DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Staff Report

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Staff Report"

Chastity Owen
5 years ago
Views:

Lots 1-12 of Final Map 13,081 Mikaelian Homes Case Nos.

1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Staff Report Agenda Item F.3 Meeting Date: October 25, 2016 TO: Goleta Design Review Board FROM: Brian Hiefield, Associate Planner; (805) SUBJECT: Twelve new homes on Lots 1-12 of Final Map 13,081 Mikaelian Homes Case Nos DRB through DRB APN to 062; to -012; PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a request for Design Review approval. The undeveloped properties include eight existing lots on Yedid Hillway (APNs to -062) and four existing lots on Dara Road (APNs to -012; and ) all in

2 Mikaelian Homes - Design Review Board Staff Report to DRB October 25, 2016 Page 2 of 8 the 12-R-1 zone district. The applicant proposes to construct one single-family dwelling on each lot. Lot size and floor area are detailed in Table 1 below: Table 1: Proposed Square Footage by Lot Lot # Proposed Gross Floor Area 1 5,431 Sq. Ft. (34% of GLA) 2 5,431 Sq. Ft. (35% of GLA) 3 5,431 Sq. Ft. (36% of GLA) 4 5,431 Sq. Ft. (40% of GLA) 5 4,831 Sq. Ft. (37% of GLA) 6 5,431 Sq. Ft. (36% of GLA) Lot # Proposed Gross Floor Area 7 5,118 Sq. Ft. (36% of GLA) 8 5,118 Sq. Ft. (36% of GLA) 9 5,049 Sq. Ft. (39% of GLA) 10 5,049 Sq. Ft. (39% of GLA) 11 5,049 Sq. Ft. (38% of GLA) 12 4,632 Sq. Ft. (34% of GLA) The applicant has provided drawings for two home types, each with two variations dependent on lot orientation to the street. Proposed exterior materials consist of Redland Roof Tile, painted stucco with accent trim, and stone. Landscaping will be proposed and reviewed at a later date as a second phase of the project. BACKGROUND A subdivision (Tract Map 13081) to create 12 lots was approved in 1981 and recorded under the County of Santa Barbara s jurisdiction. The approval granted by Santa Barbara County included the provision of a gate on Yedid Hillway, a private road, just north of the intersection with Stow Canyon Road. The City of Goleta s Design Review Board has held two conceptual design review hearings. The first was held on February 18, 2003 and more recently on June 28, The applicant s actions to respond to the more recent DRB comments are included within under the Issues section. The DRB minutes of June 28, 2016 are also attached for reference. DRB PURVIEW DRB purview is limited to the architecture, materials, and colors associated with the exterior appearances of the twelve new homes in addition to exterior lights and landscaping. As indicated above, landscape plans have not been developed at this time and will be returning for DRB review once the house designs have been determined. Issues regarding floor plans and interior finishes are not within

3 Mikaelian Homes - Design Review Board Staff Report to DRB October 25, 2016 Page 3 of 8 the purview of the DRB. The DRB can discuss the size of the units in relationship to consistency with the required adopted development standards, recommended development standards, and the DRB findings. Any issues associated with the number of units and/or lots, the size of the lots, and the presence of a gate have already been determined by the County of Santa Barbara and are not part of this review. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE CONSISTENCY The placement and site layout of each of the twelve homes is consistent with the standards and requirements of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning Front Yard Setback Required R-SF - One single family detached dwelling per lot R-1 - One single family dwelling per lot 50 feet from centerline and 20 feet from right-ofway Proposed One single family detached dwelling One single family dwelling Lots 1-6, & 12: 50 feet from Centerline and 20 feet from right-of-way Consistent Y/N Yes Yes And No closer than 10 feet from right-of-way for garages with Director approval for not more than 50% of lots on each side of street in each block And 40% reduction for garages if ground at 50 feet from centerline is 7 feet above or below elevation of centerline Lots 7, 8: 15 feet from right-of-way (Garage) with Director approval Lots 9-11: 25% reduction for garages based on ground at 50 feet from centerline more than 7 feet above elevation at centerline Yes

