Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
February 11, 2021
Agenda Item No. 7
Case No: Design Review 20-8030Variance 20-8029Categorical Exemption (Class 1)
Project Location: 2670 Park Avenue I APN: 641-012-23 & 641-451-07
Applicant: June Her, Architect(949) 554-8264 [email protected]
Property Owner: Flora Camaj
Prepared By: Community Development DepartmentNancy Csira Zoning Administrator(949) 497-0332 [email protected]
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests design review for modifications to a prior approval in theR-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. Modifications include an additional 225 square feet of living area, 24square feet of storage area, reconfigured elevated decking, reconfigured swimming pool, spa, and associatedpatio, and increasing the height of the roof. A variance is requested to exceed the maximum building heightlimit above the lowest finished floor [LBMC 25.10.008(D)(1)] and above the curb [LBMC25. 10.008(D)(3)].
RECOMMENDATION: Request staff to prepare a resolution approving Design Review 20-8030 for themodifications to a prior approval including living area and deck additions, and the reconfiguration pool, spaand patio, and denying Variance 20-8029 to exceed the maximum building height, subject to the attachedproposed plans; and adopt Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS1) Public Correspondence2) Architect’s Rendered Elevations3) Minutes & Staff Report (January 25, 2018)4) Proposed Plans
PROPERTY AERIAL PiIdTo
DR 20-8030/VARFebruary
2690 Park Av
2590 Pa,k Av
lb)
~0
.4-
ParkAv 4
>1 %0
PROPERTY INFORMATION
320iB~WCt
31 9(
U~w,1IJ
3OlOBernDr
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (3-7 DU/AC)Zoning Designation R- 1 Residential Low DensityEnvironmentally Sensitive Areas Coastal Zone / Not Appealable
. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, Water Quality EnvironmentallySite Constraints Sensitive Area, Fuel Modification
. . Single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage and landscapingExisting Site Improvements which was originally constructed in 1969
• January 25, 2018, Design Review Board approved aggregate additions(760 square feet) greater than 50% of the original floor area, upper-level additions, covered/tandem parking, 230 square-foot garage
Prior Approvals addition, 712 square feet of elevated deck additions, 112 square-footstorage addition, elevator height, skylights, pool, spa, grading,retaining walls, , landscaping, and to maintain nonconforming buildingheight_with_additions_greater_than_10%_of the_existing_floor_area.
20-802911, 2021
Page 2
ZONING REYIEW
DR 20-8030/VAR 20-8029February 11, 2021
Page 3
The proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines with the exception of theproposed height increase, which is discussed under the Variance heading below.
The table below compares the areas and values the changes from the existing home, the DRB prior approval,and the current proposal.
Upper Level
& . DRB CurrentExisting Change Approved Change Proposal
1/25/18 2-11/21Lower Level 1,539 SF +673 SF 2,212 SF + 75SF 2,287 SF
1,627 SF + 87SF 1,714 SF + 168 SF 1,882SFStorage 80SF +123 SF 203SF t+383SF 586SFTotal 3,246 SF + 680 SF 4,129 SF + 626 SF 4,755 SFGarage/Carport 464 SF + 230 SF 694 SF No Change 694 SFDecks! Terraces 684 SF + 712 SF 1,396 SF + 43 SF 1,439 SFTotal Program, 4,394 SF + 1,622 SF 6,219 SF + 669 SF 6,888 SF
DESIGN REVIEW .
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(H), physical improvements and site developments subjectto design review shall be designed and located in a manner which best satisfies the intent and purposeof design review, the city’s village atmosphere and the design review criteria. These guidelines complementthe zoning regulations by providing conceptual examples of potential design solutionsand design interpretations. The table below lists the guidelines and the proposed project’s applicability andcompliance. The following project components require Design Review:
A. Modifications to a prior approvalB. Add 243 square feet of living areaC. Relocate DRB approved 203 square-foot new storage spaceD. Add 383 square feet of storage area (represented as crawl space in DRB approved plans)E. Add 43 net square feet deck at upper level (remove 115 square feet of deck for living room addition)F. Reconfigure swimming pool, spa, and associated patioG. Increase height of the roof
Design.Review Criteria ~‘ Consistency (Yes, No,1or N/A If NotApplicalile)No. I I Access N/A
No. The proposed contemporary boxy roof design applied to theexisting nonconforming gable roof design impacts the designarticulation. The new flat roof is proposed at the maximum roofridge that sits above the uphill portion of structure. At the prior DRB
No. 2 I Design Articulation proceedings, the Board had concerns with apparent mass and scaleand allowed the nonconforming roof to remain as-is in conjunctionwith proposed additions greater than 10%. The new roof is notwithin the allowable building envelope and the appearance ofbuilding mass is magnified.
DR 20-8030/VAR 20-8029February 11,2021
Page 4
DESIGN REVIEWYes. The selected new style incorporates limestone veneer, stucco,
No. 3 I Design Integrity and glass railings which is consistent with the chosen architecturalstyle.
No. 4 Environmental Context N/ANo. 5 I General Plan Compliance N/ANo. 6 I Historic Preservation N/ANo. 7 I Landscaping N/A
No. During the prior DRB proceedings, glazing was reduced asrequested by the Board at the initial hearing. The increase in the roof
. . height on the upper level which includes raising the plate height fromNo. 8 Lighting and Glare , ,, ,7 -10 to 10 -5 creates taller windows. The windows are three feettaller creating more glazing. No changes to the lighting plan havebeen requested.No. The proposed roof height changes exacerbate the existingnonconforming building height and does not appear to be
No. 9 I Neighborhood Compatibility neighborhood compatible. Furthermore, the proposed additionalprogram of 669 square feet increases the useable area of the homewhich was previously reduced to gain the prior DRB approval.
No. 10 I Pedestrian Orientation N/A. This criterion pertains to commercial development.No. The prior DRB approval required the side deck to be only a
. narrow window washing deck due to privacy concerns for theNo. 11 I Privacy downhill neighbor. Please refer to the attached DRB minutes and
determine if reductions to the deck additions are warranted.No. 12 I Public Art N/A. This criterion pertains to commercial development.No. 13 I Sign Quality N/A. This criterion pertains to commercial development.No. 14 I Sustainability N/A
No. The revised pool and spa have been pushed further out into thecanyon and is staked with story poles. The highest pole (#44) at the
. . edge of the pool terrace at the spa is 19’ -8” out of grade. New stakedNo. 15 I Swimming Pools, Spas and three-story stairways on the north side of the home are proposed toWater Features access the lower pooi terrace from the upper level. The Board should
determine if the out-of-grade pool and added stairway features areneighborhood compatible.No. A neighbor concern was received from the property owner whoresides at the corner of Bern Drive and Park Avenue expressing
No. 16 I View Equity concerns with the roof height variance. The neighbor believesremoval of mature Eucalyptus trees along the property frontage mayoffset the height increase.
VARIANCEVariances may be granted only when, among other factors, there are special circumstances applicable to theproperty involved, including size, shape, topography, location and surroundings, that would cause the strictapplication of the zoning ordinance to deprive the property of the privileges enjoyed by other similarly
DR 20-8030/VAR 20-8029February 11, 2021
Page 5
situated property in the vicinity and zone. A variance is requested to exceed the 30-foot maximum buildingheight measured above the lowest finished floor ~4 the 15-foot maximum building height measured abovethe curb due to the proposed increase in roof height.
The Design Review Board may approve, approve in part, or conditionally approve a variance based uponmaking all of the following findings at a noticed public hearing:
(I) There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape,topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance todeprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identicalzoning classification.
Staff believes there are no special circumstances applicable to the property that cause the strictapplication of zoning height limit to deprive such property privileges enjoyed by other in the vicinity.The height of the building is limited to 15 feet above the curb (based on the average lot slope greaterthan 20 percent) which is shown on in the image below. The existing roof (outlined with red dottedline) varies from 2 feet to 7.5 feet above the limit and the proposed roof )shade pink) varies from 2feet to 10.8 feet above the limit, an increase of 3.3 feet is proposed at the west side.
