Design Review Coastal Development Permit 10-62

Transcription

1 CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: TO: CASE: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENT AL STATUS: PREPARED BY: March 10,2011 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Design Review Michael Masilotti, Architect 437 Myrtle Street APN In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3(a) (]'Jew Construction) that allows construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. Belinda Ann Riva, Planning Technician REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests design review and a coastal development pennit for a ~ 2,824 square-foot single-family residence and a ~ 433 square-foot attached two-car garage in the R-1 zone. Design review is required for the new structure, elevated decks (~ 152 square feet), grading, Vtrater features, pedestrian entry feature and landscaping. BACKGROUND: The Design Review Board heard the proposed project on November 4,2010. At that meeting, the Board tabled the project and directed the applicant to address several issues associated with the design. These concerns include neighborhood compatibility, neighborhood comparison of floor area, reduction of upper level Hoor area, architectural style, exterior materials, design articulation along north elevation, upper level plate heights, landscaping, preservation of existing trees, number of water features, retaining wall and side setback along north property line, light and air, view equity and privacy related to the rear deck and bay window. The project's minutes and staff report from the previous meeting are attached for reference. STAFF ANALYSIS: To address comments received by the board at the prior meeting, the applicant has made the following revisions: 1. The retaining wall on the north property line was modified around the existing elm tree. Steps were added. 2. The mud room was converted to shop space and floor area was modified. 3. The dining room was relocated internally and the floor area was reduced. 4. There were internal changes around the entry that have no impact. 5. The bay window at the master bedroom was modified andfloor area was increased. 6. The laundry was moved upstairs and floor area was increased.

2 7. The master deck area was reduced. 8. Allflat roofs were modified to have to 12 minimum pitch. 9. The roofline over bedroom #2 and the master bedroom was modified. 10. Exterior finish materials have been changed. 11. The two water features in the courtyard have been eliminated. e Design Review March 10,2011 Page 2 Project Revisions: The Board previously indicated that the project does not meet the design review criteria of neighborhood compatibility due to floor area and overall mass. The applicant did not provide a neighborhood comparison of floor area for staff to verify. A neighbor submitted a chart describing properties located on both sides of Myrtle Street including lot size, floor area, floor area ratio, garage, deck and number of stories. This letter was received by the City on November 4, 2010 and staff confirmed the chart with available information from each property file. Based on the revised chart, the average habitable floor area for each home is 1,621 square feet and floor area ratio is approximately As currently designed, the proposed project is 2,824 square feet with a floor area ratio of Staff prepared a map showing habitable floor area of properties within a 250-foot radius of the project site. Only six out of twenty homes with similar lot size in the immediate area have greater floor area than the proposed project. The Board suggested that there should be a significant reduction in floor area, especially on the upper level. The structure has been reduced by 213 square feet, however, 11 square feet of area has been added to the upper level The overall reduction was accomplished by removing the dining room area on the first floor. Architectural style of the structure remains relatively similar to the previously proposed design. However, the applicant has modified the exterior materials by eliminating brick and siding on the walls. The new design includes primarily stucco finish with wood shutters and stone veneer accents along the front entry. Roof pitches were modified so that there is greater articulation along the north elevation. Design articulation along the north elevation includes additional wall planes and gables, as opposed to the previous steep-pitched roof and dormer. These wall planes contribute to an increase in upper level floor area to accommodate for the staircase and laundry area. No changes have been made to address upper level plate heights and the height of the structure remains as previously proposed. In terms of landscaping, the Board was concerned with the preservation of existing trees since mature trees define the neighborhood. The applicant consulted a certified arborist to assess the needs of the Chinese Elm located along the north property line on the adjacent property. The Board was concerned that the four-foot setback from the building would not be a sufficient distance to preserve the tree on the neighbor's property. Staff received a letter from the arborist who determined that a distance of six feet from the center of the tree would be sufficient and he does not anticipate a substantial amount of roots present in the area to be disturbed by construction. The number ofproposed water features has been reduced from four to two.

3 e Design Review March 10,2011 Page 3 The design proposes a retaining wall along north property line, but a new six-foot high wood fence with stairs and limited grading will be provided in the side yard as an effort to preserve the neighbor's Chinese Elm tree. To address view equity and privacy concerns, the applicant redesigned the bay window with obscure glass on the end window pane and reduced the deck area on the upper level. Guideline Violations: No guideline violations noted. Requested Variances: No variances requested. Nonconforming Conditions: None identified. Coastal Development Permit: A Coastal Development Permit is required for all new structures within the coastal zone. Finding 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the General Plan, including the Certified Local Coastal Program and any applicable specific plans in that the visual impacts of the development have been minimized because the proposed structure is similar in size to neighboring buildings, maintaining compatibility with surrounding development (lg); Finding 2: Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that the project does not present either direct or cumulative impacts on physical public access since existing public vertical and lateral access exists nearby and there are no new adverse impacts on beach access since the new development is replacing a previously existing residence and will not result in any further seaward encroachment (2A); and Finding 3: The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed project is in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations set forth in the Municipal Code and will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment (3A). COMMUNITY INTEREST: Staff received one telephone call from a neighbor with concerns of removing a mature tree toward the rear of the lot. IDENTIFIED ISSUES: None identified. ATTACHMENTS: 1. DRB Meeting Minutes - November 4, DRB Staff Report - November 10, Letter from Applicant 4. Neighborhood Map 5. Revised Color Sample Board 6. Revised Material Sample Board