4 Mikaelian Homes - Design Review Board Staff Report to DRB October 25, 2016 Page 4 of 8 Side Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback Building Height Parking spaces Required 10% of lot width with 5 foot minimum and 10 foot maximum 25 feet from rear property line Proposed Side Yard Setbacks for all lots meet or exceed 10% of lot width 25 feet or more for all lots Consistent Y/N Yes Yes 25 feet 22 feet maximum mean Yes building height 3 spaces 3 spaces Yes ISSUES DRB Conceptual Comments: On June 28, 2016, the DRB conducted a conceptual review of the project and provided comments related to the following subjects (minutes attached): Size, bulk, and scale Outdoor space Design aesthetic, particularly related to the Coastal Ranch style In response to these comments the applicant has provided outdoor space designed to take advantage of the sunnier side of the dwellings or in this case the southern side yards rather than the rear yard. The applicant has added the Coastal Ranch style design aesthetic to the two lots that are visible from Stow Canyon Road (Lots 1 & 8). Floor Area Ratio of the Project The project is subject to recommended floor area ratios (FAR) pursuant to R-1 district standards in of the Zoning Ordinance. The recommended square footages range from approximately 3,100 to 3,400 square feet based on net lot size, as seen in Table 3 on the following page. This translates to approximately 23% to 28% of net lot area. Proposals that exceed these recommended guidelines are to be considered on a case-by-case basis with input from the DRB and/or staff. While the proposed floor area of the dwellings exceeds the recommended FARs, they are within 10% or less of the recommended floor area. The dwellings meet all other development standards for setbacks, building height, and parking as shown in Table 2 above. As the subject lots are larger in size than the surrounding neighborhood, the lots can support a larger floor area ratio without appearing out of scale.

5 Mikaelian Homes - Design Review Board Staff Report to DRB October 25, 2016 Page 5 of 8 Table 3: Recommended Floor Area Lot # Net Lot Area (NLA) 1 Proposed Floor Area for FAR ,143 Sq. Ft. 4,586 Sq. Ft. (30% of NLA) 2 15,390 Sq. Ft. 4,586 Sq. Ft. (30% of NLA) 3 14,755 Sq. Ft. 4,586 Sq. Ft. (31% of NLA) 4 13,543 Sq. Ft. 4,586 Sq. Ft. (34% of NLA) 5 12,983 Sq. Ft. 3,986 Sq. Ft. (31% of NLA) 6 15,052 Sq. Ft. 4,586 Sq. Ft. (31% of NLA) 7 14,164 Sq. Ft. 4,278 Sq. Ft. (30% of NLA) 8 14,071 Sq. Ft. 4,278 Sq. Ft. (30% of NLA) 9 12,154 Sq. Ft. 4,239 Sq. Ft. (35% of NLA) 10 12,154 Sq. Ft. 4,239 Sq. Ft. (35% of NLA) 11 12,003 Sq. Ft. 4,239 Sq. Ft. (35% of NLA) 12 12,029 Sq. Ft. 3,904 Sq. Ft. (33% of NLA) Recommended Floor Area 3 3,417 Sq. Ft. (23% of NLA) 3,429 Sq. Ft. (22% of NLA) 3,385 Sq. Ft. (23% of NLA) 3,264 Sq. Ft. (24% of NLA) 3,208 Sq. Ft. (25% of NLA) 3,412 Sq. Ft. (23% of NLA) 3,320 Sq. Ft. (23% of NLA) 3,307 Sq. Ft. (23% of NLA) 3,124 Sq. Ft. (26% of NLA) 3,124 Sq. Ft. (26% of NLA) 3,310 Sq. Ft. (28% of NLA) 3,312 Sq. Ft. (28% of NLA) Percentage Above FAR 7% 8% 8% 10% 6% 8% 7% 7% 9% 9% 7% 5% 1) Net Lot Area is the lot area exclusive of any portion of the lot within an access easement or public right-of-way that provides vehicular access as described in the Zoning Ordinance (Appendix E), Recommended Maximum Allowable Floor Area (FAR Guidelines). 2) Floor area for FAR shall be the amount of area in square feet measured from the outer wall surface of all exterior walls that enclose the building, excluding a 650 square foot allowance for a garage for residences of 3,000 square feet or larger as described in the FAR Guidelines. 3) Recommended Floor Area is based on specific calculations in the FAR Guidelines related to the size of the lot (net). Proposals that exceed these guidelines are to be considered on a caseby-case basis with input from the DRB and/or staff. Floor Area Ratio of Similar Projects For a comparison, dwellings at The Bluffs at Sandpiper development exceed the FAR guidelines by 14% or less across the project. Dwellings at the Crown Collection exceed the FAR guidelines by 16% or less, based on a sample of five