Ip) fiG~i~rmn~
~~j4 -
— ,_ n__i
I-.
—. Ia
Furthermore, the overall height of the building is also limited to 30 feet above natural grade, finishedgrade, or lowest finished floor, whichever is more restrictive. The existing home is currently 32 feetabove the lowest finished floor and the proposed overall height will be 36.8 feet. Instead of two feetabove the limit, the proposed roof will be 6.8 feet above the limit. As such, staff believes theproposed roof design is design-driven and the required finding cannot be made.
(2) Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of theapplicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the samevicinity and zone.
By being allowed to increase the building height above both limits (curb and lowest finished floor),the property would be enjoying a right that is not shared by other properties under like conditions inthe same vicinity. Therefore, staff believes that this finding cannot be made.
DR 20-8030/VAR 20-8029February 11,2021
Page 6
(3) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience andwelfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
Staff believes the proposed roof height increase will not have any adverse effects on public health,safety and welfare.
(4) The granting ofsuch a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or thegeneral plan.
Provisions of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code allow deviation from normal developmentstandards where special circumstances exist. Here, staff’s analysis shows that the granting of thevariance request is not necessary to preserve and enjoy a substantial property right. Therefore, staffbelieves that this finding cannot be made.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) DeterminationIn accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project iscategorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, in that the project consists of the repair,maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or noexpansion of existing or former use. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that wouldresult in a significant effect on the environment.
Balmer-Csira, Nancy CD
From: mitra tayareh <[email protected]>Sent Monday, February 1, 2021 2:53 PMTo: Weil, Louis; Neev, Deborah; Thalman, Kristine; Sheridan, Don; Cannon, Jessica; Balmer
Csira, Nancy CDSubject: 2670 Park Ave Improvement
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach--DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unlessyou are sure the content is safe.]Dear Design Review Board,
We are the owners of 2690 Park Ave. Laguna Beach, Ca 92651. Our residence is two homes uphillof the applicant’s home and we can see the roof of their home from our home. We met with theapplicant on November 8 at our home and then Jan 3 by video conference to discuss theirproposed project, review the plans and flags to discuss our concerns.
We support their application and hope you will grant it. The requested modifications would be awelcomed improvement to the neighborhood.
Mitra and Hootan Daneshmand
February 2, 2021
Design Review Board C OVE iCity of Laguna Beach505 Forest Avenue FEB 032021Laguna Beach, California 92651
ZONING DIVISIONCITY OP LAGUNA BEACH
Regarding: 2670 Park Ave.
Members of the Design Review Board,
lam a close-by neighbor of the applicants. I reside at 3164 Bern Dr. LagunaBeach, CA 92651. lam a design professional in Laguna Beach. From a designperspective, the applicant’s proposal is a huge improvement from the current state ofthe home and existing plans. It blends perfectly with the many modern-style homes onupper Park Ave. I approve of the application for design review and variance.
I have been inside the home and am personally aware that the current roof height isunacceptably low. To grant their application would increase the livability for thisgrowing Laguna Beach family and provide space for essentials such as ducting,insulation, lights, etc.
It’s a tribute to the Architect that the proposal remedies the issues with the roof withoutaltering the exterior roof or envelope in a way that is detrimental to anyone. I drive byoften and the proposed changes do not seem to impact views from any angle.
I would also like offer my support on the other changes the applicant requests, such asreconfiguration of the pool area and deck, arid the increase in square footage. All theseproposals seem to be mindful of neighbors and necessary to increase the livability.
Chris Woodburn
FEB 03 2021
ZONING DIVISIONCITYOF LAGUNA BEACH
RE: 2670 PARK AVENUE (Camaj Residence) DESIGN REVIEW 20-8030, VARIANCE 20-8029, andCATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Dear Design Review Board,
I, Ursula Staubli at 2665 Park Avenue, am an immediate across-the-street neighbor noticed aboutthe DRB hearing regarding the home at 2670 Park Avenue. The home owner, Flora Camaj, came tomy home a couple of months ago to ask for my signature of approval to modify the angle of her roof.She assured me that the absolute height of the roof ridge would remain unchanged, but that theedge of the roof facing me would be lifted by a couple of inches, a change that would beindistinguishable for me. Since it seemed like a minor change, I concurred and signed the coverpage of her plans as she requested. She never really opened the plans to show me exactly what theroof modification entailed, and I didn’t ask her for it, as I trusted Flora.
When I received the Notice of Public Hearing, I was surprised to read their request for a variance toincrease the height of the roof to exceed the maximum building height limit. When I remodeled myhome in 2015, I was told that raising the roof by even two inches was against code and would neverbe approved. On inspection of the story poles, I realized that by changing the slant of the roof tohorizontal level, the south façade of the Camaj residence facing me would be lifted by what seemedat least two feet. Given that the South elevation is already towering over Park Avenue as is, with awide row of oversized glaring windows looking directly into a large part of our living room, any furtherincrease in height would impact our view across the street in an unattractive and significantlyadverse fashion, in addition to causing us to be even more exposed to their onlooks.
I discussed my concerns with Flora at her home on Jan. 22nd and told her I felt she had understatedthe extent of the roof change and its negative impact on my view, and that I wanted to retract mysignature from her plans. Flora then proposed that, provided I consent to sending a supportive letterto the DRB, she would cut down the two eucalyptus trees on the left of her home and maintain themat low height, including the trees in the back, thereby opening a view corridor to the hills behind. Shealso suggested to plant a podocarpus hedge along Park Ave to cover up the lower part of the southfaçade. All this would be done in March.
I told her I would only consider this compromise, if she agreed to cut down the eucalyptustrees before the DRB meeting on Feb. 11. Flora made it clear she did not want to concur with this.
In summary, I cannot support approval of the requested modification in roof height/angle. The Camajresidence is already taller than most new and recently remodeled homes in my immediateneighborhood. Lifting its south façade even higher would be in the face of contemporary buildingrecommendations to fit into the surrounding landscape, as opposed to sticking out above the curblike a sore thumb. I spent $1.5M to remodel my home in 2015, partly for the view. Allowing ittodeteriorate as it would if the roof variance is approved, is not agreeable to me. I compromised theinterior height of my home to be compliant with city code, and I strongly expect the city to enforce itequally on others.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ursula Staubli, PhD
ECOV i
FEB 032971Design Review BoardCity of Lag una Beach ClwOFLAGuN~d~cH 2/2/21505 Forest Ave.Laguna BeachCa. 92651
Design Review 20-8030, 20-8029
Dear Board Member,
I would like to offer my support for the proposed project at 2670 ParkAve. The design is neighborhood compatible and would fit-in with themany newer and modern homes in the area. Aesthetically, the remodelas proposed is much needed and would be a big improvement to theneighborhood. The requests for design review and variance arereasonable and would make this home more livable for ths family.
Sincerely,
Laura Keller3079 Bern Dr.Laguna Beach
COLORED LEFT ELEVATION2670 PARK AyE, LAGUNA BEACH
Proposed roof
Demolish
Jç~ /
A—
1 I~~llIW~DfflthllllflH~1lliDiflhI R
SCALE
Proposed root
Demolish
COLORED FRONT ELEVATION2670 PARK AVE. LAGUNA BEACH
SCALE 114.
Proposed root
Demolish
COLORED RIGHT ELEVATION2670 PARK AVE. LAGUNA BEACH
must be as every free is different. A rule of thumb is to stay outsi%~he canopy. She asked thatthey present their arborist s proposal to the Board. Ms. Spero verified staff will work with themon the driveway question.