4 MYRTLE STREET, APN (Staff Assist> TABLED DESIGN REVIEW , COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION The applicant requests design review and a coastal development permit for a 3,037 square-foot single-family residence and a 422 square-foot attached garage in the R-l Zone. Design review is required for the new structure, elevated decks (257 square feet), grading, water features, pedestrian entry feature and landscaping. Project Representative: Architect Michael Masilotti said the existing cottages were not rated on the Historic Inventory. He found two candidates for Heritage Trees along the front property line which will be preserved as others on the site will be. There were a multitude of problems with attempting to salvage the cottages. He met with neighbors and found their concerns to be typical - preserve views, preserve privacy and preserve the mature character and landscaping of the site. He created a prototype which improves access to the site by providing the rear setback from the alley to the garage. It provides additional off-street parking for four cars removing them from Myrtle Street. The neighborhood is a mixed bag of architectural styles and site plans. They chose English Arts and Crafts with a Tudor influence for the exterior. This is a style with steep roofs and modest proportions that is easy to articulate. He sees the vast majority of new homes in town look stepped on because of low sloping or flat roofs and feels there is a danger of solving all architectural problems this way - it all starts to look the same. Diverse roof lines are important. There are issues with trying to do a steep pitched roof in a town with strict heightlimitations. It requires keeping the plan very narrow in width so the roof doesn't get too high. He found he can do a twenty-four foot wide cottage-scale front elevation that only spans half-way across the front yard. The beautiful Chinese Elm Tree has been incorporated into the courtyard and will make the rear portion of this house virtually invisible from the street. This house presents itself to the street as an appropriatelyarticulated brick and slate cottage in character and is consistent with the majority in its mass, scale, style, siting and landscape. To achieve view equity, it had the potential to block portions of views from four lots above. The proposed design has been held back from their views and steps back so it doesn't block one square foot of anyone's water view. Removing the nonconforming rear cottage will substantially increase everyone's water views. Every other house on the street has water views from multiple rooms, decks and even yards. They are notasking for view equity, it can'tbe achieved here and they have given it up. They seek just to capture water views from the master bedroom window and the deck off the master bath. That's just a fraction of whateveryone else enjoys. He has confidence the Board will find an equitable solution to any remaining issues. Public Testimony: Scott Herdman, 445 Myrtle Street, thanked the Board for meeting with him on his concerns. Even though Ms. Miscione seems unconcerned her project greatly impacts his property. Itfails to meet Design Review Criteria in several categories. Foremost is the impact to the enjoyment and value of his home due to the loss of privacy in his back yard from a large secondstory deck and a bedroom window. It also affects view equity as he will lose his only ocean view. His neighbor seeks to build an overly large home at the expense of his view. It clearly fails neighborhood compatibility as the overall size of the project is over 3,700 square feet and will also block natural light and air into his dining and living areas. The average home size in the neighborhood is 1,935 square feet. The architect is asking to double the size of the existing home and he thinks the size and scale is excessive. There is no design articulation from his viewpoint. He doesn't believe it is fair to build an unarticulated t wall-like structure with sixty feet of second story only three feet from his home. This minimal setback increases a sense of crowding. He metwith Mr. Masilotti to discuss these concerns. Mr. Masilotti said his client wants whatshe wants and will leave Board ofadjustmentidesign Review Board Minutes -9- November 4,2010

