City of Lafayette Study Session Staff Report Design Review Commission

Transcription

1 City of Lafayette Study Session Staff Report Design Review Commission Meeting Date: April 24, 2017 Staff: Payal Bhagat, Senior Planner Subject: HDP18-15 & HDP31-15 Ramesh Patel & Melcor Development (Owners), R-40 Zoning: Request for a Study Session with the Design Review Commission to provide design direction for development of two new two-story single family residences on two adjacent existing vacant lots west house (Patel residence) 5,000 sq.ft. and east house (Melcor Development) 5,873 sq.ft. within the Hillside Overlay District, unaddressed parcels on the north side of Happy Valley Road (east of Upper Happy Valley Road) APNs & 004. Phase I Hillside Development Permit (siting and mass determination) for this project was approved with conditions by Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on March 17, The subject Study Session relates to the owners applications for Phase 2 Hillside Development Permit. Item continued from April 10, 2017 DRC meeting On April 10, 2017, the Design Review Commission (DRC) reviewed the site planning, access, grading, and the landscape strategy for the proposed new two-story single family residences on two vacant parcels on Happy Valley Road and provided the following comments for the project redesign. The applicant shall: revise the proposed project such that the retaining wall closest to Happy Valley Road is not a continuous linear structure, but broken up with openings allowing installation of trees and other native landscaping, carefully evaluate the proposed material/color for retaining walls with the intent to make the wall disappear and blend with the hillside, revise the landscaping plan such that instead of a garden design with mix of domestic plants and materials, the hillside and front yard of the proposed homes be designed with native grasses, oaks, and evergreen trees of various sizes to create a natural/organic look post development, explore ideas to reduce the total number of walls where possible, simplifying the walls from a linear form to a stepped and/or curve forms, and use natural colors and material for construction, revise the plans such that driveway turnaround near the east house such that it is pulled away from the street, consider creating landscaped berms in areas where grading and retaining walls are being proposed such that the visual impact of having the retaining walls is minimized, Page 1 of 2

2 Design Review Commission HDP18-15 and HDP31-15 Study Session Staff Report April 24, 2017 strive to minimize the number and height of retaining walls around the house to the degree feasible, and rework the roof system of the residence on the western parcel such that the roof is broken down into multiple smaller roof forms, in an effort to reduce the overall mass of the home. Staff Recommendation Staff requests that the DRC provide direction to the applicant such that project becomes substantially compliant with the conditions associated with the Phase I approval, including but not limited to condition #11. ATTACHMENTS 1. DRC Study Session staff report of April 10, 2017, without attachments 2. Planning Commission Resolution and Conditions of Approval approving the Phase I permit 3. Project Plans dates March 13, 2017 Page 2 of 2

3 City of Lafayette Study Session Staff Report Design Review Commission Meeting Date: April 10, 2017 Staff: Payal Bhagat, Senior Planner Subject: HDP18-15 & HDP31-15 Ramesh Patel & Melcor Development (Owners), R-40 Zoning: Request for a Study Session with the Design Review Commission to provide design direction for development of two new two-story single family residences on two adjacent existing vacant lots west house (Patel residence) 5,000 sq.ft. and east house (Melcor Development) 5,873 sq.ft.) within the Hillside Overlay District, unaddressed parcels on the north side of Happy Valley Road (east of Upper Happy Valley Road) APNss) & 004. Phase I Hillside Development Permit (siting and mass determination) for this project was approved with conditions by Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on March 17, The subject Study Session relates to the owners applications for Phase 2 Hillside Development Permit. Background On May 27, 2011, applications (HDP17-11 and HDP18-11) were filed for a Phase I Hillside Development Permit siting and mass determination to develop two new single family residences on two existing vacant lots fronting Happy Valley Road just east of Upper Happy Valley Road, APN(s) & 004. Both properties are located in the R-40 (Single-family Residential District-40) zoning district. Following a series of public hearings, continuances requested by the applicant, and a withdrawal and resubmittal, the Planning Commission considered the project at a duly noticed public hearing on March 17, 2014, during which following extensive public testimony, written and oral staff reports, and review of development plans; the Planning Commission adopted a resolution conditionally approving the request for Phase I Hillside Development Permit (siting and massing determination) for the two new single family residences. Issues raised during the meetings for the Phase I review include, but are not limited to: concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility, visibility of the proposed homes from the public right of way due to the proposed siting and massing, visual impacts of the proposed retaining walls due to the location of the hammerhead and driveway access to the proposed homes, sprawling design and size of the proposed homes, and impacts on the drainage, particular on the residential homes located downstream from the project due to increase in impervious surfaces, Page 1 of 6

