City of Lafayette Staff Report Design Review Commission

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "City of Lafayette Staff Report Design Review Commission"

Richard Burke
5 years ago
Views:

City of Lafayette Staff Report Design Review Commission Meeting Date: January 8, 2018 Staff: Subject: Sarah Allen, Senior Planner SS14-17 Dexter & Patricia Louie, (MRA Zoning) Request for a Study

1 City of Lafayette Staff Report Design Review Commission Meeting Date: January 8, 2018 Staff: Subject: Sarah Allen, Senior Planner SS14-17 Dexter & Patricia Louie, (MRA Zoning) Request for a Study Session to discuss the proposed demolition of six existing cottages and the construction of five new attached townhomes on a parcel located at 3624 Chestnut Street, APN Overview A study session is an opportunity for an applicant to informally discuss a contemplated project with the Design Review Commission and receive feedback on what is presented. It is not a formal application and no action to approve or deny a specific project will be taken at the study session. At a future date, the applicant may decide to submit a formal application for Design Review and additional public notification would be provided at that time. The level of design and extent of materials is commensurate with the preliminary and informal nature of a study session. Since no formal application is filed and deemed complete, staff does does not conduct a thorough analysis of the project in light of the Lafayette Municipal Code or make a recommendation to the Commission for action. Background Staff has no record of when the building was actually constructed; however, the parcel map shows the Bickerstaff Tract was recorded in 1918, which created the subject lot. There have been no formal applications on the property, only minor maintenance and repair. The Project The project involves demolishing the existing six (6) units onsite and redeveloping with five (5) units. The plans show a 2-story building, under the 35-ft. height limit. This application will require design review because it is located in a multi-family zoning district and the project will be visible from a public vantage point pursuant to section of the Lafayette Municipal Code (LMC). The Design Review Commission should speak to the overall organization of the site, relationship of the building to the street and the surrounding neighborhood, the schematic architecture and any aspect of the project that could affect the ability to make the findings listed below. The attached Framework for Review is also helpful in evaluating a project. Required Findings If a formal application is submitted, the hearing body must make the following findings in order to approve the project as it lies within a multi-family zoning district [ 6-275(A) LMC] Page 1 of 2

2 (1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare; (2) General site considerations, including site layout, open space and topography, orientation and location of buildings, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, fences, public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development; (3) General architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials, colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings; and (4) General landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, provisions for irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief, to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public. Staff Comments The MRA zoning district is the only district that requires a floor area ratio (FAR) calculation. The allowable floor area is based on the size of the lot. In this case the lot is 11,940 sq. ft. and the FAR is.31, so the square footage permitted would be 3,701 sq. ft. Based on a preliminary review of the application materials staff finds the project may require an exception or variance to the FAR requirements outlined in the MRA zoning regulations. The applicant can request an increase of up to 0.4 FAR (or 4,776 sq. ft. in this case); however, the request is a variance application that requires review by the Planning Commission. Recommendation Provide feedback to the applicant. This is an informational item and no formal action will be taken. Attachments 1. Location Maps 2. MRA Zoning Regulations 3. Framework for Review 4. Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Excerpt - Neighborhoods 5. Applicant Narrative & Submittals 6. Project Plans received December 20, 2017 Page 2 of 2

12/22/2017. 3624 Chestnut Street APN 243-101-028 300 feet 2017 Digital Map Products.

12/22/2017. 3624 Chestnut Street APN 243-101-028 40 feet 2017 Digital Map Products.

5 Planning & Building Department 3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 210 Lafayette, CA Tel. (925) Fax (925) MRA Multiple-family Residential District A General Purpose Uses permitted Uses requiring a permit Lot area Floor area ratio (FAR) Lot width Lot depth Height Setback Side yards Rear yard Lot coverage Open space Planted open space Private open space Parking Reserved Design review Modifiable sections. NOTE: The City has other regulations, which may affect individual properties, including, but not limited to hillside development, structures over 17-ft. in height, development in excess of 6,000 sq. ft., tree protection, grading, and public art. Please review the Project Checklist available on the City of Lafayette web site at for an overview of regulations that might apply. You may consult Planning & Building Department staff to ascertain which rules and regulations apply to any given project.