5 it up to the Board to decide. He believes this is contrary to the City recommendation to work with neighbors to address potential impacts. His neighbor has the right to improve her property but not athis expense. Ifthe deck were smaller, the impact to his backyard could be lessened. Changing the window that looks directly into his backyard to obscure would lessen the impact on his light. He believes his only ocean view deserves to be preserved. A smaller neighborhood compatible house would address the remainder of his concerns. Grant Williams, 454 Myrtle Street, lives across the street. He is generally in favor of any property improvements in the neighborhood. He has no doubt the Board will take all neighbor's concerns into consideration. He thinks eventually this house will be an improvement to the street. Rebuttal: Mr. Masilotti said he was a little surprised as he has had several meetings with Mr. Herdman over the past six or seven months to address his concerns. The house has basically been designed to address all concerns presented. He heard nothing about view equity or three-foot setbacks. These weren't issues until a set of plans was sent to Mr. Kawaratani. He hadn't heard anything except about the deck and the window. He metwith Mr. Herdman several times about this and presented several variations which reduced the deck size. He can't move the deck to another site This is the only place where he can get a view. He pulled it as far to the south as made sense. The master bedroom window was an issue broughtup. Mr. Herdman was concerned someone could walk into the bay and look up athis property. The bay is there to give more of an angle to the view. He suggested pulling the sides of the bay out and puta sea t in the bay for the dog and has a drawing of the reconfiguration of the bay. Board Questions: Mr. Wilkes asked ifthey are constructing a new retaining wall where the existing Elm Tree is intertwined with the stone wall on the north property line. He wants to understand how they are proposing to maintain the tree, change the grades and put a retaining wall there. Mr. Masilotti said they have to step the ground up or terrace to keep the existing grade around the root ball. He doesn't know how you can pull the wall outaround it or they will incorporate the wall. Mr. Wilkes asked where and how many trees are being retained aside from the two in the parkway. Mr. Masilotti said there are five total. Three in front, one is the Elm on the north side property line and one is the Elm in the courtyard. Mr. Wilkes asked about the Eucalyptus Ficifolia right on the property line. Lisa Pierce, landscape architect, said some of these trees are not visible. They will keep a small Plum Tree on the southwest corner. She said the house footprint conflicts with the Eucalyptus so they can't keep it. Ms. LeBon asked about the existing fence that is a couple of feet from the south property line. Mr. Masilotti said the fence is sitting on the property line. Ms. LeBon verified the existing wood fence is aboutfive to six feet high. She noted a retaining wall proposed for the north side with a fence on top of it. Mr. Masilotti said the retaining wall at its highest point is six feet. They will run the retaining wall to Mr. Herdman's grade and then putfence on top of it. The retaining wall is split in half. Ms. LeBon asked the height at the property line between Herdman's and the project. Mr. Masilotti said the retaining wall is four and a half or five feet at that point with a six-foot fence on top of that, a total of ten feet from the project's property side and six feet from Mr. Herdman's side. Ms. LeBon asked what was in back on the alley. Mr. Masilotti said it was a retaining wall with a stucco finish and a fence on top of that. It's six feet high in the corner and slopes down to practically nothing. Ms. LeBon asked the reason for siting the house to the north to the four foot minimum with the six foot on the other side to achieve the ten foot total setback Mr. Masilotti said it was because he kept having to reduce the courtyard down to get the roofline to slope away from the property. The first floor level doesn't go above the existing fence line there so there is no impact from the new development until the roof starts sloping back Board ofadjustmentidesign Review Board Minutes -10- November 4,2010

6 Ms. Lenschow verified the railing is staked. She asked if it would help to make it a solid railing instead of glass. Mr. Masilotti said it blocks the view from the window if it's solid. Ms. Lenschow asked where Mr. Herdman would lose his ocean view. Mr. Herdman said from his kitchen, which looks over the back of the house. He will be looking at a large deck not the house. Ms. Lenschow asked if it would help to have a solid railing. Board Comments: Mr. Wilkes' observations are that in this area and mostly throughout North Laguna there are large lots with relatively small homes. This particular neighborhood averages roughly 2,000 square feet of living space with quite a number around 1,000 square feet. The averages go down even farther on the odd-numbered side of Myrtle. With the exception of two homes it's substantially less than 2,000 square feet. Typically the houses are set back farther on the lot. This project tries to balance thatwith a certain amountof setback butthere is mass atthe street right atthe front setback. Most of these homes have an ample amount of front setback with the houses at the very back. There are lots of large trees in front yards. The houses aren't typically two levels, most are one level. Views are minimal - if at all- these aren't really view lots. This is the context in how he evaluated the project. He was surprised to see the two existing houses are not on the inventory as they date to 1934 or earlier. The GIS system dates one to There hasn't been as much development on that side of street as on other side. Those two existing homes are very neighborhood compatible. They don't affect anyone's views or privacy and impact no one in any way. They have a very low pitched roofs which is characteristic of this part of Laguna and those early cottages. Neighborhood compatibility is a big issue here. With all due respect, his first thought was this project has a real architectural identity crisis. Mr. Masilotti mentioned all the things he wanted to do and Mr. Wilkes thinks they got putinto a blender and this is whatwe have. There is an odd mixture ofroof pitches, eave treatments, window styles and proportions. The architectural style is convoluted and not compatible with structures on either side. Materials are all over the place brick, stucco, wood siding, glass rails, wrought iron rails, slate roof, metal roofs and flat roofs. The landscape is a wide mixture of different materials and has four water features which he thoughtwas excessive. Any intent to keep the tree thatappears to be on the north property line is not addressed by the house. A tree of that size requires at least a ten-foot setback from the trunk with no footings, drain trenching, utilities, no retaining wall footings, etc. He doubts there is an intent to keep the tree with how the house is situated four feet from the property line. Switching the setbacks might get them closer to realistically saving it. He thinks the tree is an important feature to save and doesn't want to see itlost. Ithelps mitigation and helps privacy issues between this project and the home to the north. He appreciates the wide berth of preservation around the Elm on the south side. He understands why the structure is massed as it is. Although the roof pitches are a little steep compared to adjacent structures it does minimize the size of the structure as seen from the street. However, because the second level is placed on the entire length of the property, the neighbor from the north is looking at a huge stretch of house from the front to rear setback with very little relief. To summarize, notmuch can be done by the Board to save the cottages on site. He would have liked to see them preserved and incorporated in a new design. There are definitely opportunities and benefits in doing that - both financially and historically - and incorporating the existing structures may allow the applicant to achieve the amount of livable square footage they are looking for. He is looking to see a structure that comes back before the Board modified that's more neighborhood compatible as the existing structures are. Craftsman houses are very typical in North Laguna. It really does change the mix when you insert a house with steep pitched roofs like this. This side of the street hasn't been affected by the unfortunate architecturallstyles on the other side of the street which are not compatible with most North Laguna cottages. He would like something more compatible in terms ofroof lines and square footage. There is too much square footage onthe upper level. Itshould be reduced by 50% to achieve a neighborhood compatible home. They should find Board of AdjustmentlDesign Review Board Minutes -11- November 4, 2010

