ROLL CALL Boardmembers present: Richard Johnson Dylan Chappell Scott Ellinwood Jim Reginato Rachelle Gahan. Boardmembers absent:

Transcription

1 CITY OF CARPINTERIA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD 5775 Carpinteria Avenue Meeting Date: November 17, 2016 Carpinteria California ACTION MINUTES The meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m. by Richard Johnson, Chair. ROLL CALL Boardmembers present: Richard Johnson Dylan Chappell Scott Ellinwood Jim Reginato Rachelle Gahan Boardmembers absent: OTHERS PRESENT: 20 members of the public were in attendance. PUBLIC COMMENT: None 1) Applicant: BBP Architects for M3 Multifamily, LLC Project: DP/CDP Planner: Nick Bobroff Project Location: 4819 Carpinteria Avenue Zoning: Central Business (CB) with a Visitor-serving Commercial (V) Overlay Hearing on the request of Tracy Burnell, BBP Architects, agent/architect for M3 Multifamily, LLC to consider Case DP/CDP for final review of a proposed commercial mixed-use development on an existing vacant parcel located at the intersection of Carpinteria Avenue and Holly Avenue. The project would include a two-story 8,080 square foot building comprised of 6,488 square feet of commercial space split between two stories, two 562 square foot onebedroom apartments and two 234 square foot single car garages (for the apartments). The maximum height of the mixed use building would be 29 feet 10 inches to the uppermost parapet wall. A 10-car parking lot for the commercial component of the project would be provided onsite. The property is a 10,000 square foot parcel zoned Central Business (CB) with a Visitorserving Commercial (V) Overlay and shown as APN , located at 4819 Carpinteria Avenue. Staff presented the updated project to the Board, including noting the new architectural details, colors & materials (including lighting) and new landscape/hardscape plan. Tracy Burnell, project architect, and Erin Carroll, landscape architect, walked the Board through some of the important design elements including the selected material for the window/door frames, the design and venting of the trash enclosure, additional light fixtures for the parking lot, hardscape materials for the plaza and parking lot, and the new landscape and irrigation plan. Public Comment: None. Boardmember Discussion: Boardmember Reginato noted the project had come out very nicely. He asked about the construction of the doors for the trash enclosure (Mr. Burnell responded it would be a steel frame with wood

2 Continued Page 2 planks) and that you might consider designing some kind of guide(s) to prevent the dumpsters from crashing into the enclosure doors when taking the dumpsters in and out of the enclosure. Boardmember Ellinwood noted he was pleased with the project as submitted, including the proposed colors. Boardmember Gahan agreed, noting the landscape plan looked great. Boardmember Johnson asked about the chosen window color. Boardmember Ellinwood recommended either clear or a minimal green tint. ACTION: Motion by Boardmember Reginato, seconded by Boardmember Ellinwood to recommend final approval as submitted. 2) Applicant: Jamie B. Myer, AIA for Norman s Nursery, Inc. Project: DP/CDP/TPM Planner: Steve Goggia Project Location: 4295 Carpinteria Avenue Zoning: Commercial Planned Development with a Residential Overly (CPD/R) Hearing on the request of Jamie B. Myer, AIA, LEED AP, agent for Norman s Nursery, Inc., to consider Project DP/CDP/TPM for final review of a proposal to demolish an existing private tennis court on an essentially vacant parcel and to construct a two-story, four-unit condominium project. The proposal includes four three-bedroom units of approximately 2,300 square feet each (including garage). The project includes minor grading, drainage improvements, perimeter site walls, new permeable hardscape and new site landscaping. The property is a 13,616 square foot parcel zoned Commercial Planned Development with a Residential Overly (CPD/R) and shown as APN , located at 4295 Carpinteria Avenue. Staff and project Architect Jamie B. Myer presented the final project to the Board, including cut sheets for lighting, roof tiles and colors noting that project components had not changed since the last ARB review and Planning Commission approval. Public Comment: Curtis Johnson would like to see the size of the sycamore to be planted along Carpinteria Avenue to be larger than the 24-inch box as currently shown. Boardmember Discussion: Boardmember Reginato strongly suggested the use of heavy gage copper and steel flashing/gutters/downspouts over the galvanized metal as called out due to the destruction of the galvanized finishes from the salt air. Boardmember Gahan thought the Landscape Plan is appropriate, although the Hebe is not needed. Boardmember Ellinwood commented that he did not care for the nipple detail along the exterior stair wall. He would like to see a simpler design.