Ms. Liuzzi made a motion, seconded by Ms. Simpson, to continue Design Review 17-1826 at 450Center Street to March 8, 2018 Mo carried unanimousi -
Motion CL Second MS Grant___ Deny____ ont. 3/8 Unan. 4-0
Monahan Abstain Simpson Y Liuzzi Y Mullen-Kress Y Neev Y
10. 2670 PARK AVENUE (CAMAJ), APN 641-012-23 (StaffAssist) APPROVED WITH CONDITIONSDESIGN REVIEW 174239 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION [Section 15301 Class 1(e)1 LAST HEARD 7/27/17 (SECONDHEARING)City Staff: Evan Jedynak, Assistant Planner (949) 464-6632 ejedynak lagunabeachcity.net
The applicant requests design review for a 939 square-foot addition to a single- family residence in the R-l(Residential Low Density) zone. Design Review is required for aggregate additions exceeding 50% of theoriginal square footage, upper level additions, covered/tandem parking, elevated decks (1,327 square feet),elevator height, skylights, pool, spa, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, and to maintain the nonconformingbuilding height in conjunction with additions exceeding 10°c of the existing square footage.
Project Representative: Consultant Steve Kawaratani said they reduced 767 square feet ofprogram, 615 of which was decking and that doesn’t include the 400 square feet of pool deckingreduction. The numbers are neighborhood compatible. They broke up mass; the existing home isvertical. The architect broke up the stacking to better conform to hillside guidelines. Step planterswere added to the front of the pool patio; glazing has been reduced on the north and west upperlevel elevations. Reductions were done at the request of the Board and Michael Wilkes’ request.Pool equipment and air conditioning condensers were put into a vault; impervious surfacesreduced to 42%; parking reduced from 4 to 3 covered spaces and outdoor lighting was modified.The exterior color was changed and the green roof was changed to a shed roof. He provided ahandout showing the roof revision. Windows will be left as is on the upper level. The door out tothe proposed Juliet balcony as well as the new window on the middle level was eliminated. Therewas a mistake — when they took out the cabana they forgot to subtract out the 8+ feet. Currentlythey are fifteen feet out of grade, not counting the railing. They propose two five-foot planters tomitigate any massing.
Public Testimony: Robert Simmons, 2590 Park Avenue, protests the violation of his privacy. Theneighbor is aware of his concerns as they visited his house and took photos. Their deck looks intohis living and dining rooms. The applicant’s house was built forty years ago and has the mostastounding deck views in the city. Preservation of views is paramount and they have exceptionalviews from all those decks. They have everything right now with those three decks and he doesn’tsee why their decks have to protrude into his view. He hopes the Board understands that privacyis a primary issue and he asks that the Board give careful consideration to adjusting those proposeddecks to provide privacy - he has no problem with existing decks.
Michael Wilkes, representing the Simmons at 2590 Park Avenue, spoke to the Design ReviewCriteria which this still doesn’t meet. Design Articulation: the existing is a very vertical stacked
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 13 - January 25, 2018
box with cantilevered decks and they shouldn’t be able to continue to make it more vertical withmore cantilevered decks. Lighting and Glare: a lot of floor-to-ceiling glass is proposed plus wraparound glass railings on all the decks. As to Neighborhood Compatibility: the 1,400 square feet ofproposed decking is excessive. It’s not close to grade but elevated up in the air which also invadesprivacy. These decks are being expanded out and new sight lines allow looking directly down intothe Simmons property. They have made significant changes but still some improvement can bemade. The Board should grant a third hearing and direct the applicants to correct some DesignReview Criteria not addressed properly — specifically deck size, cantilevered decks, the verticalityand the privacy for the neighbor.
Joharma Felder, 2680 Park Avenue, said a letter from Mr. Wilkes on November 14, 2017, statedwith the addition of only three frees, the Simmons would be able to provide full support. OnJanuary 18, Mr. Wilkes wrote on behalf of the Simmons that many requests were addressed but itstill needed more revisions. She is an uphill neighbor and the most impacted and they haveaddressed all her concerns. She doesn’t object to seeing decks from her dining room table as Mr.Simmons does. The Simmons’ view is straight-on or downhill and is and will remainunobstructed. The applicants have a right to improve their home and they have tried to addressthe multiple concerns of the Simmons. At this juncture she doesn’t think there’s a project theycould undertake that could address the Simmons’ multiple objections. Other neighbors are in favorof it and nobody is guaranteed that no one will look into their property. A project next door to herhas three levels of decks that look into her living spaces.
Ursula Staubli, 2665 Park Avenue, has a good sense of the neighborhood and what’s compatible.The applicants have had her review their plans many times; they have thoughtfully placed theirdeck in the area with minimal impacts on neighbors. She doesn’t see the Simmons’ concerns. Theirremodel is modest in size, especially in contrast to neighbors — she showed properties of those oneither side with four floors and huge glazing. She provided the Board with photos she took fromthe open space. She said the house can’t be seen for the trees — especially the lower part where thepool is. Even close to the pool you only see open space; there’s no other house it would impact.This project doesn’t affect the rest of the homes in the neighborhood and everyone else feels theapplicants should have what others have.
Gene Felder, 2680 Park Avenue, feels concessions and reductions have been made and he askedfor approval of the project. He feels Mr. Simmons couldn’t get along with his neighbors and hashad legal action with some of them. He said Mr. Simmons built an unpermitted pool and deck.
Ms. Neev advised the Board doesn’t evaluate personalities
Rebuttal: Mr. Kawaratarti said he worked hard with Mr. Wilkes to craft an agreement whichevidently has failed. Property owner Flora Camaj thanked the Board for coming to see therevisions. She said they had worked with neighbors to be compatible and to earn their support.Ms. Csira commented staff was able to get a staking plan and it appears the pooi which is ten feetout of grade — wasn’t staked. Architect June Her said the pool area isn’t really elevated, there areno stakes on that pool out of grade. Ms. Csira said it appears it’s behind the area where the deckis and it is not staked. Refer to the section on sheet A6.1. She verified Board members are aware ofthat.
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 14- January 25, 2018
Board Questions: Ms. Monahan verified the applicant is willing to put nightshades on theskylights and are willing to remove the six ground spotlights which are wall-washing lights.
Ms. Simpson noticed a fountain system on Park Avenue facing Park which would be heard at thestreet but not from in the house. She suggested relocating it to the entry. Mr. Kawaratani said theywould be happy to relocate it. Ms. Simpson asked if the stepping walls on the plans are retaining.Mr. Kawaratani said they were not required for retaining, they wanted to have a step-up systemto mitigate the mass of the pool decking, They are free-stacking segmented walls and the applicantagreed to pick a darker earth-tone color for them.
Ms. Liuzzi verified the applicant was willing to reduce the two garage door lights to one above thedoor. She verified the garage door is solid and with removal of the six up/spot lights none remain.
Board Comments: Ms. Mullen-Kress appreciates the changes and thanked the applicant for goingto the shed roof which softens the vertical articulation. She doesn’t think the expanded deck onthe Simmons’ side creates any unreasonable privacy concerns as it’s well above his property. Shesupports the project with changes submitted at this hearing. The project meets Design ReviewCriteria, and privacy and view equity is achieved.
Ms. Monahan is not quite there yet although a lot of work was done and she appreciates that. Thereis way too much glazing and that needs addressing. She understand why they want a ‘window-washing’ catwalk but is not comfortable with all that glazing and all the glass railing. There is ahuge house up the street that she would never have supported but it makes no sense to continuewith excessive decking just because there’s a bad example up the street. This is too much decking.She is not comfortable — even though there are stacked walls — on the northeast property line stillhave that corner out of grade. It doesn’t meet the design guidelines. Maybe they can take thatsame stacking treatment and wrap it around on the northeast side and reduce the pool deck. Sheis not comfortable with that wall. She would like automatic nightshades and removal of theground spot lights. She verified the doors to the deck on the west side were removed.
Ms. Liuzzi also thanked them for changes. She is willing to support the ‘window-washing’ deckon the side. But the additional deck in the rear, where you travel on a catwalk, it only makes senseto fill in that area with deck. She spoke with the applicant team regarding glazing. They increasedthe sills which would help with the glass railing but she’s undecided about it. She understandsMs. Monahan’s comments but doubts anyone will see that wall and they are willing to landscapearound it. She can support the project. The downhill neighbors are so far away and there is a nicescreening with trees and she feels it will screen any light intrusion.