6 Mikaelian Homes - Design Review Board Staff Report to DRB October 25, 2016 Page 6 of 8 different dwelling types. The FARs proposed by the applicant is within a similar range as those previously approved projects in the City of Goleta. Neighborhood Compatibility The project takes neighborhood compatibility into consideration with its Coastal Ranch aesthetic and comparable massing and setbacks for the dwellings most visible around the perimeter of the development on Dara Road and Stow Canyon Road. This is achieved by having the one story elements placed closer to the street with the two story elements setback. The cul-de-sac lots (on the private road) are interior to the development, and, as a result, are less visible to the existing neighborhood and the public right of ways of Stow Canyon and Dara Roads. Given the approved subdivision design, the homes will not impinge upon neighborhood cohesion. DRB REVIEW CRITERIA If the DRB finds that the applicant has adequately responded to the previous comments and that the designs are acceptable, the following reasons by issue area to support the project have been provided to aid the DRB: Neighborhood Compatibility 1. The development will be compatible with the neighborhood, and its size, bulk and scale will be appropriate to the site and the neighborhood. 2. Site layout, orientation, and location of structures, buildings, and signs are in an appropriate and well-designated relationship to one another, and to the environmental qualities, open spaces and topography of the property. 3. The project demonstrates a harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments, avoiding excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted. 13. The development will not adversely affect significant public scenic views. 17. The development will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. 19. The project architecture will respect the privacy of neighbors and is considerate of private views and solar access. The massing of the dwellings, especially the ones most visible from the public right-of-way along Dara Road and Stow Canyon Road, will be consistent with the neighborhood with the one-story forward and the twostory back. The project will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood with its Coastal Ranch style on the homes visible from the public right-ofway. Privacy of the neighbors will be maintained through a combination of house orientation and window placement. The project will not adversely affect private views and solar access. Quality of Architectural Design 4. There is harmony of material, color, and composition of all sides of a structure or buildings.

7 Mikaelian Homes - Design Review Board Staff Report to DRB October 25, 2016 Page 7 of 8 5. A limited number of materials will be on the exterior face of the building or structure. 6. There is consistency and unity of composition and treatment of exterior elevation. 7. Mechanical and electrical equipment is well integrated in the total design concept and screened from public view to the maximum extent practicable. 8. All visible onsite utility services are appropriate in size and location. 14. Signs, including their lighting, are well designed and are appropriate in size and location. 15. All exterior site, structure and building lighting are well-designed and appropriate in size and location. 16. The proposed development is consistent with any additional design standards as expressly adopted by the City Council. The proposed Coastal Ranch style will provide added architectural interest to the neighborhood with a rustic Goleta style. Colors will be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The combined architectural features and colors/materials create a consistent treatment and unity of composition throughout the exterior. Together these elements provide a harmony of material, color, and composition to all sides of the house. Quality of Landscape Design 9. The grading will be appropriate to the site. 10. Adequate landscaping is provided in proportion to the project and the site with due regard to the preservation of specimen and landmark trees, and existing native vegetation. 11. The selection of plant materials is appropriate to the project and its environment, and adequate provision will be made for the long-term maintenance of such plant materials. 12. The project will preserve and protect, to the maximum extent practicable, any mature, specimen or skyline tree, or appropriately mitigate the loss. Landscaping will be proposed as a second phase of the project entitlement and will be reviewed by the DRB at a later date. Zoning 13. The public health, safety and welfare will be protected. 20. The project will provide for adequate street design and sufficient parking for residents and guests in a safe and aesthetically pleasing way. Public health, safety and welfare will not be adversely affected by the project. Street design had been reviewed and approved by Santa Barbara County when the Final Map for the subdivision was approved. Sufficient parking will be provided.

8 Mikaelian Homes - Design Review Board Staff Report to DRB October 25, 2016 Page 8 of 8 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL As part of the City s process to secure building permits, approval of a Land Use Permit (LUP) is required in addition to securing DRB approval of the individual home designs. Typical conditions of approval associated with a LUP include restrictions on dust, construction hours, and exterior lighting among other standard legal and indemnification conditions. If the DRB determines that there are design related conditions that should be included with the LUP, staff can add those to the LUP. POTENTIAL DRB ACTIONS 1. Approve project with findings. 2. Continue with specific comments. 3. Deny project based on inability to make specific findings. ATTACHMENTS: DRB Minutes 6/28/16. s/Letters submitted since June 28, Reduced 11" x 17" copies of site plans and elevations.

