3355 Alta Laguna Boulevard APN #

Transcription

1 CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: April 14,2011 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE: Design Review APPLICANT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENT AL STATUS: PREPARED BY: Sid Tejpaul, Property Owner 3355 Alta Laguna Boulevard APN # Categorically Exempt, Class I Nancy Csira, Principal planner (949) REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests design review for modifications to a prior approval in the R-I Zone. The proposed modifications include additions of 837 square-feet and changes to the exterior materials and landscaping. BACKGROUND: On July 30, 2009, the Design Review Board approved a 3,482 square-foot single-family residence, a 869 square-foot detached three-car garage, 26 square-feet of mechanical area and 474 square-feet of elevated decks on the condition that the Board is approving the plan dated 7/15/09 and the landscape plan dated 7/28/09 with the green roof over the garage per the original landscape plan and as redlined; and on the condition that all the vegetation within the front setback shall be maintained no higher than elevation 1,000 or 5 feet above finished grade, whichever is more restrictive; and that the rooftop vegetation shall be maintained no higher than 3 feet 6 inches; that the air conditioning unit and the pool equipment shall be vaulted below grade; that a 6-foot high temporary construction fence be placed along the west and north property line for the duration of construction; and the changes made to the green roofs to reflect the original landscape plan and as redlined. The minutes from the July 30, 2009 meeting are attached. The applicant proposes to infill the two-story atrium, reorganize the interior stairwell, add a new top level (198 square-feet) to serve as a foyer for a new elevator and revise the elevated decks. Revised exterior colors and materials are also proposed. The applicant would also like to remove the prior condition of approval to install a vegetated roof above the garage. The structure has been staked in its entirety so the Board can review the new elements in relation to the previously approved structure. The new elements include the top level, the deck on the north side and the chimney. Previously a deck was proposed across the back of the second floor. That deck has been deleted and only one deck is proposed. The deck is on the north side facing the open space park. STAFF ANALYSIS: The required three on-site parking spaces are accommodated in the previously approved three-car garage.

2 DR Alta Laguna Boulevard Page 2 of2 The proposed exterior materials include stone veneer, stucco and horizontal siding. The color and material selections are attached. The window frames and sashes are proposed to be made of wood. There were no fireplaces previously proposed. The revised plan shows two fireplaces located on the lowest level - one in the living room and one in the master bedroom. One tall chimney is proposed which extends two feet above the mid-level roof. The project summary table has been corrected to represent proposed export of 1,870 cubic yards as clarified at the 7/30109 hearing. No additional grading is proposed. No view or privacy concerns have been identified. COMMUNITY INTEREST: There have been no letters or telephone cabs received by the City as of the date of this report (4/4111). ATTACHMENTS: Design Review Board minutes of 7/30109 Color and Materials Vicinity Map Oblique Photos (4)

3 Design Review Board Minutes 7/30/ ALTA LAGUNA, APN APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS DESIGN REVIEW , COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION LAST HEARD 6/'15/09 (THIRD HEARING) The applicant requests Design Review Board approval and a Coastal Development Permit for a 5,278 square-foot single-family residence, a 624 square-foot second residential unit, 543 square-feet of storage/mechanical area, and 869 square-feet of garage area in the R-I Zone. Design review is required for the new structures, excess covered parking, elevated decks (2,624 square-feet), grading, retaining walls, pool, spa, water feature, air conditioning unit, fuel modification plan, landscaping, and construction in an environmentally sensitive area due to open space and water quality. Project Representative: Designer Ben Simon explained the current design more than exceeds the established criteria by not maximizing the envelopes. They have deleted the 640 square-foot second residential unit along with 800 square feet of parking and storage/mechanical space. This lowered the garage structure by eight feet. They have reduced the residence by removing an additional 500 square feet to a total of 3,482 square feet. They have eliminated 55% of the glass on the north side and 25% on the west side The house was pulled back sixteen feet on the upper level south side to open up the view corridor by more than twenty feet. By eliminating the second unit the residence was lowered ten feet while not exceeding the overall building height limitation. They have increased the planting areas around the yard and pool, incorporating only low and non-view blocking landscaping in the crucial view areas. The landscape design is inspired by the natural surroundings with close to 50% being native plants and fire-resistant. The planting is sparse, surrounded by decomposed granite, and irrigated by an underground drip system with overhead rotary heads for fire prevention. Exterior lighting has been reduced and low voltage lighting of twenty watts maximum is used for the entry and pool. They have warmed up the exterior by reducing the amount of glass and changing all fenestration to wood. Perimeter fencing has been removed except for required pool fencing. Permeable areas have increased to 40% and deck areas reduced to less than 500 square feet. They have deleted the sod roofs and replaced them with gravel. As they do not add to the height of the staking and contain no high plantings or grasses, they hereby request the Board to consider a planted roof on the garage as well as the lower level roof of the main house. Their proposed design is the only one on the ocean side of the street with planted roofs, no exposed garage doors, no chimneys, the most stepped down and the smallest square footage at the highest allowable point. With landscaping clarification tonight, TOWNA and the sole neighbor to the property both support the project. Public Testimony: Gene Felder, Secretary-Treasurer of TOWNA, read a letter of support from TOWNA President Weems saying they are extremely pleased with the plans. He congratulated the applicant and architect for solving serious problems. The organization's remaining concern involves landscaping which they hope can be addressed by specific height limitations included in the approved landscaping plan. Although the setback was not increased as they sought, their sight-line visibility and safety concerns have been reduced by the lowered garage roof. They strongly support and agree with Mr. Sadler's comment that no landscaping be permitted in the front of the property. They believe lowering the project will reduce light and glare impacts to adjacent park areas. They continue to be concerned about safety and the steepness and visibility of the driveway. They understand no perimeter