Ms. Simpson first thought this was really big but she spent a lot of time on their project and shecan support it. She knows privacy was a concern for the neighbor but there is a lot of vegetationscreening the neighbor and it was difficult for her to see down there. Privacy issues are mitigatedwith the additional vegetation. The glazing is okay — not great — but not terrible. It does fit theneighborhood. It was built before the height limit so they are already starting at a high level andgoing out with that peaked roof exacerbates that. If it was built now it would be lower and mightblend in better but they are utilizing what they have. She can support this with the stacked walls
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 15- January 25, 2018
being planted. There is so much vegetation that no one will see the pool.
Ms. Neev agrees with her colleagues and can support the project. They had a very tall vertical boxand the decks have actually added some articulation. She likes the shed roof, can support thecatwalk and pooi and would like a free protection plan. The landscape plan and the frees is theirsaving grace.
Ms. Mullen-Kress made a motion, seconded by Ms. Liuzzi, to approve Design Review 17-1239 at2670 Park Avenue to include all of the changes submitted at this hearing in addition to reducingthe garage door lighting to one light; relocating the water feature closer to the house; nightshadesadded to the skylights; removing the six wall-washing lights, installing stacked wall vegetationaround the pool area and providing free protection. Motion carried 4-1.
Motion LM Second CL Grant Y Deny___ Cont. ___ Unan. 4-1
Monahan N Simpson Y Liuzzi Y Mullen-Kress Y Neev Y
11. 1470 CATA j~’ STREET ICAKCI APN 644-221-22 Co TODESIGN ‘ IEW 1 07, COASTAL DEVEL9AwJENT PERMIT 17-2108, £ ROACHME PERMIT 17-2113,.~ P ATEGORICAL IONI n4~303 ã~ss 3 (aflCity Staff; Melinda Dacey, S ciate Planner (949)497-0325 mdacey lagunabeachcity.net
The applicant requests design review and coastal development permit for a 1,921 square-foot single-familyresidence with an attached 368 square-foot two-car garage in the R-l (ResidentiajJ≤~w Density) zone. Designreview is required for the new structure, elevated decks (315 square feet), ,ir conditioning condenser unitand landscaping. A revocable encroachment permit is requested for fencing, enhanced paving, landscaping,lighting, and irrigation within the public right-of-way (Catalina Street and Shadow Lane).
Project Representative: Architect Todd Skenderian said,this two-story house with attached two-car garage replaces the existing single-story home with~one-car detached garage. They started witha remodel and upper level addition but determined-the existing house lacked structural integrityand there were problems with the major remo~el classification. It was single-wall construction,there was no vapor barrier and the single-w,çall was largely decayed. Removal and replacementwould have triggered a major remodel. ‘ ey opted to pursue a new house and went thoughDesign Review hearings presenting a>o cept for a two-story house roughly 1,800 to 2,000 squarefeet. As part of those hearings it was determined the house was not historic. There was a conditionthat the house wouldn’t be remov d until they returned with a new proposal. This proposed newhouse is 1,900 square feet of habitable — 1,100 on the lower level and 800 on the upper level,relocating vehicle access and the main entrance to the house to Shadow Lane. The upper level wasL-shaped with a deck at the inside corner. This is a corner lot. There are eight-foot plate heightson each floor. They fried to minimize the extent to which the upper floor sat on the lower floor —
there are two locations on the north and south side where that wasn’t achieved. The house isdesigned to have a neighborhood friendly appearance and the existing house was used forinspiration such as the shingle siding, shutters, exposed rafter tails and pitched roof. The newhouse brings nonconformities into conformity. Currently the front yard is only four feet and willbe fourteen and a half with the new proposal; the rear yard will go from five feet to twenty feetand the side yards will be brought into conformance. Parking will be in conformance with the
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 16- January 25, 2018
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 25, 2018
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: Evan Jedynak, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: 2670 Park Avenue — Design Revisions
The applicant requests design review for a 760 square-foot addition to a single-family residence inthe R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. Design review is required for aggregate additions exceeding50% of the original square footage, upper level additions, covered/tandem parking, elevated decks(712 square feet), elevator height, skylights, swimming pool, spa, grading, retaining walls,landscaping, and to maintain the nonconforming building height in conjunction with additionsexceeding 10% of the existing square footage.
The applicant has revised the proposal based on neighborhood feedback and comments receivedby the Design Review Board at the first hearing on July 27, 2017. Current staking at the site reflectsthe design revisions. At that hearing, neighbors and the Design Review Board expressed concernswith regard to design articulation, mass and scale, elevated decking, privacy, exterior lighting,glazing, house color, impervious surfaces, swimming pool size, covered pool patio, and poolretaining wall mass. The Board specifically suggested that the following modifications beincorporated:
SSY!t~ ~ai~~Reduce the overall program, The applicant has reduced the While the elevated decking hasincluding living area, and overall program by 767 square feet, been reduced, the proposed 1,396specifically elevated decking, including a 615 square-foot square feet of deck is still largerwhich needs to be extensively reduction in elevated decking. The than the neighborhood average.reduced. One Board member previously-identified laundry room With the exception çf convertingrequested a 1,500 square-foot (habitable) is proposed to be the previously-identified laundryreduction in program. Another mechanical area (inhabitable), and a room to mechanical area, noBoard member requested that new stackable laundry area has reduction in living area hasthe master bedroom and deck been designated on the lower floor, occurred. The applicant hasoff the family room (upper The pool patio area has also been provided a floor plan clari1~’inglevel) be reduced in size. reduced in size approximately 400 what type of mechanical
square feet, and is not generally equipment will be housed in thisconsidered as part of the overall room, which is included as anprogram. attachment. The Board may desire
that the living area and elevateddecking be further reduced in sizein order to meet the neighborhood
. compatibility criteria.
Page I of3
Step the massing down thehillside, break up the mass ofthe house by eliminatedstacked portions. Boardmembers suggested cuffingback the additional living areaand eliminating the appearanceof double tandem parking.
The applicant has pulled backportions of the decking on the upperand middle levels, and these areasare now proposed as green roofs.The retaining walls at the lower levelhave been broken up into terracesthat step with the hillside.
The replacement of elevateddecking portions with green roofsbreaks up the appearance of mass,and attempts to step the structurewith the hillside. Staff notes thatthe design of the existing structuredoes not step with the hillside. Thelower level etepped terraces reducethe appearance of mass at the rearyard but has not eliminated thestacked portions of the house asrequested by the Board.
Reduce the amount of glazing, The glazing has been reduced along Reductions in glazing occur at thespecifically on the northern the northern elevation and along the northern elevation, but a largerelevation, western elevation at the upper level, window and new glass door are
including breaking up large window now proposed at the westernspans. However, at the middle level elevation. The Board may desireof the western elevation a window that additional glazing reductionshas been enlarged and an additional be made to achieve the lightingsliding glass door is now proposed. criterion.
Reduce the exterior lighting to All exterior lighting has been revised The revision appears to meet thea maximum of 3-watt LED. to a maximum of 3-watt LED. Board’s direction.Reduce the size of the pool The swimming pool has increased in The footprint of the swimmingand associated patio width from 26’-6” to 37’-O”, and the pool has increased, which does notimprovements. Break up the spa has been relocated to be outside follow the Board’s direction. Themass of the covered pool patio of the pool shell. However, the depth removal of the cabana featureand the appearance of the of the pool and spa have been reduces the appearance of mass toretaining walls below the pool. reduced, which decreased the total an extent. However, as shown on
water volume from 2,100 gallons to the section on sheet A6. I, the pooi1,603 gallons. The surrounding pool is located out of grade. Thepatio has been reduced by guardrails at the northern end ofapproximately 400 square feet, and the pool area are proposed to bethe covered cabana feature has been 27’-6” above the current grade.eliminated. The applicant has The Board may desire that the poolbroken up the large pool retaining and associated patio be furtherwall into a series of five-foot tall reduced in size and mass/sdale in
. stepped retaining walls with planters order to meet this criterion.in between.