9 Design Review Board Minutes - Approved June 28, 2016 Page 8 of 10 G Dara Road (APN ) Mikaelian Homes Case No DRB A request for Conceptual review of 12 new single-family residences. (New Item) DRB Mikaelian Homes (18.3mb) Chair Branch recused himself because he works with the project architect. Chair Branch appointed Member Schneider to serve as Chair for Item G.3. Chair Branch exited the Council Chambers. Site visits and ex-parte conversations: Site visits reported by Members Carroll, Schneider, Shelor, Swaney, and Whelan. Staff speaker: Brian Hiefield, Associate Planner The plans were presented by Britt Jewett, Studio 7 Architecture & Allied Arts, project architect. Member Schneider reported that public comment letters were submitted from Russell & Karren Hagen, dated June 27, 2016; Barbara L. MacCallum, received June 28, 2016; and Larry & Jan Scheffler. Speakers: Larry Scheffler Jane Runyen Jack Hawxhurst Action: The Design Review Board conducted Conceptual review of Item G.3, Mikaelian Homes, with the following comments: 1. Story poles will be needed preferably for all lots for Conceptual review to help visualize what is proposed. There is a lot of development proposed in a tight package. 2. The homes look dominant in terms of the size of the lot and the home portion. Reducing the home size is encouraged before putting up the story poles. The developer is encouraged to strongly consider the voice of the surrounding community. Consider photovoltaics and also address the water demand by selecting appropriate plant choices, providing for greywater sleeving, using reclaimed water for landscaping if it is an option, and providing for stormwater detention and stormwater infiltration, all of which would begin to offset some of the concerns about the size of the homes.

10 Design Review Board Minutes - Approved June 28, 2016 Page 9 of The applicant has done a good job of massing the homes and putting some thought into how the homes face Dara Road with the one-story forward and two-story back. The backyards seem cramped in Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10. Possibly Lot 10 could get mirrored to give more variation to Lots 9, 10 and 11 rather than repeating the same plan 3 times. The requirement with regard to whether garages are allowed to be in setbacks is questioned. Provide details such as fencing, retaining walls, and paving materials at the next review 4. On Lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, the homes seem to fill out to the setbacks and the outdoor spaces are not elaborated; however, Lots 1 through 6 do achieve an ideal of indoor and outdoor spaces. The designs are very high quality and the renderings of the buildings are commendable. A cursory calculation shows about 20 floor area ratio in the neighborhood as compared to 40 percent floor area ratio in the project. The interiors are nicely laid out but there are large rooms designed not so much for indoor-outdoor living which may be a conflict. On Lots 7 through 11, the nicest spaces with exposures to the southeast and to the southwest are devoted to the motor court rather than livable outdoor spaces, which deserves to be addressed. The differentiation in stylistics is appreciated between the homes on Dara Road and the other cul-de-sac. 5. The homes appear to be very spacious and attractive. However, the size of the homes is a concern. The coastal ranch aesthetic style on Dara Road is favorable as the design blends in and is appropriate for Goleta. This style could possibly be repeated for the entire enclave because the entire lot has the rustic Goleta style. By making the homes smaller, there could be larger setbacks which would be appreciated by the neighbors and also be important in making the finding of neighborhood compatibility. 6. The project feels too large for the size of the lots. An example of the concern is the local Crown Collection development with large two-story homes on very small lots. Story poles will likely be needed. The coastal ranch aesthetic style is appreciated, and may possibly be appropriate for the whole project. Possibly consider more of the farm style. Some examples of local designs that do not incorporate red tile roofs are the Harvest Hill Ranch with the corrugated metal roofs and also the Hideaway project. The palm trees are not of concern. The setbacks seem to vary which is a concern. It is appreciated that the two-story portion of a home is set back but it feels like there is too much development on the lot. Provide the footprint of the owner's house. Show Lot 2 with regard to the access road. The gates will need to be addressed. Member Schneider stated that no formal application has been submitted and that Item G.3, Mikaelian Homes, will be taken off calendar.