4 fencing is part of the revised plans and they request the approved staging plan prohibit any encroachment into the adjacent environmentally-sensitive open space. Armando Baez, of Driftwood Drive, said certain projects are important to all of Laguna Beach as they impact entire neighborhoods or create precedents that could impact our City. He said the Board heard their plea and worked hard to make the applicant understand the consequences to the neighborhood of the wrong design. He thanked all involved and asked that the Board please continue to shepherd this project. Charlotte Massarik, 761 Oak Street, wanted to thank the Design Review Board. She said she is still skeptical about the sod roofs and asked if it doesn't work out will the owners have to come back before the Board. She also echoed Mr. Felder's concern about staging and the open space. Carolyn Wood, President of the Laguna Canyon Conservancy, mentioned there are City, county, state and Coastal Commission requirements of preserving the viewshed. She thinks with the lowering of the building, the location of the current stakes and with the comments Mr. Simon has made - if these are all accomplished, the Conservancy can only say they hope the Board approves the project. Jackie Gallagher, 2845 Zell Drive, thanked the Board for their hard work. She noted the mechanical room was removed and is curious where the mechanics are going as she is concerned about noise. She doesn't think it should go on the open space side of the house. Karen Schwager, 3168 Bonn Drive, said 'Bravo' to the Board for their efforts. She appreciates the amount of work that went into this process. She reiterated the importance of proper staging to avoid damage to the open space. One of her concerns is the noise pollution from the pool and air conditioning. If you live along the canyon side, that noise will be heard by people across the canyon. She has not seen the proposed landscaping, but trusts Jana Ruzicka to be sensitive to the environment. Gary Schwager, Board Director of TOWNA, said it has been a long time and he's happy to say things have gone well on this last revision. The Board, owner and architect should all be proud of the end product. He has not seen the final landscaping plan. He asked the Board to review it and make sure there is an understanding for both the owner and others that there will be no planting in the front setback higher than certain number. He would like something that can be well understood and not disputed in the future. He would like some assurance about no noise on the side next to open space or that there will be some means in place for quieting it. He asked for assurance there will be no perimeter fencing. He wants the tract map conditions enforced, or others will start wanting big fences. He is concerned that the export be taken down that steep hill safely. Rebuttal: Ms. Morgenlander said the landscaping concept hasn't changed. They intend to keep things low but to create privacy so the house isn't visible. She said they could agree to a height limitation on vegetation in the front of the property. She said there are safety concerns about people wandering off the roof and they may have to agree on some sort of barricade. They have to submit a staging plan as part of the permitting process and the contractor will meet those requirements. They will underground the pool equipment vault behind the pool and closer to the house. The mechanical equipment could go under the motor court. Perimeter fencing will only be around the pool where required for safety. There is no variance for the driveway slope but nothing tall will be planted there.