6 Multiple-family Residential District A General. All land in the multiple-family residential district A (map symbol M-R-A) shall be used in accordance with the provisions of this article. (Ord (part), 1975) Purpose. The purpose of this article is to provide a multiple-family residential district which allows a varied mix of housing types within the core area of the city convenient to central business areas and public transit, and regulations there for, development of which will be consistent with and further the city's overall planning objective of the preservation and enhancement of its semi rural residential character. The regulations in this article are intended to require carefully conceived plans; to preserve natural settings and open space; to achieve the optimum in quality development, preservation of the environment, enhancement of the tax base, and beneficial use of available land; and to provide for development which is consistent with the goals and policies and other provisions of the general plan. (Ord , 1982: Ord (part), 1975) Uses permitted. The following uses are permitted in the M-R-A district: (a) A detached single-family dwelling on each lot and the accessory structures and uses normally auxiliary to it; (b) Duplex; (c) Multiple-family building; (d) A home occupation; (e) Consultative services in buildings which contain such uses on November 30, 1982, and for which the main building permit was issued prior to June 1, 1982, provided there is no future conversion of residential use to office use; (f) Medical services in buildings which contain such uses on November 30, 1982 and for which the main building permit was issued prior to June 1, 1982, provided there is no future conversion of residential use to medical services; (g) Limited child care; (h) Supportive care pursuant to LMC. (Ord , 1982: Ord (part), 1975) Uses requiring a permit. In the M-R-A district the following uses are permitted on the issuance of a land use permit: (a) Residential businesses; (b) Community assembly and education; (c) Publicly owned buildings and structures, except as provided in Section 6-516; (d) Day-care and educational services; (e) Eleemosynary and philanthropic institutions; (f) Uses which the planning commission has found, after notice and hearing, to be comparable to the above uses. (Ord , 1982: Ord (part), 1975) Lot area. No new lots may be created in the M-R-A district smaller than 10,000 square feet in area. (Ord (part), 1975) Floor area ratio (FAR).

7 (a) The maximum gross floor area for dwelling units which may be allowed shall be in accordance with the following chart. To determine the floor area allowed, the floor area ratio (FAR) is multiplied by the lot size, measured in square feet. (b) The planning commission may increase the FAR of a lot under 20,000 square feet in size to a FAR of.40 if it finds that the lot cannot feasibly be merged with a contiguous lot to form a larger parcel. (c) Small size, studio and one-bedroom units are encouraged. Lot Size (Square Feet) F.A.R. At Least Less Than 10, ,000 11, ,000 12, ,000 13, ,000 14, ,000 15, ,000 16, ,000 17, ,000 18, ,000 19, ,000 20, ,000 21, ,000 22, ,000 23, ,000 24, ,000 25, ,000 26, ,000 27, ,000 28, ,000 29, ,000 30, ,000 31, ,000 32, ,000 33, ,000 34, ,000 35, ,000 36, ,000 37, ,000 38, ,000 39, ,000 40, ,000 50, ,000 60, ,000 70, ,000 80, , (Ord , 1982: Ord (part), 1975) Lot width.

8 No new lots may be created in the M-R-A district with an average width of less than 80 feet. (Ord (part), 1975) Lot depth. No new lots may be created in the M-R-A district with a depth of less than 90 feet. (Ord (part), 1975) Height. On lots in the M-R-A district smaller than 30,000 square feet in area, no building shall exceed 25 feet in height. On lots not less than 30,000 square feet in area, no building may exceed 35 feet in height. Any building exceeding 25 feet in height shall be reviewed by the planning commission so as to ensure that its height and proportions are compatible with other buildings in the vicinity, and that it is favorably located in relation to topographic conditions in a manner that visually attenuates its height. (Ord , 1982: Ord (part), 1975) Setback. There shall be a minimum setback (front yard) of at least 20 feet for any structure in the M-R-A district. On corner lots the principal frontage of the lot shall have a setback of at least 20 feet and the other setback shall be at least 15 feet. (Ord , 1982: Ord (part), 1975) Side yards. There shall be a minimum side yard of at least ten feet for any structure in the M-R-A district. For a three-story building there shall be an average side yard of at least 20 feet, with a minimum side yard of ten feet. These minima may be reduced to three feet for an accessory building or structure if it is set back at least 50 feet from the front property line and from any street line. (Ord , 1982: Ord (part), 1975) Rear yard. There shall be a minimum rear yard of at least 15 feet for any principal structure in the M-R-A district. There shall be a rear yard of at least three feet for any accessory structure. (Ord , 1982: Ord (part), 1975) Lot coverage. There shall be a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent in the M-R-A district. Lot coverage includes all buildings and structures. (Ord , 1982: Ord (part), 1975) Open space. A minimum of 45 percent of the ground level of the lot shall not be occupied by buildings, structures or pavement for automobiles, but shall be maintained as open space, and devoted to landscaping. Open space includes planted open space, and may include ground-level private open space. (Ord , 1982: Ord (part), 1975) Planted open space. A minimum of 20 percent of the ground level of a lot in the M-R-A district shall be planted and maintained with growing plants. To qualify as planted open space, an area must have a minimum dimension of 15 feet. Planted open space may include ground-level private open space if the latter has a minimum dimension of 15 feet. The 20 percent of the lot which must be planted open space is part of the 45 percent of the lot which must be open space. (Ord , 1982: Ord (part), 1975) Private open space.

