Variance Request: The architect, Jun Sillano, is requesting approval of a Variance to:
1) Exceed the maximum allowed, 12’ first-story plate height by +5 feet below the rear upper-floor balcony, and +3 feet at the rear first floor bedroom; and
2) Exceed the second-story plate height by 2’-5”.
CMC Section 17.10.030.B (Height Limits) limits first-story building components to a maximum plate height of 12’ and second-story building components to a maximum plate height of 18’. CMC Section 17.52.070 (Variances) allows maximum plate height dimensions to be modified through a Variance subject to the findings listed in Attachment 3.
At the December 11th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission found that the request for the variance could be supported since the overall roof height complies with the City’s 24’ maximum; there is a significant constraint placed upon this lot by the sloping topography; and, in regard to aesthetics, it is not typical to have a house sit below a garage by several feet as it would make the garage appear dominant.
Concept Design Study Hearing: The following are recommendations made by the Planning Commission at the December 11, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, followed by a staff response evaluating how the applicant has revised the design to comply with the recommendations.
1. Per the City Forester's requirements, the applicant shall plant one new lower-canopy tree on the property prior to final building permit inspection.
Staff Response: The applicant has included a notation on the plans that a new lower-canopy tree will be planted 3 feet from the north side yard. The plans state that the owner will coordinate with the City Forester as to the species. Staff has drafted Condition of Approval #26 that, prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall specify the species of tree on the plans and that it must be from the City’s Recommended Tree Species List.
2. The 2-story addition and raised rear patio to the north of the redwood tree at the rear of the property shall be shifted to be at least 6’ back from the redwood tree.
Staff Response: The applicant has shifted the new portion of the addition and the new patio further from the tree, achieving 6’ from the addition and patio to the base of the redwood tree.
3. A volume study by the City’s consultant shall be conducted prior to final details review by the Planning Commission.
Staff Response: A volume study was conducted by the City’s volume consultant which found that the proposed volume of the residence is 20,097cubic feet. The proposed volume meets the City’s volume requirements since it is below the maximum allowed volume for this lot of 20,549 cubic feet.
4. The two-story stairway on the south side of the residence is not permitted to be located in the 3-foot side yard setback and must be eliminated or moved to a different location.
Staff Response: The applicant has removed the stairway on the south side of the residence from the proposal (refer to the site plan on sheet A1.0).
5. The applicant shall provide proof of insurance on the property’s existing, approved encroachment permit in order to maintain the foot bridge in the right-of-way.
Staff Response: Staff has drafted Condition of Approval #27 that proof of insurance on the encroaching bridge and railing be provided prior to building permit issuance.
6. Since the lower-floor of the garage was originally living space, is entirely enclosed, and has a floor to ceiling clearance of 5’ or more, this area either must be counted as floor area or the area must be limited to a ceiling height of no greater than 4’-11” so that it does not count as floor area and a cross section shall be shown on the plans.
Staff Response: There is currently a bathroom located in the area below the proposed detached garage. Sheet A7 of the plans provides Cross Section A-A which depicts that this existing bathroom will be back-filled with soil such that there will be no living space under the detached garage. However, the existing building wall, composed of stucco, will act as a retaining wall to retain the soil in this area, depicted in the elevation drawings on sheets A6.0 and A6.2 of the plans (Attachment 8).
7. Work with the south neighbor to resolve their privacy concern regarding the project’s two south-facing, 2nd-floor kitchen windows by raising their sill heights or installing clerestory windows at the roof gable.
Staff Response: At the December 11th Planning Commission meeting, the south neighbor submitted a letter of concern stating that the project's two kitchen windows on the upper-floor south elevation, “would negatively impact the privacy of our dining and kitchen areas and we would also be looking into their kitchen and living areas. We request that the applicant consider instead installing clerestory windows to be positioned high at the south gable which would allow morning sun into their kitchen without impacting their and our internal privacy.”
The east-most upper-floor kitchen window on the proposed project appears to overlap with the south neighbor’s upper floor dining and kitchen. The applicant has responded to the Commission’s recommendation and has raised the sill height of both windows by two feet from 3’-6” to 5’-6” from the interior floor which was accomplished by shortening the windows by 1' and by shifting the windows up 1’. Both windows are proposed to be clear glass. The south neighbor has reviewed the revised plans and states that the removal of the southern exterior stair case and the raising of the two smaller kitchen windows at the south wall satisfy their concerns.
8. Submit a shade study evaluating the shadow that will be cast by the project on the north neighbor’s residence.
Staff Response: At the December 11th Planning Commission meeting, the north neighbor submitted a letter of concern stating, “The physical profile of the addition is very daunting from our perspective in terms of its proximity to the property line and its height. It appears that the light on the south side of our house, where we have a guestroom, kitchen and master bath will be significantly adversely affected by the proposed addition.”
The north neighbor’s guestroom is single-story and has three windows that face south and west 3’ to 5’ from the property line. Staff notes that the north neighbor’s guestroom does not directly overlap with the addition and instead faces a large redwood tree on the project site. The wall of the project’s two-story residence is set back 7’ from the property line and the north neighbor’s guest bedroom is located approximately 3’ from the property line.