7 out how to create that feeling of open space in the front yard while reducing verticality of the structure from the street. He is notin favor of the north property line retaining wall and would like them to work with the existing stone wall and a minimum of a ten-foot setback from the existing tree. Ms. Zur Schmiede agrees with everything Mr. Wilkes said regarding this project. She is concerned about neighborhood compatibility, the setting, the size and the length of the wall next to Mr. Herdman's house. She can'tsupport the project and doesn't believe itmeets architectural integrity. The expanse of wall in front of the Herndon house creates all sorts of light and air issues. That's all he can look at with this project. She can't support nine-foot three-inch plate heights on the second floor. That's not compatible with this neighborhood in terms of mass and scale with the majority of other houses. If they want to keep Tudor style in the entire house, they would have ample ceiling heights with a very steep roof and not more than seven feet six inches or eight feet plate heights because the height comes from vaulted ceilings. She also has concerns about the size of the deck in back. She can appreciate the applicant wants to get a view there but think the size is too much and it does impact Mr. Herndon's view. This area is full of trees and thatseems to be the way people in that neighborhood like to live. They need to work with the deck in back. Ms. Lenschow finds it refreshing to not see a flat roof. This is not a cottage and she thinks it's a nice feature. Itis a little high facing Mr. Herndon and it is a solid roof he faces. She can see they tried to articulate itbutitwasn't achieved. She has a problem with the large deck and the bay window. The deck is a little higher than the uphill neighbor so they're now almost on the same level although this is an above-floor deck and the neighbor is on the ground. They need to provide privacy for the neighbor from the deck and from the bay window. She's not sure what is proposed for the bay window is sufficient because there is still a window slider in his direction. Maybe that window needs to be opaque and fixed in addition to what they are proposing. The 3,000 square foot size might be a little bit too large. It's an R-110t, so they can't rebuild into two units. Maybe by creating articulation for the roofline they may have to reduce program on the upper floor. She has no recommendations on how to save the trees, maybe they can have an expert on site during construction. Ifthe trees go, the whole neighborhood goes. Itmakes it or breaks it. They may want to increase the side setback from four to five feet. They should work to bring it down, articulate the upper floor, remove some square footage, increase the side setback and do something with the deck Ms. LeBon found the project to have three issues that don't meet Design Review Criteria - mass and scale, privacy and design integrity. With regard to mass and scale, the size is over 3,000 square feet. Only six in this neighborhood are over that and the majority are under with an average of 1,935 square feet. She thinks they are over in square footage and should bring it down more to be more compatible with the neighborhood. With regard to privacy, the deck off the master bedroom is a huge privacy issue notjust for Mr. Herndon but also for homes a couple of doors up from there. She thanked the architect for working with the view corridors. She thought he did a great job of getting the building out of the view areas. It does need more design articulation on the north elevation. There is just a big, long, solid wall facing Mr. Herndon. The house on the south side ofthe property has the same situation, but that's what the Board wants to avoid. She would like to see itbroken up a lot more. With regard to Design Integrity, as Mr. Wilkes said there are way too many materials, too many sty les and too many roof pitches. It does look like a hodge-podge of design elements. She understands they are trying to get that eclectic look like other cottages in the neighborhood butthey weren'tplanned that way itjusthappened over the years. She would like them to pick one style and to go with it- cottage, English, Tudor French or whatever they choose - but something thatwould be more neighborhood compatible. Ms. Liuzzi agrees with all said by her colleagues and just wanted to comment that the loss of these Board ofadjustmentldesign Review Board Minutes -12- November 4,2010

