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure S design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the city's "landscape and scenic highways resource document" should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance ofproposed landscaping. 7. L~GHTING AND GLARE Design Review Criteria: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignijicance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties. Staff Notes: Currently, the applicant is proposing to eliminate some of the existing skylights, thereby potentially improving any lighting and/or glare impact to the uphill neighbors. 8. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY Design Review Criteria: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the city, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles. Staff Notes: The typical pattern of development in the immediate neighborhood includes large contemporary styled residences. The desired improvements are minimal and intended to respect the surrounding neighborhood character. 9. PRIVACY Design Review Criteria: The placement of activity areas, (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion ofprivacy of neighboring properties should be minimized. Staff Notes: Privacy issues should be discussed with neighbors. The proposed deck off the rear of the new bedroom on the second level may create a privacy concern for the neighbor at Ceanothus Drive. [ Ceanothus Drive] Page 3 of 4

6 10. SWIMMING POOLS, SPAS AND WATER FEATURES Design Review Criteria: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: a) geology conditions allow; b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and c) any associatedfencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboringproperties. Staff Notes: The proposed spa location is against the rear of the house with the spa equipment under an existing deck. These locations should help mitigate any noise or privacy concerns associated with the spa VIEW EQUITY Design Review Criteria: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the city's "design guidelines. " The "design guidelines" are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property. Staff Notes: View issues should be discussed with neighbors. However, no view issues are anticipated due to the fact that the proposed addition is underneath the existing building footprint, and the uphill neighbors sit well above the subject property. POTENTIAL VARIANCE ISSUES Staff recommends avoiding any preventable variances. Based on the information provided at the Pre-Application Site Development Meeting, no new variances are anticipated. SPECIAL PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS 1. Following Zoning Plan Check, Design Review BoardJBoard of Adjustment approval will be required. 2. The City requires a landscape plan for all projects involving upper level additions. It appears that a landscape plan was submitted and deemed complete by our landscape plan checker on November 5, Please complete and submit a Variance Application to maintain the existing nonconforming building height. ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS 1. It appears that the interior demolition has exceeded the scope of demo work permitted on building permit BP The applicant should take the necessary action to obtain a building permit for the full-scope of interior exploratory demolition. 2. The floor plan for the second residential unit (first floor) that was submitted for zoning plan check does not appear to match the diagram on file that was submitted with the Application for Use Permit for Second Unit in South Laguna in Please verify the floor plan before resubmitting for zoning plan check and provide a floor area calculation. This preliminary evaluation is being provided to applicants and their design advisors to utilize as early as possible in the design stage of a contemplated project so that the ensuing design is more likely to meet with the Design Review Board's approval before substantial time and resources have been expended However, this preliminary evaluation provided by Staff does not bind the Design Review Board in any matter in its review of or decisions on an application. [ Ceanothus Drive] Page 4 of 4

7