Reduce the amount of Impervious surface a~ea has been The revision appears to meet theimpervious surfaèes. reduced from 61.7% to 42.6% of the Board’s direction.
total lot area. This was achieved byreducing the size of paved patio
. areas, and changing the driveway toa permeable material.
Tone down the proposed white Instead of the previously proposed The revision appears to meet theexterior color to an earth tone, white stucco, the applicant now Board’s direction.
proposes to maintain the existingcolor of the home, which is a beigetone.
Page 2 of 3
Total Program Comparison TableFirst DRB Hearing Amount of Change Current Proposal
(July 27,2017) (January 25, 2018)Total Living Area 4,088 SF -162 SF 3,926 SFMechanical 0 SF +162 SF 162 SFGarage/Carport 751 SF N/A 751 SFElevated Decking 2,011 SF -615 SF 1,396 SFStorage 355 SF -152 SF 203 SFTotal Program 7,205 SF -767 SF 6,438 SFBuilding Site Coverage 4,019 SF (32.1%) N/A 4,019 SF (32.1%)Landscape Open Space 5,108 SF (40.8%) +288 SF 5,396 SF (43.1%)NetExport I5CY N/A I5CYImpervious Surfaces 7,720 SF (61.7%) -2,391 SF 5,329 SF (42.6%)
At the request of the adjacent western neighbor, the applicant has revised the landscape plan toinclude additional Carolina Cherry plantings along the western property line. Staff receivedcorrespondence from this neighbor, who previously opposed the project, and can now support theproject with the modifications that have been incorporated. While the design revisions appear toaddrçss most Board comments, the modifications may not be adequate in fully mitigating Boardconcerns regarding neighborhood compatibility, glazing, swimming pool size and mass/scale.Staff recommends that the applicant further address these issues, and the Board may want toconsider conditions to mitigate these concerns in any approval.
Attachments: Staff Report from Prior DRB Hearing (July 27, 2017)Updated Project Summary TablesFloor Plan Clarifying Mechanical AreaUpdated Color and Materials Selection
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF LACUNA BEACHCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: July 27, 2017
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CASE: Design Review 17-1239
APPLICANT: June Her, Architect(949) 554-8264joohyunh(~iamaiLcom
LOCATION: Camaj Residence2670 Park AvenueAPN 641-012-23
ENVIRONMENTALSTATUS: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant toSection 15301, Class 1(e)(1) (existing facilities), which allows an
- addition to an existing structure that will not result in an increaseof more than 50% of the floor area of the existing structure. Theapplicant proposes a 939 square-foot addition to a 3,166 square-foot structure, or a 29.6% increase in floor area. While theresidence is 48 years old, it has been altered and does not appear toexemplify a particular architectural style. Additionally, theproperty is not located within an environmentally sensitive areaand there is no evidence of any unusual environmental conditions,therefore, an exception to the exemption does not apply.
PREPARED BY: Evan Jcdynak, Associate Planner (949) 464-6632
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests design review for a 939 square-foot addition toa single-family residence in the R-l (Residential Low Density) zone. Design review is required foraggregate additions exceeding 50% of the original square footage, upper level additions,co*redltandem parking, elevated decks (1,327 square feet), elevator height, skylights, pool, spa,gtading, retaining walls, landscaping, and to maintain the nonconforming building height inconjunction with additions exceeding 10% of the existing square footage.
PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION: The property is a located on the northern side of ParkAvenue, between Bern Drive and Bern Court. The lot is 12,520 square feet with a General Plandesignation of “Village Low Density.” The lot has a steep average gradient exceeding 20%, andsloping downhill from Park Avenue. The property is improved with a single-family dwellingand attached two-car garage. The house is considered legal nonconforming due to buildingheight. City records indicate that the residence was originally constructed in 1969. In 2000, thesubject property was granted a variance and design review approval to maintain two existinggazebos, one within the rear setback.
DR 17-12392670 Park Avenue
July 13, 2017Page 2 of 7
STAFF ANALYSTS: The applicant proposes additions to a single-family residence, includingupper level additions. The 87 square-foot upper level addition enlarges the front entry arça. The852 square-foot middle level addition creates a new master bedroom. The middle level additionalso includes a carport in tandem with the existing garage below. A 123 square-foot storageaddition is proposed at the lower garage level. An elevator is proposed to access all three levels.Other site improvements include a pool, spa, and outdoor covered patio.
Property Development Standards and Zoning Code Consistency: The proposed scope ofwork is in compliance with all development standards for the R-l (Residential Low Density)zone. The structure has been designed within the allowed height limits and required setbacks.Project summary tables can be found in an attachment to this report. Property developmentstandards specific to each zone are supplemented by design review criterja intended to maintainneighborhood character and provide the City with maximum flexibility and discretion in thedecision making process.
Design Review Criteria: Physical improvements and site developments subject to designreview shall be designed and located in a manner which best satisfies the design review criteriaspecified in this section. Please refer to the City’s.Design Guidelines - A Guide to, ResidentialDevelopment on the City’s website (www.lagunabeachcitv.net) for ftirther detail. mc intent ofthese guidelines is to clarify the criteria that members of the community, the Design ReviewBoard, the City Council and design professionals use in the design review process..
Access: Conflicts between vehicles~ pedestrians and other modes of transportation should beminimized by spec(,fically providingfor each applicable mode oftransportation.
The property is currently improved with an attached two-car garage on the lowest level. ‘Theproposed addition requires two on-site covered parking spaces, plus an additional uncoveredspace. The applicant proposes an addition on the middle level that cantilevers above thedriveway and also sen’es as a carport that creates covered tandcm parking in front pf the existinggarage. The carport can accommodate two vehicles, however; only one space meets the required25-foot unobstructed backup area. Therefore, three on-site compliant parking spaces areproposed, which meets the parking requirements. The additional covered and tandem parking issubject to Design Review Board approval to determine if the parking has been designed tominimize mass and bulk. Given that the site is improved with a long driveway and side-entrygarage that cannot be seen from the public road, staff believes that the proposed carport does notincrease the aj~pearance of mass and bulk. Park Avenue is improved with existing sidewalks,curbs, and gutters. As such, this criterion has been met.
Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building andietaining wall mass should be minimized Articulation techniques including, but not limited to,separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may beused to reduce the appearance ofmass.
The existing residence comprises two levels of living area with a two-car garage level below.The applicant proposes an 835 square-foot master bedroom addition on the middle level, and an87 square-foot entry addition at the upper level. The middle level master bedroom includes an
DR 17-12392670 Park Avenue
July 13, 2017Page3of7
open area below, and will also ‘serve as a carport in tandem with the existing garage. Theadditional areas will match the existing plate heights, which are 12’-2” at the lower, level, 8’-l”at the middle level, and 6’$” at the upjjer level (the upper level does not meet current BuildingCode). An elevator is proposed to span all three levels, re4ching a maximum height of 32 feetabove the lowest finished floor. Pursuant to LBMC 25.08.0 16, elevators may exceed themaximum 30-foot height limit subject to Board approval. Staff finds that the proposed elevatordoes not contribute to the appearance of mass or create view equity issues, and therefore meetsthe criteria. The proposal involves large deck additions, with 761 square feet proposed at theupper level and 564 square feet proposed at the lower level. The majority of the elevateddecking is proposed towards the northwest of the residence, and staff finds the decking area to beexcessive.
An out of grade pool, spa, and covered patio are proposed at the rear yard. The proposedcovered patio is enclosed with white stucco along its eastern edge and at the roof, appearing as apartial pool house. The retaining walls required to support the pool and covered patio rangefrom 14 to 20 feet in exposed height. Staff finds this design noncompliant with RçsidentialDesign Objectives 4.1 and 4.2, which call to step a retaining wall to follow the naturaltopography and to minimize visible retaining wall height. Furthermore, the covered patioadjacent to the pool contributes to the appearance of mass. In order to meet this criterion, staffrecommends that the elevated decking area be reduced and that the exposed retaining wallheights at the rear yard be decreased considerably to meet the design objectives. This may beachieved by reconfiguring and reducing the size of the proposed pool, spa, and covered patio.
Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should beachieved by the use ofappropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious withthe remaining existing architecture.
According to the attached color and material selections, the applicant proposes the exteriorfaçade in a mixture of white stucco to match the existing, as well as new beige stone claddingportions. Window and door trims are proposed in a brown finish. The roofing is proposed to bechanged from a red clay tile to black clay tile. Glass guardrails with black support columns areproposed at the elevated decks. The garage door is proposed in a white finish. The coveredpatio is also proposed in a white stucco finish to match the residence. While staff is generallynot supportive of a white stucco exterior, it is noted that the residence currently exists in thisfinish. As such, staff finds that the proposed materials and details are consistent with thecontemporary architectural style and with the surrounding neighborhood, and therefore thiscriterion has been met.
Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’sscenic natural setting. . Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping,ridgelines and sign(ficant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilizedin the design and grading should be minimized.
No natural features (as described above) exist on the site. The applicant proposes the amount ofimpervious surface area to increase from 41% to 61% of the total lot area. Proposed gradingincludes a net export of 15 cubic yards, with 38 cubic yards of cut and 23 cubic yards of fill
DR 17-12392670 ParkAvenue
July 13,2017Page 4 of 7
outside of the building footprint to accommodate the rear yard pooi and patio area. While thegrading is generally nominal, staff finds the increase in impervious surfaces to be excessive, andrecommends that the applicant reduce the amount of impervious areas in order for this criterionto be met. This could be achieved by reducing the size of the pool and covered patio or addingplanters, which will in turn reduce the exposed retaining wall height.
Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to properties with historic significance, asidentjfied in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory or Historic Register, should be avoidedwhenever possible. Special preservation consideration should be given to any structures overforty-five years old.
City records indidate that the structure was constructed in 1969, making it 48 years old. Giventhe age of the structure; it may be given special preservation consideration by the Board, ifdetermined on the basis of substantial evidence to meet the criteria for a significant historicalresource. The structure is not on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory or the HistoricRegister. Minor alterations have occurred to the building, including a reroof, replacement of thefront deck, and window replacement. The structure appears lacking of any historical character-defining features and does not appear to exempli~’ a particular architectural style.. Given the factthat alterations have occurred, and the general appearance of the structure, staff does not find theexisting’building to have, historic significance and does not believe the structure constitutes asignificant historical resource. As such, this criterion is not applicable.
Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s designand relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shallbe an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelinescontained in the city’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource. Document” should beincorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance ofproposed landscaping.
Several mature trees exist throughout the project site, particularly at the rear yard. The applicantproposes to maintain the majority of the existing vegetation, with some trees proposed to beremoved to accommodate the rear yard pooi and patio area. Refer to Sheet LP-l for the as-planted landscape planting plan. Mature heights and widths are listed for all existing vegetationto remain. No new vegetation is proposed. The property is located in a very high fire hazardseverity and fuel modification zone. The Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Documentencourages the preservation of mature trees. As the applicant proposes to preserve many largeexisting trees, this criterion has been met.
Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in amanner which does not sign (ficantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials andappurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs,high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level ofinsign{fIcance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.
Sheet A-?. 1 indicates the proposed exterior building and landscape lighting and is summarizedbelow:
DR 17-12392670 Park
J11 13,2017PageS of 7
— . Wattage11. ~sn 1+1)
Drttt burial Lanus~~pc i~h~ wu LIs~€phcht 2ssz Hf)
la~d~pvUa and Sjxx I ô ean H ;Total: I1~
In additioi * one skylight is propo&4 above the upper level bedroom. StaFf him.. eei.ved.correspondence from a neighbor concerning the wattage of ladseape !igiuhg. fl.siuxea . ax4tee ~ads that ~siT fixtures be low axed to a maxin:uin of 3 ssstt f[ij) \4~h this n~f~aben€h prr posed cx’enor oghanc smh tax sLmta~anpv xmoaa xa ghhonto. pa grab. and t~irrctx rethis entenon will have been met.
•:Ndghberhood (.*ompatihiby: Development shall he compatible with the e.riaisssg dflNt*kpftWMiin t’u s : :bhorta she a~ I ,esp€ ‘a ,gr ha rn€wJ rharat a’ \€ ih°x,rlu ~ 1 lx era a th€ .~ ‘r ofInc qi auth s In 4 aixixo puts 47 arc as is 1090 The lit ilk tudIflU IUth;tg he ,~4I€i ta o’ j~ it t4~itft’7 I
,~ q’ ~ ca ‘ sO 15 ma s a au Cr iCc ilc~5c “fits ipl fl soda a a, ‘a ‘at ‘onarchitectural stile
The patt.eni ofdeve.Iopnsent in the neighborhood c.ornists primarily of barnes ranging fh)t1i two toth.ree stories. %4~~y of the garagen in the v:ie.in.ity have a ~ .~‘r threescar appearance. Refer tothe neigh’a~whood context photo below that shows iFe six being resid.enee and sum.~undingp•ropertiex. The proposexl living inca addition appears to be conriatibte with neighhs ringproperties. However, stall flnds~ the proposed elevated decking quantity aid expose‘d retainingw41t hei”h’s to be out of scale with the neighborhood chan:ieter. and rsscommend.s that theseha tires ne rtdered t,1 sac ~n nrdcr isa meet this entinlo I
2675) Park As ears, N:dnhborhswal t.kmtr ‘it Phou I angle .Ctieps
DR 17-12392670 Park Avenue
July 13, 2017Page 6 of 7
Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial orentertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy ofneighboring properties should be minimized.
No privacy concerns have been identified as of the date of the preparation of this report(7/20/17). Given the large amount of elevated decking proposed, staff is wary of potentialprivacy concerns from adjacent neighbors. However, it is noted that landscape buffers appear toexist between neighboring activity areas. With the reduction of elevated decking size, assuggesting under the Design Articulation heading above, this criterion can be met.
Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices whichminimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs ofbuildings by proper site arid structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture orgenerate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) usingthe latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducingsite emissions.
New construction is required to meet Title 24 energy and Green Building Code requirements,which includes insulated windows, içsulation and energy efficient lighting in the kitchen andbathrooms. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance for the addition. Theproposal to preserve and improve the original house as opposed to demolishing and constructinga new house is sustainable in that the construction is less intensive. As such, this criterion hasbeen met.
Swimming Pools, Spas and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shallbe locatea’~ designed and constructed where: (a) Geology conditions allow; (b) Noise producedby circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) Any associatedfencing orother site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.
A large 1,753-gallon swimming poo1 (26’-S” long x 12’-O” wide x 57-fl” deep) and 348-gallonspa (8’-4” long x 8’-4”.wide x 5’-O” deep) are proposed at the rear yard. One of the two existinggazebos will be removed in order to accommodate the pooi and spa. The western adjacentproperty and a few others in the vicinity are improved with similar pools. The pooi equipment isproposed at the eastern side of the house, clear of the side setback. Staff finds the proposedpool/spa size excessive and recommends that it be reduced in order for this criterion to be met.Furthermore, staff received correspondence from the adjacent eastern neighbor, who has issuewith the location of the mechanical equipment. Staff recommends that the equipment berelocated to the rear yard, or for the pool equipment to include a noise enclosure with aesthetictreatment in order for this criterion to be met.
View Equity: The development, including its lanctccaping, shall be designed to protect existingviews from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonableopportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the city’s “Design Guidelines.” The“Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop
property.
DR 17-12392670 Park Avenue
July 13, 2017Page 7 of 7
The project site is located in a well-developed neighborhood with established homes and oceanviews. No view equity concerns have been identified as of the date of the preparation of thisreport (7/20/1 7). Staff believes that the project has been adequately designed with respect toexisting views from neighboring properties, and therefore believes this criterion has been met.