4 Design Review Commission HDP18-15 and HDP31-15 Study Session Staff Report April 10, 2017 In an effort to mitigate some of the concerns raised during the public hearings, the Commission imposed several conditions of approval as part of the Phase I approval. Some of the conditions require the development to be redesigned such that: retaining walls are minimized, grading and paving for access is minimized, and visual impacts are minimized by redesigning the massing, plate heights, floor-to-floor heights, roof forms, and/or other architectural features. The Planning Commission resolution approving the Phase I for this project along with the list of conditions of approval is attached to this report. Applicant Request On July 23, 2015, the applicant submitted the current Phase II Permit (HDP18-15 & HDP31-15) requesting Design Review Commission s (DRC) approval of the following: 1. A 5,000 sq.ft. two story single family residence on a 4.70 acre west parcel (APN ) (Patel Residence) and 2. A 5,873 sq.ft. two story single family residence on a 7.93 acre east parcel (APN ) (Melcor Development) Location & Site Conditions West Lot East Lot Lot Area 4.70 acres (204,108 sq.ft.) 7.93 acres (345,431 sq.ft.) Zoning & Overlay Districts Single-family Residential District-40 (R-40) & Hillside Overlay District Single-family Residential District-40 R-40) & Hillside Overlay District General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residenital Up to two dwelling units/acre Low Density Single Family Residenital Up to two dwelling units/acre Topography Highly constrained with a downward slope Highly constrained with a downward slope Existing Use Vacant Vacant Triggers For Review -Both Parcels Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No Within a protected ridgeline setback? Within 100-ft. of a ridgeline setback? In the Hillside Overlay District? Over 17-ft. in height to ridge? Development > 6,000 sq.ft.? Creek Setback required? Stormwater Control Plan required? Grading > 50 cu.yds? DR required as condition of approval? In a commercial or MFR zone? Variance requested? Tree Permit Requested? Subject to Public Art Ordinance? Second Unit Permit required? Page 2 of 6

5 Design Review Commission HDP18-15 and HDP31-15 Study Session Staff Report April 10, 2017 Consistency with Zoning District Regulations Site Data West Lot East Lot R-40 Standard Gross Floor Area* 5,000 sq.ft. 5,873 sq.ft. - Building Height max. Stories ½ max. Front Yard Setback min. Side Yard min. Aggregate of Side Yards min. Rear Yard min. *Includes garage and all structures with at least three walls and a roof Findings At the time of project approval, the hearing body must make the following findings in order to approve the project: 6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings In granting approval for projects which occur in single-family and multiple-family residential zoning districts as outlined in Section 6-271(A)(1 and 3-6), the hearing authority shall make all the following findings: (1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare; (2) General site considerations, including site layout, open space and topography, orientation and location of buildings, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, fences, public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development; (3) General architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials, colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings; and (4) General landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, provisions for irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief, to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public (C) Single-Family Residential Findings Exceeding 17-Feet in Height In addition to the findings required in Section 6-275(A), the hearing authority shall make the following findings for projects which occur in single-family residential zoning districts and exceeds 17 feet in height as outlined in Section 6-272(A)(4): (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines; (2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood; Page 3 of 6