8 cottages is sad. What's evenmore sad to her is that they are not on the historic inventory. That is an issue she feels needs to be addressed. She agrees with all that's been said at this hearing and suggests when they come back before the Board they present a floor area ratio comparison ofhouses in the neighborhood. That would show how they fit in the neighborhood. The architect requested that the project be tabled to allow time needed for redesign. Ms. LeBon made a motion, seconded by Ms. Lenschow, to table Design Review , Coastal Development Permit at 437 Myrtle Street. The item will be re-noticed. Motion carried unanimously. Motion LL Second IL Grant Deny Tabled Y Unan. Y LeBon Y Lenschow Y Liuzzi Y Sadler Alternate Wilkes Y Zur Schmiede Y TEMPLE HILLS DRIVE, APN (StafiAssist) APPROVED VARIANCE 7678, DESIGN REVIEW AND A CATEGORICALEXEMPTION, CONTINUED FROM 10/14 - NOT HEARD (FIRST HEARING) The applicant requests design review for a 180 square-foot addition to a single-family residence in the R-l Zone. Design review is required for aggregate additions greater than 50% of the original floor area, landscaping and to maintain the nonconforming site conditions including front setback, side setback and on-site turnaround. A variance is required to not provide one covered parking space [LBMC (F)]. Project Representative: Designer James Henry said this 180 square-foot addition is on a lower level under a deck. The owner wants a workspace for her artwork and the project does not impact anyone's view or privacy. The crux of the issue is the variance. Given the topography and location of the existing house, they did research and looked at entering the garage from Cerritos below. There is a fence way up the hill whichis the property line. Any garage would have to be behind that with a 30 to 40 foot-high retaining wall and you would have to hike up the hill to get to the house which is not a very practical solution. The existing garage is five feet from the property line and nonconforming in its current state. To do anything with it, it would have to be widened and to provide the required backup space would require a huge retaining wall within the patio space. It would change the entire dynamic of the existing house. As you go up and downtemple Hills about one-third of the houses have one car garages and don't provide the turnatound. A variance was granted in 2003 at 940 Temple Hills for a one-car garage and allowing them to add 1,100 square feet to the house. Public Testimony: None Rebuttal: None Board Questions: Mr. Wilkes asked Mr. Henry ifhe had thought about the questions posed at the site relating to variance findings and options. Mr. Henry said they discussed the idea ofimproving the existing stair down to Cerritos to allow parking on Cerritos. The owner was interested in that but he was unsure whether to present it now or wait to see if the Board recommends. Mr. Wilkes asked aboutwideningand clipping one bedroom on the upper floor and expanding the garage with a new retaining wall. Mr. Henry said you would have a retaining wall five feet from the house. After providing the turnaround it would be eight feet tall and it would require a fair amount of grading. Board Comments: Ms. Zur Schmiede is familiar with the small home of the neighbor above. Before she was even aware of the parking requirement she stood on their deck and said she couldn't see Board ofadjustmentidesign Review Board Minutes -13- November 4, 2010

9 CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: TO: CASE: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: PREPARED BY: November 4,2010 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Design Review Michael Masilotti, Architect 437 Myrtle Street APN In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3(a) (New Construction) that allows construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. Belinda Ann Riva, Planning Technician REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests design review and a coastal development permit for a 3,037 square-foot single-family residence and a 422 square-foot attached garage in the R-l zone. Design review is required for the new structure, elevated decks (257 square feet), grading,...vater features, pedestrian entry feature and landscaping. BACKGROUND: The project site is located on the east side of Myrtle Street between Monterey Drive and High Drive, north of North Coast Highway. The subject site is zoned R-l (Residential Low Density) with a General Plan designation of "Very Low Density." The 6,125 square-foot parcel is a rectangular and relatively flat lot with an average slope of approximately 3.3 percent. Currently, the site is developed with two single-family dwellings and a detached garage. The proposed project includes demolition of all existing structures and construction of a new two-story, single-family residence with an attached garage. Demolition of the existing two units and construction of a single-family residence will bring the property into compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan land use designation. STAFF ANALYSIS: Access: The property gains vehicular access along the rear property line from a IS-foot wide alley that runs parallel between Myrtle Street and Locust Street. Since the gross residential floor area is less than 3,600 square feet, the site requires a total of two covered onsite parking spaces. The proposed two-car garage maintains a 20-foot setback from the rear property line and allows a 25-foot unobstructed backup area into the alley. To soften the appearance of pavement in the rear, the design incorporates turf block in the driveway. The applicant maintains an unobstructed comer cutback area to ensure visibility of vehicular traffic in the alley. One on-street parking