General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of thegeneral plan) including all of its elements, applicable spec(flc plans, and the certified localcoastal program.
Staff finds the proposed addition to a single-family dwelling consistent with the intent of theVillage Low Density land use designation. With the reconniended modifications outlined hereinregarding elevated decking, retaining walls; lighting wattage, mechanical equipment, andimpervious surfaces, the project will be in compliance with all applicable design review criteria,and therefore compliant with the General Plan. As such, this criterion has been met.
NoSconformin~ Conditions: Building Height [LBMC 25.10.008(D)]: The property has anaverage slope greater than 20%, so the maximum permitted building height is 30 feet from thelowest finished floor, or 15 feet above the curb elevation, whichever is more restrictive. Theresidence was originally built with the highest point being 32 feet above the lowest finished floorand 23 feet above the Park Avenue curb elevation. Because the proposed additions exceed 10percent of the original gross floor area, design review is required to determine if existing legalnonconforming site conditions may remain as-is, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(j).The existing nonconforming height does not appear to contribute to intensification of use and hasexisted without causing negative impacts to adjacent properties. Furthermore, all proposedadditions comply with the maximum building height limit. M such, this guideline has been met.
COMMUNITY INTEREST: Staff has received one letter of concern regarding theproposed.mechanical equipment location and landscape lighting. No other concerns have been received bythe City as of the date of the preparation of this report (7/20/17).
CONCLUSION: The applicant proposes to construct additions (including upper leveladditions) to a single-family residence. The proposal includes utilizing the area underneath theaddition as a carport in tandem with the existing attached garage. While the residence is legalnonconforming due to building height, the additional area conforms to the required setbacks,height, and parking requirements for development in the R-l zone. Staff has concerns regardingthe elevated decking, retaining walls (stemming from the pooi and covered patio), lightingwattage, and impervious surfaces, and recommends that the applicant revise the proposal toincorporate reductions in each of these ateas in order to meet the applicable criteria.Furthermore, staff recommends relocation of the pool equipment and/or mitigation of associatednoise. If these suggestions are incorporated, staff recommends approval of the project.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Project Summary TablesExhibit B: Pre-Application Site Meeting Notes (5/2/17)Exhibit C: Color and Materials Selection~Exhibit D: Vicinity Map/Oblique Aerial Photo
City of Lag~iña Beach — Community Development .uepartment
Pre-Application Site Development Review Meeting Evaluation
Evaluation Meeting Number: ZPS-17-0812 Date: May 2, 20)7
Prepared by: Evan Jedynak, Assistant Planner
Attendees: June Her, Architect; Flora Camaj, Property Owner
Site Address: 2670 Park Avenue Assessor Parcel Number: 641-012-23
Zone/Specific Plan: R-l (Residential Low Density)
Background: The subject site is a 12,520 square-foot lot located on Park Avenue in the R-l (ResidentialLow Density) zone. The property is currently improved with a single-family dwelling and attached twocar garage. City records indicate that the residence was originally constructed in 1969, The applicantproposes additions (including upper level additions) to the existing structure and to include a carportunderneath the addition. It is not anticipated that the additions will constitute a major remodel.
Development Standards (to be verified during zoning plan cheek):
Front Setback (special subdivision 10 feet (garage), 15 feet (house)map setback)Rear Setback 20 feetSide Setback The width of each side yard shall be not less than ten percent of the
~ average lot width, but in no case less than four feet ( I 5 ‘-9” total)Lot Slope in Percent Over 20%; to be ver≠ed with surveyHeight Maximum 15 feet above the curb elevation
. Maximum 30 feet measured from lowest finished floor, finished ornatural grade, whichever is more restrictive
Building Site Coverage Maximum 35% (4,382 SF)Additional Building Setback Pursuant to Section 25.50.004(D)Parking Two covered onsite parking spaces, plus an additional space that
may be uncoveredLandscape Guidelines Neighborhood Area I Ia (Top of the World) of the City’s
- Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource DocumentLandscape Open Space Minimum 31.7% (3,967) SF
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): No issues noted at this time.
Environmental Constraints: Water Quality Environmentally Sensitive Area, Fuel Modification, Very1-ugh Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Coastal Development Permit: Not required at this time.
Design Review Criteria LBMC~25.O5.O4O(H)
1. Access: Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should beminimized by spec (JIcally providingfor each applicable mode of transportation.
Pre-Application Site Dcvelopment Review MeetingMay 2,2017
[2670 Park Avenue]Page 1 of5
The property is currently improved with an attached two-car garage. The proposed addition requirestwo on-site covered parking spaces and an additional space that may be uncovered. The applicantproposes an upper level addition with an open carport below, The carport can accommodate twovehicles, but only one of the spaces has the required 25-foot unobstructed backup. Therefore, threecovered parking spaces that meet regulations are proposed. As only two covered parking spaces arerequired, the additional covered parking is subject to Board approval. The Board may approveadditional covered parking if it can be justified that the appearance of mass and bulk is not increased.Park Avenue is improved with existing curbs and gutters along the site frontage.
2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wallmass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offcets,terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may he used to reduce theappearance ofmass.
The applicant proposes additions totaling 939 square feet. The majority of the addition is proposed onthe middle level, with a carport below and elevated decking above. A small front entry addition isalso proposed. Staffencourages the applicant to incorporate elements that provide appropriatebuilding mass, scale, and form in the proposed design. To minimize mass and bulk, the applicantshould evaluate whether the design should divide larger building mass into smaller modules and usebuilding volumes efficiently. Furthermore, the building should use articulation techniques consistentwith the architectural style, vary wall plane lengths and wall heights, and design a roof to follow sitecontours. All improvements in excess of five feet above grade are required to be staked for designreview.
3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved bythe use ,f appropriate materials and details. Rethodels should be harmonious with the remainingexisting architecture.
Staff encouraged the applicant to design the proposed addition to be consistent with the architecturalstyle of the existing house through the use of appropriate materials and architectural details, whichprovide a sense of scale and interest.
4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenicnatural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines andsignificant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design andgrading should be minimized.
The Design Review Board will review the placement of the proposed addition and how it relates toexisting natural site features. The applicant plans for grading outside the building footprint in order toaccommodate rear yard improvements, which will be subject to design review. Grading should beminimal outside the building footprint. It is important for the applicant to design the project in such away that follows the natural topography/contours and complements the surroundings with smoothtransitions. The maximum building site coverage guideline for the property is 35% of the total lot areaor 4,382 square feet.
5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with~ all applicable policies of the generalplan, including all of its elements, applicable spec(ftc plans, and the local coastal program.
The proposed addition to a single family dwelling complies with the site’s Village Low Density LandUse Designation.
Pre-Application Site Development Review Meeting , [2670 Park Avenue]May 2, 2017 Page2 of5
6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to properties with hLctoric significance, as (dent jjIedin the city’s Historic Resources inventory or Historic Register, should be avoided whenever possible.Special preservation consideration should be given to any structures over forty-five years old.
According to City records the existing residence was built in 1969 (48 years old), and therefore maybe given special preservation consideration. However, the house is not on the Historic ResourcesInventory or Historic Register, and does not appear to exempli~’ a particular architectural style.
7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure ~s design andrelate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be animportant consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained inthe city’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document should be incorporated, asappropriate, in the design and planned maintenanpe ofproposed landscaping.
The applicant does-not propose any landscape changes. However, an upper level addition requiressubmittal of a landscape plan (can be -as-planted) that is subject to design review. To meet landscapeopen space requirements, a minimum of 31.7% of the total lot area must be maintained. Staff advisedthe applicant that a minimum dimension of 3’ x 3’ must be satisfied to meet the requirements forlandscape open space. The applicant should consider mitigation of view corridors with hedge heightlimitations. Landscaped open area or landscaped area shall be any combination of living plants (suchas grass, ground cover, shrubs, vines, hedges or trees). The landscaped area may be located anywherewithin the lot, including the buildable or setback areas.