6 Design Review Commission HDP18-15 and HDP31-15 Study Session Staff Report April 10, 2017 (3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site; and (4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties Findings required for approval of a hillside development permit on an existing lot of record. The hearing authority may approve an application for a hillside development permit on an existing lot of record in the hillside overlay district only after making the following findings: (a) The development is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the general plan and is in conformance with applicable zoning regulations; (b) The development will preserve open space and physical features, including rock outcroppings and other prominent geological features, streams, streambeds, ponds, drainage swales, native vegetation, native riparian vegetation, animal habitats and other natural features; (c) Structures in the hillside overlay district will, to the extent feasible, be located away from prominent locations such as ridgelines, hilltops, knolls and open slopes; (d) The development, including site design and the location and massing of all structures and improvements will, to the extent feasible: (1) Minimize the loss of privacy to surrounding residents and not unduly impact, restrict or block significant views; (2) Not have a significant visual impact when viewed from lower elevations from public places, using the viewing evaluation map as a guide to establish locations from which views are considered; and (3) Not interfere with a ridgeline trail corridor or compromise the open space or scenic character of the corridor. (e) Within 100 feet of a restricted ridgeline area, or when an exception to a ridgeline setback has been granted, the development will result in each structure being substantially concealed by terrain or vegetation when viewed from lower elevations from public places, using the viewing evaluation map as a guide to establish locations from which views are considered; (f) Development grading will be minimized to limit scarring and cutting of hillsides especially for long roads or driveways, preserve existing geologic features, topographic conditions and existing vegetation, reduce short and long-term erosion, slides and flooding, and abate visual impacts; (g) The development provides adequate emergency vehicle access, including turn-around space, to the building site and surrounding on-site undeveloped or isolated areas; (h) Each structure and proposed landscaping complies with the city s residential design guidelines; (i) The new or replacement vegetation for the development is native to the surrounding area in areas abutting open space and natural areas, such as oak woodland, chaparral, grassland and riparian areas, and conforms to the policies of Section ; and (j) The development will not create a nuisance, hazard or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or the city, nor require the city to provide an unusual or disproportionate level of public services Findings required for approval of grading exceeding 50 cubic yards 1. The grading will not endanger the stability of the site or adjacent property or pose a significant ground movement hazard to an adjacent property. The decision making authority may require the project Page 4 of 6

7 Design Review Commission HDP18-15 and HDP31-15 Study Session Staff Report April 10, 2017 geotechnical engineer to certify the suitability of the project supported by appropriate technical studies, including subsurface investigation; 1. The grading will not significantly increase erosion or flooding affecting the site or other property and will not cause impacts to riparian habitats, stream channel capacity or water quality that cannot be substantially mitigated; 2. The grading, when completed, will result in a building site that is visually compatible with the surrounding land; 3. The grading is sensitive to the existing landforms, topography and natural features on the site; and 4. The design of the project preserves existing trees on the site and trees on adjoining property to the extent possible. Staff Comments The application in its current form has been deemed incomplete. Staff finds that the proposed development does not address the conditions of approval, including but not limited to conditions #4-11. Staff finds that the current proposal: Includes more paving than necessary because of the provision of tee hammerhead to facilitate fire truck turn around and independent driveways for each residence beyond resulting in excessive grading, retaining walls, and pavement. The conditions of approval call for the fire truck turnaround and residential driveways to be reconfigured to reduce grading, paving and retaining walls, Reconstructs the bench or developable pad in a manner that would increase the developable area to accommodate a sprawled design. This manipulates the land to suit the building rather than designing the building to respond to the land, Proposed design does not step with the existing grade to the extent possible, Provides higher than required roof plate heights, not mitigating the overall mass of the project, Does not reduce the size of the house located on the west lot, and Proposes vaulted ceilings and double volume spaces as part of the design further adding to the overall mass of the buildings. Staff has discussed these concerns with the applicants and their design team on several occasions. The applicant s design team feels that they have appropriately addressed the conditions of approval associated with the Phase I approvals as outlined in the responses to the conditions prepared by Mr. Kubitschek and Mr. Bowie attached to this report (attachments 4 & 5). Staff finds that the Phase 2 submittal does not contain design responses to the conditions of approval the plans essentially match those presented to the Planning Commission, which approved the plans subject to specific conditions. The applicants submittal fails to make a good faith effort to address the conditions of approval and therefore staff is at an impasse with the applicants design team. Staff Recommendation Staff requests that the DRC provide direction the applicant such that project becomes substantially compliant with the conditions associated with the Phase I approval. This is an informational item only with no formal action requested at this time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Photos & Maps 2. Project Plans 3. Planning Commission Resolution and Conditions of Approval approving the Phase I permit 4. Response to the Conditions of Approval by Steve Kubitschek, project designer Page 5 of 6

8 Design Review Commission HDP18-15 and HDP31-15 Study Session Staff Report April 10, Letter from David Bowie, project attorney Page 6 of 6

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40