10 e Design Review November 4,2010 Page 2 space is provided along Myrtle Street where existing curbs and gutters have been improved. Plans include a pedestrian entry feature and brick walkway in the front yard to create interest and depth as a transition from the street to the front ofthe house. Design Articulation: The project includes construction of a two-story residence with an elevated deck located at the rear of the structure. Since the garage is oriented toward the rear, the front fa9ade consists of architectural features of living space, which reduces the appearance of mass and bulk from street view. The structure appears narrow in width from the front since the bulk of the second story is situated in the rear. The design gives consideration to outdoor living areas with courtyards throughout the property. In terms of building and roof form, the perceived mass of the structure is minimized with visual interest through variation in wall heights, offset wall planes, dormers and selection of building materials. Design Integrity: The architecture of the proposed structure includes elements that are consistent with the Tudor revival style. In order to achieve this style, the applicant integrates steep, multi-gabled roof lines with arched entryways outlined with decorative brick. The Tudor style also includes the use of different siding, including used brick veneer, stucco, wood and slate roof as exterior materials. Another attribute of this style includes tall, narrow windows arranged in groups of two, three or four. Typically, Tudor cottage style homes are one-and-one-half or two stories high with an asymmetrical floor plan. Environmental Context: No environmental constraints have been identified at this site. The proposed grading includes a total of cubic yards of cut and 5.7 cubic yards of fill for a net import of cubic yards. The design incorporates an outdoor gas fire pit and gas barbeque in the side courtyard in addition to one indoor gas-burning fireplace in the family room. Landscape/Hardscape: A landscape plan has been prepared with the project submittal for the new single-family residence. Between the street curb and the front property line, the right-of-way maintains candidate heritage trees, two pink-flowering Chinese pistache trees, as listed in the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. The applicant plans to preserve these trees in addition to the large elm tree along the south side yard and the eucalyptus tree in the north side yard. All other existing landscape and hardscape will be removed. The City's landscape plan checker noted that the Juniperus, Camellia, Pittosporum and Ligustrum could exceed height limitations as shown on the plans. The applicant proposes 690 square feet of impervious surfaces and 2,342 square feet of structure, which totals to approximately 50 percent of lot area. Lighting and Glare: The applicant provided an exterior lighting plan with the project submittal With a 20-watt maximum, the proposed lighting includes eight wall mounted lights, one hanging fixture and one recessed can light. Ornamental landscape lighting adds interest to the courtyards. However, the amount of landscape lighting, including the step lights and up lights, could be reduced in the rear garden to minimize glare. Plans do not include any skylights. Neighborhood Compatibility: Pattern of development in the neighborhood consists of one- and two-story residences. The style of the proposed structure is compatible with properties in the immediate area as 430 and 487 Myrtle Street have similar Tudor characteristics, each home with

11 e Design Review November 4, 2010 Page 3 distinctive features from the applicant's design. Neighborhood comparisons of surrounding and recently approved development may be useful in evaluating the amount of program requested. The applicant has not provided comparisons for staff to verify. Privacy: The design includes an elevated deck oriented toward the rear of the property that does not appear to impact existing living and outdoor areas for the neighbor to the south. The landscape design also helps to provide screening to maintain privacy and separation. The applicant was encouraged to work with immediate neighbors to address any potential privacy impacts. Swimming Pools, Spas, Water Features and Mechanical Equipment: None of the proposed water features are subject to design review. Plans do not include any pools, spas or air conditioning units. View Equity: The proposed house has been designed in cooperation with the neighbor to the north regarding existing view corridors across the rear of the subject site. The second story of the structure is oriented primarily toward the center of the lot with the upper level deck directly above the garage in the rear. No other view impacts have been identified. Guideline Violations: No guideline violations noted. Requested Variances: No variances requested. Nonconforming Conditions: None identified. Coastal Development Permit: A Coastal Development Permit is required for all new structures within the coastal zone. Finding 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the General Plan, including the Certified Local Coastal Program and any applicable specific plans in that the visual impacts of the development have been minimized because the proposed structure is similar in size to neighboring buildings, maintaining compatibility with surrounding development (lg); Finding 2: Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that the project does not present either direct or cumulative impacts on physical public access since existing public vertical and lateral access exists nearby and there are no new adverse impacts on beach access since the new development is replacing a previously existing residence and will not result in any further seaward encroachment (2A); and Finding 3: The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed project is in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations set forth in the Municipal Code and will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment (3A).

