Building Height:
At the previous hearing, it was identified that the proposed residence did not meet the height requirements (18’ - max.; 18’7” - proposed).
Figure 1a and 1b. Previously proposed west elevation (left) and revised west elevation (right).
The applicant has reduced the height (ridge) of the residence by approximately 1-foot by lowering the building plates throughout by approximately 1-foot. The new interior plate heights of the proposed dwelling is 8-feet whereas 9-feet was previously proposed. Similarly, the garage plates have been lowered by 0.5-feet to drop the roof ridge 0.5-feet and now maintains an interior plate of 7.5-feet whereas previously the garage plate maintained an interior plate height of 8-feet.
While the west elevation now complies with the height limits, the south elevation still exceeds the height limits (as discussed in the prior staff report). This discrepancy can be remedied by considering the south elevation as a two-story element and counting the underfloor area as floor area. This approach was discussed at the first concept hearing and was not objected to by the Commission.
As discussed at the first concept hearing, in accordance with Residential Design Guideline 3.3 (emphasis added in bold throughout), the applicant should “avoid the creation of tall, unused underfloor areas that add to building mass. The level of the finished floor above unused, underfloor spaces should not be higher than five feet above the ground at any point around the full perimeter of the building.” Residential Design Guideline 7.4 states, “Avoid the creation of large, unused underfloor areas that increase building mass. If floor levels cannot be stepped, larger underfloor spaces should be counted and used as part of the allowed floor area.” The project is still consistent with the Design Guidelines as the additional massing is not visible from the street and the building and is presented as a one-story structure from the right-of-way, as encouraged by the Design Guidelines.
Residential Design Guideline 7.4 is supported by the zoning code definition of a story, which qualifies underfloor space or crawl space are counted as a story where the finished floor above such space is five feet or more above the final grade adjacent to any exterior wall around the perimeter of the building, as well as the definition of floor area which states: ““Floor area” means the total gross square footage included within the surrounding exterior walls of all floors contained within all enclosed buildings on a building site whether finished or unfinished…” (CMC 17.70; CMC 17.10.030.D.1).
As such, the height of the south elevation will comply with the underlying zoning for a two story element, however, the underfloor area will need to be included in the floor area consistent with the analysis provided in the figures below.
Figure 2. South elevation; height exceeds one-story height limits, but does not exceed height limits for a two story building. Underfloor area is shaded in red.
A “story” includes: underfloor space or crawl space where the finished floor above such space is five feet or more above the final grade adjacent to any exterior wall. Underfloor area maintains height greater than 5 feet throughout.
In accordance with Residential Design Guideline 7.4, “larger underfloor spaces should be counted and used as part of the allowed floor area”
Figure 3. The finished floor level of the Residence is 376’ (elevation point). Five (5) feet below this point is elevation point 371’. All areas below elevation point 371’ would exceed 5’ in height and therefore would be considered a portion of a second story (this area is shaded in green; also refer to Figure 2, above).
Figure 4. The proposed crawlspace also includes a 108 square foot mechanical area. The area of the mechanical room, in addition to the addition underfloor area described in Figure 3, above, results in 149 square feet of floor area that shall be dedicated for the underfloor area for the residence.
Figure 5. Similar to the description of Figure 4, above, the garage also exceeds the plate height for a one-story element and the finished floor height is more than 5-feet above finished grade.
The finished floor level of the garage is 377.5’ (elevation point). Five (5) feet below this point is elevation point 372.5’. All areas below elevation point 372.5’ would exceed 5’ in height and therefore would be considered a portion of a second story (this area is shaded in green).
The area of the additional underfloor area described in Figure 5 results in 28 square feet of floor area that shall be dedicated for the underfloor area for the garage.
View Analysis:
Prior to the previous concept hearing, staff was not informed of any view impacts associated with the project. During the public hearing, a nearby neighbor made public comments expressing concerns regarding the view impacts associated with the project. Their concerns were shared with the applicant who made efforts to address their concerns concurrently with the design changes in respect to the heights (refer to discussion above -heights have been lowered approximately one-foot).
At the time of writing this report, staff has not been able to make a proper site visit to analyze the view impact to the neighbor. The neighbor has indicated that they will not be in-town prior to the meeting so staff has not been able to assess the view impacts from any windows or patio areas. Staff also offered a site visit for the Commission, however, the neighbor declined stating they will not be in town for the hearing and do not want anyone on their property without them present. Staff also offered to make an individual site visit just to the exterior portions of the residence, however, no response was received at the time of writing this report.
The neighbor did provide a photograph following the first concept hearing (refer to Figure 6, below), and based on the image, when the story poles are lowered by one-foot, as described above, the view impact from the photo appears to be minimal.
Staff did visit the site to assess the view impact from the right-of-way (story poles were in the process of being re-installed following a recent storm). Based on the assessment from the right-of-way, as well as from the photo provided by the neighbor, in staff’s opinion the potential view impact is minimal and consistent with Concept Study Finding #5 which states, in part, “The project is consistent with the City’s objectives for public and private views…”.
Public Views. Buildings shall be located and designed to preserve significant coastal views from the public right-of-way in conformance with Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act. The protection of public views should not prevent reasonable development of the site, yet development shall not preclude reasonable protection of any significant coastal view.
Private Views. Designs should respect views enjoyed by neighboring parcels. This objective is intended to balance the private rights to views from all parcels that will be affected by a proposed building or addition. No single parcel should enjoy a greater right than other parcels except the natural advantages of each site’s topography. Buildings which substantially eliminate an existing significant view enjoyed on another parcel should be avoided.
Figure 6. Photo provided by neighbor with view concern. Photo was provided following first concept hearing and shows view impact based on story poles based on initial design. Revised plans have been submitted which show the ridge reduced by approximately one-foot. Revised story poles (currently being reinstalled at the time of writing this report due to storm impacts) are approximately one-foot lower than shown in photo above -for reference, the snow netting (orange netting) is approximately 16-inches wide.
Public Correspondence: At the time of writing this report, staff has not received any additional applicable correspondence from neighbors that had not previously been provided to the Commission.