The applicant has prepared a shade study analyzing the impact of the shadow of the proposed addition on the north neighbor’s residence (Attachment 5). The shade study provides an analysis of the shadow cast upon the north neighbor’s guest bedroom window during the winter months when the sun is at its lowest. The study indicates that the shadow cast by the proposed two-story addition would affect the north neighbor’s three guest bedroom windows located 3’ from the property line from 2:00 pm to sunset, but not the north neighbor’s kitchen or upper-floor bathroom windows as these are located 26’ from the property line. Staff notes that the shade study does not include the impact of shading from existing trees. The last page of the shade study provides photographs illustrating that there are three upper-canopy trees (one on the applicant’s property, one on the north neighbor’s property and one in the right-of-way in front of the project site) with canopies that shade both the project site and the north neighbor’s guest bedroom windows. Due to the shading from existing upper-canopy trees, staff finds that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the north neighbor’s light.
9. Provide a sight line evaluation depicting a person standing on the rear upper-floor deck off of the living room, and their line of sight toward the north neighboring property.
Staff Response: The applicant has provided a line of sight diagram on sheet A1.2 of the plans. The 2nd floor rooftop deck is proposed to be 7’ x 18’-10” and located 7’-11” from the north property line. The walking surface will be 17 feet high. At the December 11th Planning Commission meeting, staff expressed a concern that the additional plate height granted by the variance would create an exceptionally high rear deck which could cause a privacy impact to the north neighbor. Additionally, the north neighbor expressed concern regarding the size (both out and up) of the new addition, its daunting physical profile, its proximity to the property line and its peak roof height of more than 23 feet, which he states is excessive.
The applicant’s line of sight diagrams on sheet A1.2 depict that views to the north from the deck would not directly overlap with the north neighbor’s lower-floor kitchen and laundry room windows; upper-floor water closet window; or, windows on the neighbor’s residence and garage/studio. The west side of the north neighbor’s exterior deck is within the line of sight of a person standing on the proposed deck facing north; however, the proposed deck is located 29’-11” from the neighbor’s deck. Additionally, the applicant’s photographs depicting the four trees on the north neighbor’s property demonstrate that existing vegetation helps to obscure views to the north which, in staff's opinion, provides a sufficient privacy buffer.
If the Commission is concerned about privacy to either the north or south neighboring property, a condition of approval can be imposed requiring the installation of opaque deck railing and a privacy lattice on the north and/or south sides of the deck. Alternatively, the Commission can require that additional vegetation be planted along the north property line.
OTHER PROJECT COMPONENTS:
Finish Details: Design Guideline 9.4 states, “Architectural details should appear to be authentic, integral elements of the overall building design concept.” Design Guideline 9.5 encourages the use of natural materials such as wood. Design Guideline 9.8 states, “Roof materials should be consistent with the architectural style of the building and with the context of the neighborhood."
Staff Analysis: The proposed residence would have stucco siding painted “Doeskin” and divided light, “Regal Brown” aluminum-clad wood windows and doors (refer to Attachment 8). A Cedur simulated wood shake roof composed of a synthetic material is also proposed (refer to Attachment 1). This synthetic roofing material was reviewed and approved by the roofing subcommittee and the Planning Commission in 2016 as an acceptable synthetic substitute for a wood shake roof. The roof fascia, headers, corbels and window trim are proposed to be natural wood with a semi-transparent “Mission Brown” stain. Copper gutters and downspouts are proposed. The existing wood railing of the encroaching entry bridge fronting on Monte Verde Street would be replaced with new wrought iron railing with redwood posts. The front patio and rear terrace will utilize light grey porcelain tiles. All reconfigured rock walls would re-use existing rock.
Exterior Lighting: Municipal Code Section 15.36.070.B.1 states that all exterior lighting attached to the main building shall be no higher than 10 feet above the ground and shall not exceed 25 watts (approximately 375 lumens). Landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts (approximately 225 lumens). Additionally, Residential Design Guideline 11.8, states “Use lights only where needed for safety and at outdoor activity areas. Appropriate locations may include building entries, gates, terraces, walkways and patios. Lights should not be used to accent buildings or vegetation. Use low lumen output bulbs. Floodlights and spotlights are inappropriate. Point lights downward to reduce glare and avoid "night pollution."
The applicant is proposing to install 8 new shielded, down-facing wall lights on the residence and the front of the detached garage. No landscape lighting is proposed. The maximum lumen level of the fixture complies with the City’s requirements as its lumen level is 288.2, while the maximum allowed is 375 lumens (Attachment 7 and sheet A1.1 of the plans in Attachment 8). Staff supports the proposed wall lighting.
Fence: The applicant is proposing to install a new 4’ high redwood picket fence with 4’ high stucco posts and redwood posts along the Monte Verde Street frontage (sheet A1.1 of the plans). The proposed fence height and materials comply with the City’s height requirements and the stucco posts appear in-scale with the residence and surrounding development.