9 A private patio, balcony or other open area shall be provided for each dwelling unit in the M-R- A district. This private open space shall be equal to or greater than ten percent of the floor area of each dwelling unit, and in no case shall be smaller than 100 square feet. The minimum dimension of this private open space shall be five feet. (Ord , 1982: Ord (part), 1975) Parking. (a) In the M-R-A district, off-street parking shall be provided on the same lot, convenient to all dwelling units, in accordance with the following schedule: (1) One-bedroom units, 1.0 spaces per unit; (2) Two-bedroom units, 1.2 spaces per unit; (3) Three or more bedroom units, 1.5 spaces per unit. (b) In addition, one guest parking space shall be provided for each five dwelling units. A minimum of one parking space per unit shall be covered. (Ord (part), 1975) Reserved Design review. All new construction and all remodeling of a structure when the completed new work will be visible from public property, or when the nature of the use will be changed, shall be subject to the design review requirements and procedures set forth in Part 1 of this title. (Ord (d) (part), 1984: Ord (part), 1975) Modifiable sections. Land use permits for the special uses enumerated in Section and variance permits to modify the provisions of Sections to 6-838, inclusive, may be granted in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 6-1 of this title. (Ord (part), 1975)

10 Framework for Review & Discussion of a Project 1. Context (a) Compatibility with neighborhood (b) Privacy (c) Views (d) Visibility 2. Site (a) Site plan (b) Access / parking (c) Location of buildings (d) Accessory buildings (e) Grading (f) Open space (g) Outdoor living space 3. Building (a) Design concept (b) Height / Bulk / Mass (c) Articulation 4. Landscape (a) Concept (b) Layout (c) Planting vs. Hardscape 5. Details (a) Colors & materials (b) Exterior lighting (c) Walls and fences (d) Drainage (e) Plant materials

Downtown Residential Neighborhoods The neighborhoods adjacent to the commercial areas of the downtown are part of the DSP because of their proximity to downtown services, transit, and

11 Downtown Residential Neighborhoods The neighborhoods adjacent to the commercial areas of the downtown are part of the DSP because of their proximity to downtown services, transit, and amenities. They provide affordable housing and a variety of housing types. The aim of the DSP is to protect these neighborhoods. Figure 12. Downtown Residential Neighborhoods DOWNTOWN CHARACTER

12 The Existing Context Downtown Neighborhoods Neighborhood I: Mountain View Drive / West Road. There is a mix of onestory single-family homes and multifamily townhouse developments. On the north side of West Road there are a few single-family homes and a long masonry wall separating the neighborhood from the office buildings along Mount Diablo Boulevard. On the south side and at the end of the street there are two clusters of townhouses. The small homes probably date from the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, and they retain the character of these years. The townhouses are from the 1980s; they reflect the style of the time with wood shingles. There are fewer trees along Mountain View Drive than along West Road, which has a number of redwood trees around the townhouses. Mountain View Drive to Brook Street is sometimes used as a Mount Diablo Boulevard bypass. There are gaps in the walkway improvements along the west side of Mountain View Drive. West Road is private with no throughtraffic, but there are walkway improvements in sections near the newer development. Neighborhood II: Brook Street / Hough Avenue. The predominant land use is smaller scale multifamily residential with townhouses and apartments dating from the 1940s through early 2000s. There are single family homes in the Walnut / Chestnut Streets area, some of which are small enough to be considered cottages. The civic use is Brook Street Park. Because the lots are small, the feel of the neighborhood is fairly dense. The density, traditional architecture, abundance of trees, narrow streets, and occasional walkways form the neighborhood s character. Most of the neighborhood has narrow residential streets and occasional gaps in the walkways. Hough Avenue and Dewing Avenue provide back door access to the Downtown Core. Neighborhood III: Carol Lane. The predominant use in this neighborhood is multifamily residential. Lafayette Highlands is a rental apartment complex off Carol Lane. There are townhouses on Marlene Drive. Both developments date from the 1960s-1970s. Along Carol Lane between the Highlands driveway and Marlene Drive, there are residential and office uses. What the DSP Proposes Downtown Neighborhoods Neighborhood I. This neighborhood will provide a medium-density townhouse residential area at a physical scale compatible with nearby residential areas. Office and retail uses will not be allowed except for home occupations. The older single-family homes will be encouraged to be maintained and offer an affordable housing option. If redevelopment were to occur by combining parcels, lower intensity multifamily uses will be appropriate as a transition between the commercial uses along Mount Diablo Boulevard and the residential uses to the south. Its natural setting and open space will be preserved. Neighborhood II. This neighborhood will offer a varied mix of housing types as well as other uses at a scale that does not detract from its residential character. It is important to preserve and promote a diversity of housing types and affordability for the downtown and community. This neighborhood is a valuable resource for making living in Lafayette more accessible, especially for young families who wish to send their children to nearby schools and for seniors who wish to be close to downtown services and amenities. The neighborhood also presents the opportunity to create housing types for residents that want to walk to stores, BART, and the Library and Learning Center while living in a small traditional neighborhood. If redevelopment were to occur by combining parcels, lower intensity multifamily uses will be appropriate. Neighborhood III. Given the age and type of existing development, it is unlikely that this neighborhood will change over the next 20 years. It should be maintained as a multifamily neighborhood with a variety of options for affordable housing. 4. DOWNTOWN CHARACTER 51