5 Board Questions: Ms. Zur Schmiede recalled an explanation at the last hearing that as cars exit the driveway there's a ten-foot area before they get to the sidewalk. Ms. Schuller advised it's at least ten feet. Mr. Simon said they didn't change the configuration of the driveway. Ms. Zur Schmiede verified that plants that could potentially grow tall are not located within the ten-foot setback. Landscape Architect lana Ruzicka said they have Lemonade Berry next to the five-foot box, but otherwise it's all very low and doesn't exceed two feet in height. On the right next to the curb is ground cover. Ms. Zur Schmiede suggested that within that ten foot area between the roof of the garage and the sidewalk that plantings not be allowed to grow above the sidewalk height. Ms. Ruzicka agreed they would not be allowed to grow higher. Ms. Zur Schmiede mentioned other houses nearby have a fence in front and she would imagine this applicant will want a fence. She asked why Mr. Schwager did not want a fence along the side. Mr. Schwager said north is the park which they want to seem natural as possible. There is a point toward the east where there's a natural tendency to want a fence but it would become an obstacle to view. Ms. Schuller advised the restriction against perimeter fencing is written into the tract standards. All of the other developed lots have fencing to a degree, but it's removed from the immediate property line and doesn't enclose the entire property. Mr. Wilkes noticed a conflict between Toal Engineering plan sheet I of 2 which shows two retaining walls adjacent to the house. Sheet 2 of 2 shows this in section B as well, with fencing above both walls. The upper walls seem to be seven feet tall. On the architect's sheet A.I.I is what appears to be a single wall. Ms. Morgenlander said there are two shown, one is taller and stepped down for a layer of planting between those where people can't look over into property. Mr. Wilkes said on A.I.I there is a 42-inch metal fence along that entire wall. Ms. Morgenlander said it's a guardrail where the grade falls off. Mr. Wilkes wondered if they would be willing to condition that all vegetation within the front setback shall be maintained at no higher than elevation 1,000 or 5 feet above finished grade, whichever is more restrictive and that on the roof of garage, vegetation shall be maintained at no higher than three foot six inches. Mr. Simon said they would agree to that. Mr. Sadler asked if they have air conditioning units. Mr. Simon said they would be in underground vaults located under the motor courts. This is not shown on plans. Ms. Morgenlander said they could mark the location which will be under the driveway. Mr. Simon agreed the pool equipment would be vaulted underground. Ms. Liuzzi verified that they were willing to put a six-foot perimeter construction fence along the north side to avoid any spillage into the open space. She asked if the export figure of 265 was correct. Ms. Morgenlander said it was not and it should be the figure on Toal Engineering's drawing, which is 1,870. Ms. Liuzzi asked what provisions have been made with regard to glazing in the rear to reduce the need for air conditioning. Mr. Simon said the windows open and the glazing was reduced by 25%. Ms. Liuzzi asked Ms. Ruzicka about water usage for green roofs. Ms. Ruzicka said they typically have a system of using grown plants with hoses and pipes installed for watering and soaking. She said it is a very effective system. Ms. Ruzicka said they do use water but it is a trade off by saving energy. Ms. Lenschow asked what could be planted on a green roof. Ms. Ruzicka said usually drought-tolerant plants like sedum or succulents. Certain grasses are recommended but they need a little more water. Ms. Lenschow asked if it would be possible for anyone to plant a tree on the roof. Ms. Ruzicka said the roof would have to be specially constructed to