The Design Review Board typically approves projects with impervious surfaccs (structure and allhardscape) not exceeding 50-60 percent of total lot area. New plant materials should be appropriatefor the lo~ation, using drought-tolerant plants when feasible. Landscaping should be designed withview equity in mind, with visual contributions to the street and neighborhood. Planting should beused to soften, integrate and enhance the building in its setting.
8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a mannerwhich does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenancesthat cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tileroofs, reflectii)e glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignfricance in thoselocations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties. - -
All proposed new exterior light fixtures must be shown on a landscape plan or on a separate lightingplan and include the number of fixtures, placement, wattage and lumens. Excessive window glazingthat creates glare is discouraged. Skylights are proposed, and automatic night shades may berequested by the Board. All exterior lighting fixtures-should comply with the City’s Good NeighborLightin~Qrdinance [LBMC 7.70].
9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in theneighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of thequalities that distinguish areas within the city, including historical patterns of development (e.g.,structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architecturalstyles. - -
Pattern of development in the neighborhood consists primarily of two- and three-story homes. Manyof the garages in the vicinity have a two-car appearance. The applicant should research and evaluatethe characteristics of the neighborhood in terms of building site coverage, square footage, number of
Pre-Application Site Development Review Meeting [2670 Park Avenue)May2,20l7 - Page3of5
stories and parking egress. The Design Review Board reviews total program including, but notlimited to, living, garage, deck, mechanical and storage areas. The applicant must consider theamount of program requested in relationship to neighborhood compatibility.
/0. Privacy: The placement of activity areas, (e.g., deckv, picture windows and ceremonial orentertainment rooms,) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy ofneighboring properties should be minimized,
The appJicant should keep in mind the placement of new upper level windows and outdoor livingareas in relation to neighboring properties. Staff recommends the applicant consider the floor plan ofthe subject property and adjacent residences. The applicant proposes 1,327 square feet of newelevated decking, which is a substantial increase. All decks should be designed to consider uphill,downhill, and immediately adjacent neighbors. It is recommended that the applicant evaluate the siteand assess the impact a deck might have on views, privacy, light, and shade. Outdoor areas shouldnot impact privacy of neighbors.
1]. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimizeenvironmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by:. (1) reducing energy needs of buildings byproper site and structural design; (2) increasing the budding ~s ability to capture or generate energy;(3) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (4) using the latest BestManagement Practices regarding waste and water management; and (5,) reducing site emissions.
The Design Review Board may review the project for new construction as it relates to sustainablcbuilding measures.. Staff encourages the applicant to utilize sustainable site measures and greenbuilding code requirements, which may include:
Water management Materials and resources managementIndoor and outdoor Local products (reduces transportationSmart irrigation waste)Gray water systems Natural, renewable materialsPermeable concrete Recycled materialsTankless water heaters Reduced wasteDual flush toilets
Indoor environmentEnergy manaeement Cross-ventilationWindow glazing and design DaylightingControlled lighting design Low/no VOCsDisplacement ventilation systems Thermal controls
Innovative designImplementing new ideas, products
12. Swimming Pools, Spas, Water Features and Mechanical Equipment Swimming poofr spas andwater /katures shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b)noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated~ and 1’c,) any associatedfencing or other sire development is compatible with neighboring properties.
The applicant proposes a pool and spa in the rear yard. Pool equipment is proposed to be Iocatcd inthe eastern side yard, clear of the side setback: No air conditioning units are proposed at this time.
Pre-Application Site Development.Review Meeting [2670 Park Avenue]May2,2017 Page4of5
13. View Equity: The development, including landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing viewsfrom neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reawnable opportunity todevelop as described and illustrated in the city ~c “design guidelines.” The “design guidelines’ areintended to balance preservation ofviews with the right to develop property.
The property is located on a slope and may be subject to view equity concerns from uphill residences.The majority of the addition is proposed downhill of the existing house. The applicant should installpreliminary staking early on in the design process in an effort to work with neighbors and minimizepotential impacts. Staking identifies building mass and scale of the proposed project.
Potential Variance Issues: The applicant does not anticipate any variance requests at this time.
Nonconforming Site Conditions: The existing residence is nonconforming with regard to buildingheight.
Neighborhood Meeting: The City requires each applicant to take reasonable steps to contact neighborswithin 300 feet of the proposed project prior to scheduling a Design Review Board hearing. Early,informal communication with neighbors, preferably prior to decision of a final design, often resolvespotential conflicts so that the formal design review process can be expedited. A neighborhood meeting isrequired before the project can be scheduled for Design Review.
Special Processing Requirements: Following zoning plan check, design review is required for aggregateadditions~exceeding 50% of the original square footage, upper level additions, covered/tandem parking,elevated decks (1,327 square feet), elevator height, skylights, poo1, spa, grading, retaining walls,landscaping, and to maintain the nonconforming building height in conjunction with additions exceeding10% of the existing square footage.
This preliminary evaluation is given to applicants and their design advisors to utilize as early aspossible in the design stage of a contemplated project so that the ensuing design is more likely to meetthe Design Review Board’s approval before substantial time and resources have been expended.However, this preliminary evaluation provided by staff does not hind the Design Review Board in anymanner in its review ofor decisions on an application.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this evaluation, contact:
Evan Jedynak, Assistant Plannerejedvnakc~lanunabeachcitv.net(949) 464-6632
Pre-Application Site Development Review Meeting [2670 Park Avenue]May2,2017 Page5of5
EXTERIOR COLOR PALETTE
WALL CALDmNG STONE CALDD~NG ROOF
WALL COLOR W~NDO TR~M COLOR
FRONT ELEVAVON
FLORkS HOUSEP*k~C Afl. tA*~JNA flAQ~
2670 Park Avenue W~n tv Map C tp of Logw~o Beodi GIS
2670 Pa rk Avenue Aer4& Obhque Photo Gooçfr Maps
__ __ _____ 4 * _:~ ~SM 187~31
___ %~ __ ___ __ __
____ __t%tt4~~ __ S’4 ; POOL I SPA DETAILS
? > ~
DlMENS~ONS(LxWxD) VOWMWQ*a~
____ 04)
— 14~
lam
10’SOi 4
F
~ra~~&IIa
______ ‘v.u:
______ El~cz’ cz~:
— — _[__ WLSTENG EXT€PJDRIWfl ——
/t~ C--Master Bath -.
rr-— ~
U ‘~ TV_________________±
___
- --H ~WINDOWJ[ 1
LEGEND
= = = = = DEMDLISH
NEW WAIl
EXIStING WALE./
‘S
(N)tEENROOF IFSE9~fl
NA / /~ I~/N~/\ ‘~Z~/ N,’N “ /\r V(N)DECIN AN/ N /N’ V , , N/NV V’ ~‘~N4 ,‘(E~DOOR j (E~ 000Rsj/N (EWOOR4’
N//N/\ç~
9 I N / IFSE9I5111~/’\~. ~
_____ / iN/N~ /N/ ,YNri3 DOOR
Room
NEWADSISLON
/ /
/7/
/1 : ~ ___/7/ __
/ -
/
//‘/7
I / //~/ 1~/7/7
/7’ x p / IS
Bed Room
Fillml
(N) Master Bed ___________
114
-
11‘H
a,CO
GE
0
Gui
— ~C-Th D~LL <On0
II _J
z5
alb
I”
C
---4-9
[~E9I54I~
Li
-N ~
____ —
M,chanicJstarags
136,fl 05.38 I I IEI3At
8GW-a,--
LOWER FLOOR PLAN I 11-4~2
EXTERIOR COLGr4 PALETTE
II I
FRONT ELEVATION
WALL CALDOING I STONE CALODING ROOF
WALL COLOR (KEEP EXHISTING) WINDOW TRIM COLOR
FLORAS HOUSE2570 PARK AVE. LAGUNA BEACH