3 Continued Page 3 All Boardmembers were in agreement that a fine grade sand finish would look best, and a product such as Eisenwall plaster or a fiberglass plaster mesh product under the final coat would help to prevent cracking. ACTION: Motion by Boardmember Chappell, seconded by Boardmember Reginato to recommend final approval with staff to bring back colors and details as matters presented by staff. 3) Applicant: Tony Xiques for Rafael Hernandez Project: CUP/CDP Planner: Nick Bobroff Project Location: 520 Elm Avenue & 4934/36 Fifth Street Zoning: Planned Residential Development (PRD-20) Hearing on the request of Tony Xiques, agent/designer for Rafael Hernandez to consider Case CUP/CDP for preliminary review of a proposed comprehensive remodel to the existing single family residence located at 520 Elm Avenue and the duplex apartment located at 4934/36 Fifth Street. Proposed improvements include interior reconfigurations of the three units and exterior upgrades to building fenestration and exterior materials. The property is legal nonconforming with respect to building setbacks, parking and density; the proposed improvements to the residential units require a Conditional Use Permit. The property is a 5,227 square foot parcel zoned Planned Residential Development (PRD-20) and shown as APN , located at 520 Elm Avenue and 4934/36 Fifth Street. Staff presented the project to the Board and explained the nonconforming conditions of the property and right-of-way encroachments requiring approvals from the Planning Commission. Tony Xiques, the project described some of the design details of the project. He noted he added the deck to the 520 Elm Ave residence to help the residence better address Fifth St. Similarly, he added the new covered porches for the duplex units to help create additional interest and create an interior courtyard or neighborhood environment between the three units. He explained exterior colors and materials for both buildings would be the same. Public Comment: None. Boardmember Discussion: Boardmember Chappell asked whether the new deck was considered a structure for setback purposes. Staff explained that as long as it was no higher than 18 it would not be considered a structure. He suggested the applicant explore the idea of pushing the existing stalls back into the lot and out of the City right-of-way by expanding the existing paving deeper into the lot. Use of a decorative material for this was suggested. Boardmember Reginato was glad to see the existing small cottages being retained and improved. He suggested widening the entry porch on 520 Elm Ave by 6 on each side to give it a more prominent appearance. He also suggested the adjacent bathroom window be made smaller (i.e., raise up the sill height). He noted he liked the new porches for the duplex building, but thought the remaining doors

4 Continued Page 4 on both buildings facing Fifth Street could use a 1 deep, overhanging shed roof element (supported with brackets) or similar both to add some interest to these elevations and provide a little weather protection. He indicated for the exterior finishes, he would prefer to see a fine grit sand finish used. He also thought the proposed 1x6 trim around the windows was a little heavy and could be scaled back to something more like a 1x4. It was also suggested the head casing could be made a little wider or taller to help give it a more prominent appearance. Boardmember Ellinwood felt the proposed project would result in improved livability of all three units. He indicated he liked the idea of introducing shed roofs over the doors on the south-facing sides of both buildings. He suggested use of a hardie siding in place of a stucco finish for one or both units, noting it would give the buildings more of a cottage appearance. He also thought the idea of adding an additional parking space off Elm Avenue, next to the 520 Elm Ave. residence was worthy of consideration. Boardmember Gahan suggested an updated landscape plan for the property would be nice. She noted she liked the picket fence and was glad to see it was going to be retained/replaced. Boardmember Johnson was in support of the proposed colors. He agreed with Boardmember Gahan that even adding a few decorative plantings, such as some small trees in the front yard(s) would be a nice addition to the property. He also agreed with Boardmember Reginato s suggestion for increasing the width of the entry porch on the 520 Elm Ave building. ACTION: Motion by Boardmember Ellinwood, seconded by Boardmember Reginato to recommend preliminary approval of the project to the Planning Commission with their comments attached. 4) Applicant: Scott Dinovitz, Cravens Lane, LLC Project: DP/CDP Planner: Nick Bobroff Project Location: 1300 Cravens Lane Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Hearing on the request of Scott Dinovitz, Cravens Lane, LLC to consider Case DP/CDP for conceptual review of a proposal to redesign the Green Heron Spring condominium project previously approved by the City Council in November The proposed project would dismantle an existing residence, barn and storage shed, remodel one residence and construct 30 new residential units. The contemplated redesign would make adjustments to the previously approved site plan/building locations, building floor plans, bedroom counts for selected units and building architecture/elevations. The property is a 3.87-acre site zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and shown as APN , located at 1300 Cravens Lane. Staff described the history of the past project and the considered changes to the previously approved plans. He noted the applicants sought to get feedback from the community and ARB members before continuing with further refinement and development of the plans for a formal project submittal.