6 support it and it would have to be anchored. Ms. Lenschow said then in reality, no tree can grow there. Ms. Ruzicka agreed. Board Comments: Mr. Sadler said when the project first came before the Board, he thought it had no chance of getting approval. When it came back the second time, he was tempted to sayan insufficient effort had been made to address their comments to the point where he was close to not favoring the third hearing. They've exceeded what he expected for the third hearing. He originally had no problem with the second residential unit. Now that it's eliminated, it's so open that it will have the least impact of any in that line of homes. They have improved the environmental context. It has been changed to the point where it will be a more functional home. With regard to the roof, he didn't want the structural height driven by the need to have green roof. It is now pushed down so much, it's no longer an issue. He is still a little concerned about the green roof over the garage because of the location and the traffic there. It could appear to the public to be a nice place to sit down. It is certainly not as obvious as the gravel roofs, but a gravel roof is more obviously part of the structure. He likes the proposed pool being in-grade and not infinity edge. Some infinity edge pools in the area seem to be having problems with leaching in the rear wall of the pool and significant erosion. He would like to commend the applicant on making significant changes that have gained his approval. Ms. Liuzzi also thanked the applicants. She thinks they listened carefully and tried to adhere to what the Board wanted. She is in favor of the green roof and thinks it will look good. The materials have been carefully chosen and those materials and the style fits with the neighborhood. She thanked them for reducing the home by 1,800 square feet and the decking by 2, I 00 square feet. She can support the proj ect based on neighborhood compatibility, hillside guidelines, articulation, lighting, glare - they have met all the Design Review criteria. She believes this grading is justified to protect the public view. Many places in town have more grading and it only benefits the homeowner. She can support the project based on the conditions in height set by Mr. Wilkes, and also that the north side yard have a six-foot perimeter construction fence for the duration of the construction. She supports the green roof over both the garage and the residence. Ms. Zur Schmiede had read materials that said this particular lot would be a problem for someone to build a house and protect the public views. This application is amazing because the applicants have adhered to the regulations. She also thinks these plans do the client a service by reducing the height of the house and moving it down on the lot. It captures the same view the public has without impacting the public view. It will be a goodsized, livable, enjoyable home. She is in favor of the proposed planting of the roof to match the surrounding environment. She thinks that overall this is a wonderful project. She agrees with the concerns regarding a perimeter fence to keep construction debris out of the public space. She would like the condition that Mr. Wilkes suggested. The property owners have allowed the architects to design a home for them to enjoy and the rest of City can also enjoy the same view. She is in favor of a green roof wherever they want to put it. Her previous concern with a green roof was that it caused the structure to be higher. As long as the plantings don't grow up so high as to block views, she's fine with it. There appears to be ten feet of planting between the property line and the roof. Mr. Wilkes concurs with the many comments already made. He, too, thought the project had little chance of approval based on what the applicant brought back for the second hearing. The present one is more than expected, and done for the right reasons. It will be a fabulous home and preserve views for everyone. He is very much in favor of the green

7 roofs proposed. The benefits are more than aesthetics, they actually mitigate the climate inside the building and can even improve functionality of photovoltaic panels. Wherever they want green roofs is fine with him, but he has some concern with vegetation height especially over the garage - which is why he conditioned it to three feet six inches. He understands the desire to screen the telephone box at the street, however this will impede public views. He can give full support to the project. Mr. Sadler said he is willing to go with the majority of the Board on the green roof above the garage but he would like a limitation on vegetation height on all the sod roofs. Ms. Lenschow agrees with her colleagues and congratulated the architects and designer. She said it took a lot of convincing by the applicants to get the homeowner to go to this extent. She also thanked the neighbors and all who worked together to get the project approved to the satisfaction of everyone. Mr. Wilkes made a motion, seconded by Ms. Liuzzi, to approve Design Review and Coastal Development Permit at 3355 Alta Laguna Boulevard, with the conditions that the Board is approving the plan dated 7115/09 and the landscape plan dated 7/28/09 with the green roof over the garage per the original landscape plan and as redlined; and on the condition that all the vegetation within the front setback shall be maintained no higher than elevation 1,000 or 5 feet above finished grade, whichever is more restrictive; and that the rooftop vegetation shall be maintained no higher than 3 feet 6 inches; that the air conditioning unit and the pool equipment be vaulted below grade; that a 6 foot-high temporary construction fence be placed along the west and north property line for the duration of construction; and the changes made to the green roofs to reflect the original landscape plan and as redlined. The findings for the Coastal Development Permit to be 1 G and 3B. Motion carried unanimously. Motion MW Second CL Grant Y Deny Cont Unan. Y LeBon Absent Lenschow Y Liuzzi Y Sadler Y Wilkes Y Zur Schmiede Y

8 Tcj paul Color Bo.1rd J)55AIt.La~un._-- ",.., -.

9 City of Laguna Beach Legend Cty l...t. S~ PI... "',, 100V... FO:>od ;>~" -." H"""d Loq" '",- Dr.~ IMI _ ~"IfIea", Dra<>. eouo.. c..~-... Riol!/O~ v.yhoflh "--"... _. ConI"", Uno 1QOI.CaIor_~ --..' -...' loots..«l...r... ""

10

11

12

13