12 tit Design Review November 4, 2010 Page 4 COMMUNITY INTEREST: There have been no letters of telephone calls received by the City as of the date ofthis report. IDENTIFIED ISSUES: None identified. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Pre-Application Site Meeting April 21, Color Sample Board 3. Material Sample Board 4. Vicinity Map 5. Aerial Photo

13 CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: TO: CASE: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: PREPARED BY: November 4,2010 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Design Review 10-] 95 Michael Masilotti, Architect 437 Myrtle Street APN In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (a) (New Construction) that allows construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. Belinda Ann Riva, Planning Technician REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests design review and a coastal development permit for a 3,037 square-foot single-family residence and a 422 square-foot attached garage in the R-1 zone. Design review is required for the new structure, elevated decks (257 square feet), grading, 't'fatef featm"es, pedestrian entry feature and landscaping. BACKGROUND: The project site is located on the east side of Myrtle Street between Monterey Drive and High Drive, north of North Coast Highway. The subject site is zoned R-I (Residential Low Density) with a General Plan designation of "Very Low Density." The 6,125 square-foot parcel is a rectangular and relatively flat Jot with an average slope of approximately 3.3 percent. Currently, the site is developed with two single-family dwellings and a detached garage. The proposed project includes demolition of all existing structures and construction of a new two-story, single-family residence with an attached garage. Demolition of the existing two units and construction of a single-family residence will bring the property into compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan land use designation. STAFF ANALYSIS: Access: The property gains vehicular access along the rear property line from a 15-foot wide alley that runs parallel between Myrtle Street and Locust Street. Since the gross residential floor area is less than 3,600 square feet, the site requires a total of two covered onsite parking spaces. The proposed two-car garage maintains a 20-foot setback from the rear property line and allows a 25-foot unobstructed backup area into the alley. To soften the appearance of pavement in the rear, the design incorporates turf block in the driveway. The applicant maintains an unobstructed comer cutback area to ensure visibility of vehicular traffic in the alley. One on-street parking

14 Design Review November 4, 2010 Page 2 space is provided along Myrtle Street where existing curbs and gutters have been improved. Plans include a pedestrian entry feature and brick walkway in the front yard to create interest and depth as a transition from the street to the front of the house. Design Articulation: The project includes construction of a two-story residence with an elevated deck located at the rear of the structure. Since the garage is oriented toward the rear, the front fayade consists of architectural features of living space, which reduces the appearance of mass and bulk from street view. The structure appears narrow in width from the front since the bulk of the second story is situated in the rear. The design gives consideration to outdoor living areas with courtyards throughout the property. In terms of building and roof form, the perceived mass of the structure is minimized with visual interest through variation in wall heights, offset wall planes, dormers and selection of building materials. Design Integrity: The architecture of the proposed structure includes elements that are consistent with the Tudor revival style. In order to achieve this style, the applicant integrates steep, multi-gabled roof lines with arched entryways outlined with decorative brick. The Tudor style also includes the use of different siding, including used brick veneer, stucco, wood and slate roof as exterior materials. Another attribute of this style includes tall, narrow windows arranged in groups of two, three or four. Typically, Tudor cottage style homes are one-and-one-half or two stories high with an asymmetrical floor plan. Environmental Context: No environmental constraints have been identified at this site. The proposed grading includes a total of cubic yards of cut and 5.7 cubic yards offill for a net import of cubic yards. The design incorporates an outdoor gas fire pit and gas barbeque in the side courtyard in addition to one indoor gas-burning fireplace in the family room. Landscape/Hardscape: A landscape plan has been prepared with the project submittal for the new single-family residence. Between the street curb and the front property line, the right-of-way maintains candidate heritage trees, two pink-flowering Chinese pistache trees, as listed in the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. The applicant plans to preserve these trees in addition to the large elm tree along the south side yard and the eucalyptus tree in the north side yard. All other existing landscape and hardscape will be removed. The City's landscape plan checker noted that the Juniperus, Camellia, Pittosporum and Ligustrum could exceed height limitations as shown on the plans. The applicant proposes 690 square feet of impervious surfaces and 2,342 square feet of structure, which totals to approximately 50 percent of lot area. Lighting and Glare: The applicant provided an exterior lighting plan with the project submittal. With a 20-watt maximum, the proposed lighting includes eight wall mounted lights, one hanging fixture and one recessed can light. Ornamental landscape lighting adds interest to the courtyards. However, the amount of landscape lighting, including the step lights and uplights, could be reduced in the rear garden to minimize glare. Plans do not include any skylights. Neighborhood Compatibility: Pattern of development in the neighborhood consists of one- and two-story residences. The style of the proposed structure is compatible with properties in the immediate area as 430 and 487 Myrtle Street have similar Tudor characteristics, each home with