Policy 2.25 Program 2.25.1 Program 2.25.2 Program 2.25.3 Downtown Residential - Land Use. Offer a variety of affordable housing choices within easy walking distance of the downtown and BART.

Amend the Zoning Ordinance as necessary to promote residential development and prohibit office uses with the intent of retaining and encouraging the eclectic mix of residential types and defining the

13 Policy 2.25 Program Program Program Downtown Residential - Land Use. Offer a variety of affordable housing choices within easy walking distance of the downtown and BART. Neighborhood I. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow only the development of townhouses and single-family residences. Neighborhood II. Amend the Zoning Ordinance as necessary to promote residential development and prohibit office uses with the intent of retaining and encouraging the eclectic mix of residential types and defining the neighborhood boundaries to prevent the encroachment of non-residential uses. Neighborhood III. Maintain the current zoning since this neighborhood is built out. Policy 2.26 Policy 2.27 Downtown Residential Density. The maximum residential density is: Neighborhood I 17 units per acre Neighborhood II a portion is 17 units per acre and a portion is 35 units per acre* Neighborhood III a portion is 17 units per acre and a portion is 35 units per acre* Downtown Residential - Building Height. The maximum height is: Neighborhood I 25 feet Neighborhood II a portion is 25 feet and a portion is 35 feet Neighborhood III a portion is 25 feet and a portion is 35 feet Policy 2.28 Downtown Residential - Pedestrian Experience. Strengthen the pedestrian connections between the neighborhoods and the downtown to ensure safety and accessibility while maintaining the quiet, residential quality of these neighborhoods. *For more information, see the Zoning Ordinance DOWNTOWN CHARACTER

14 City of Lafayette Planning Department Attention: Julia Koopman Norton 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Suit #210 Lafayette, CA Dear Julia We recently met with City Staff on November 14, 2017 to review requirements and verify our assumptions regarding the development standards for 3624 Chetstnut Street in Lafayette for the property owner, Dr. Dexter Louie. We would like to finalize our application and submit for a Study Session concurrent with our full Design Review application for 3624 Chestnut Street. Please provide a fee summary for the Study Session and we will remit a check directly. I am providing the proposed plans including the following sheets A0- Cover Sheet Summary of Development Standards for the Project A1-Architectural Site Plan A2-Site Coverage Open Space A3-Unit 1 Floorplans A4-Unit 2 Floorplans A5-First Floorplan A6-Second Floorplan A8-Front Elevation A9-Exterior Elevations Property: Location: Development Status: General Plan/Zoning:.28 Acre Site with 6 Single Story Cottage Units 3624 Chestnut Street APN: Cottages MRA -Multifamily Residential District A Site and Project Description The.28 acre subject property is located in the Downtown Lafayette Neighborhood on the north side of Chestnut Street, in close proximity to downtown Lafayette, Contra Costa County. The property is in the MRA zone, with MRT zoning to the east, R-6 to the west, C to the north, and R10 to the south. The project proposes deconstruction of the 6 existing structures, and the construction of 5 new attached units-buildings complying with the MRA Zone. Our project is fairly well developed at this point, and we would like to move forward with the approval process. Our Application Form is attached. Pacific Crest Builders Inc

15 Satellite Imagery Street View of Site: Pacific Crest Builders Inc

16 Architectural Site Plan Proposed Pacific Crest Builders Inc

17 Please provide a fee summary for the Study Session and we will remit directly. Feel free to contact me directly with any questions. Best regards, Jeff Randolph Pacific Crest Builders, Inc. jeff@pacificcrestbuilders.com (925) CC: Dr. Dexter and Patricia Louie, Owners Ralph Strauss, Strauss Design Group Chris Michel, Strauss Design Group Pacific Crest Builders Inc

8.5.1 R1, Single Detached Residential District

8.5.1 R1, Single Detached Residential District The purpose of this district is to provide for residential development in the form of single detached dwellings. Dwelling, Single Detached Home Business,