5 Continued Page 5 Scott Dinovitz, the project representative described the reasoning for some of the changes to the site plan and building floor plans. He felt the changes improved the livability of the units and gave the project a more contemporary appeal. He noted they were committed to maintaining the overall spirit and feel of the previously approved project. Scott Ellinwood, property owner and acting as project consultant, expressed his support for the considered revisions, noting he felt the updated floor plans were enhanced and resulted in improved livability. He explained he previously received a grant from Southern CA Edison to design the project to be zero net energy, and noted the concept designs presented would likely need further study to be able to retain this design feature. He clarified that improved efficiency of photovoltaic panels means fewer of them would be needed to meet the zero net energy goals for the project. Public Comment: Richard Johnson sought clarification that the exit to the existing alley to the south was for emergency purposes only (it is) and that the revised project would still dedicate and build out additional right-ofway on Cravens Lane (it will- including new sidewalk, bike lane and on-street parallel parking). Bob Hill thought it would be a great project for the area, but was concerned that it would further exacerbate the on-street parking problem along Cravens Lane. He suggested added bedrooms means added cars and the revised project design provides fewer visitor spaces. He asked that the applicants give consideration to parking demands for their project. Various members of the public asked about the details of the dedication of additional right-of-way for Cravens Lane, whether it would allow for bike lanes and sidewalks, and how many additional onstreet parking spaces would be created. The applicant explained that, yes the widened Cravens Lane right-of-way would provide sidewalks and bike lanes, and additional on-street parking. They indicated they would study the layout to determine how many additional parking spaces would be created. Boardmember Discussion: Boardmember Reginato asked if the project would still be LEED Gold or better. He also asked why the architecture had changed so much from the previous approval. Mr. Dinovitz answered that, yes, the project is required to be designed and built to a LEED Gold level or better. He explained that the change to the architecture was driven by the changes to the building floor plans and a desire to give the project a more updated, modern appeal. Boardmember Reginato explained that while he really liked the architecture of the previous approved project, he was not opposed to either of the alternatives presented for the revised project. He noted however he felt the garage doors shown, particularly on the more modern shed roof design option, were far too prominent and needed to be more subdued. Boardmember Gahan noted she liked both of the new architectural styles better than the original approved design. She expressed a slight preference for the contemporary farmhouse vernacular but thought both were nice and could be successful. She liked that many of the mature oaks would be retained and incorporated into the project landscaping. Boardmember Chappell pointed out that all of the units seemed to be leading with garages. He noted he would prefer if the garages were pulled back or otherwise made less prominent, and the entries to

6 Continued Page 6 the units were moved up and made more prominent to the street (Boardmember Reginato agreed). He also felt that of the two design options presented, the farmhouse vernacular seemed to be more successful on the larger townhome buildings. He thought the contemporary shed roof design presented was too busy and lacked some of the charm of the single family home examples shown in the photos. ACTION: Comments received from the public and ARB members. VOTE: N/A OTHER BUSINESS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Action Minutes of the Architectural Review Board meeting held October 27, ACTION: Motion by Boardmember Reginato, seconded by Boardmember Johnson, to approve the minutes as presented. MATTERS REFERRED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL: None MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARDMEMBERS/STAFF: None ADJOURNMENT Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held at 5:30 pm on Thursday, December 15, All Boardmembers present indicated they would be in attendance. Chair, Architectural Review Board ATTEST: Secretary, Architectural Review Board