15 Design Review November 4, 2010 Page 3 distinctive features from the applicant's design. Neighborhood comparisons of surrounding and recently approved development may be useful in evaluating the amount of program requested. The applicant has not provided comparisons for staff to verify. Privacy: The design includes an elevated deck oriented toward the rear of the property that does not appear to impact existing living and outdoor areas for the neighbor to the south. The landscape design also helps to provide screening to maintain privacy and separation. The applicant was encouraged to work with immediate neighbors to address any potential privacy impacts. Swimming Pools, Spas, Water Features and Mechanical Equipment: None of the proposed water features are subject to design review. Plans do not include any pools, spas or air conditioning units. View Equity: The proposed house has been designed in cooperation with the neighbor to the north regarding existing view corridors across the rear of the subject site. The second story of the structure is oriented primarily toward the center of the lot with the upper level deck directly above the garage in the rear. No other view impacts have been identified. Guideline Violations: No guideline violations noted. Requested Variances: No variances requested. Nonconforming Conditions: None identified. Coastal Development Permit: A Coastal Development Permit is required for all new structures within the coastal zone. Finding 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the General Plan, including the Certified Local Coastal Program and any applicable specific plans in that the visual impacts of the development have been minimized because the proposed structure is similar in size to neighboring buildings, maintaining compatibility with surrounding development (1 G); Finding 2: Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that the project does not present either direct or cumulative impacts on physical public access since existing public vertical and lateral access exists nearby and there are no new adverse impacts on beach access since the new development is replacing a previously existing residence and will not result in any further seaward encroachment (2A); and Finding 3: The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed project is in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations set forth in the Municipal Code and will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment (3A).

16 Design Review November 4, 2010 Page 4 COMMUNITY INTEREST: There have been no letters of telephone calls received by the City as of the date ofthis report. IDENTIFIED ISSUES: None identified. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Pre-Application Site Meeting - April 21, Color Sample Board 3. Material Sample Board 4. Vicinity Map 5. Aerial Photo

17 iva. Belinda CD rom: Michael Masilotti ent: Tuesday, December 21, :47 AM o: Riva, Belinda CD c: Jennie; lisa pierce ubject: RE: 437 Myrtle Street - Plan Check Hi Belinda, he changes are as follow. 1. The retaining wall on the north prop line was modified around the existing elm tree. Steps were added.. The mud room was converted to shop space. and the floor area was modified.. The dining room was relocated internally and the floor area was reduced.. There were internal changes around the entry that have no impact. 5. The bay Window at the M. Bedroom was modified, the floor area was increased.. The laundry was moved upstairs and the floor area was increased. 7. The Master deck was reduced and the area was reduced.. All flat roofs were modified to have 2-1/2 to 12 min. pitch.. The roof line over Bed #2 and the M. Bedroom was modified. 10. Exterior finish materials have been changed. 11. The two water features in the courtyard have been eliminated. Have a happy and safe Holiday, Michael From: briva@lagunabeachcity.net o: mhmarchitects@hotmail.com Date: Tue, 21 Dec :50: Subject: 437 Myrtle Street - Plan Check Good Morning Michael, Currently, I am reviewing the plan check for 437 Myrtle Street. It would be helpful to identify modifications to the design during plan check and for the updated staff report. Please provide a letter itemizing changes to the previous design presented at the first hearing. Thank you. Happy Holidays, Belinda Ann Riva, MPA Planning Technician City of Laguna Beach I Zoning Division 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA (949) I briva@lagunabeachcity.net 1

18 , " o " -, " : ~ ~ < :, f=' I L1.l ~ l V) L1.l..J l e< > ::< r M " FEB 1, 101, City o l.~, ~... h ZO"If~ Dr." sq.

19 C<lORS AND MATERI~ S 437 MYRTLE STREET Stone Venou " Birch Canyon" Old Reddi ng mend Slate > J 12 TruSlate Charcoal Aspt.Jt <.. 12 Elk Clas;s-A H fire feed 3D.uphah Shingles

20 I, ~ I il~~ II ' ~\ I. ". I I j."..; j!.. I ~ " of l j r-~ ~.. ~~ r~ ~ t 'II.~ i t".. "... l.! f!!;~ J~, u e7: I\:~ } ~h ~ ~~, ~ -,, i, " 3,,. -. j..!.., - - ~ of\" '!,. '/, i 1 '....,.. ' It- I " ' j 5 I I I 3., 'I ~.\ II 1'1 HI II, ' j,, I ",,. ~ h I r--... ili q-. ~... ~ ;11 ) ;; '" :f.;~ f ':t- I iii N VI j!. ~ }, h i i, J I