Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC_2013-02-13_AgendaPacketCALL TO ORDER CITY OF ATASCA DER 0 DESIGN RE VIE W COMMITTEE A GENDA Committee Meeting Wednesday, February 13, 2013 3:30 P.M. City Hall Conference Room 4 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, California Roll Call: Chairperson, Roberta Fonzi Committee Member, Bob Kelley Committee Member, Chuck Ward Committee Member, Christian Cooper Committee Member, Susan DeCarli APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF DRAFT ACTION MINUTES OF JANUARY 31, 2013 ©Find us on Wto://www.facebook.com/i)lanninoatascadero Facebo City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Agenda DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW Regular Meeting, February 13, 2013 Page 2 of 2 2. PLN 2007-1233,8389-8403 AMAPOA CONDO MAP AMENDMENT Property Puma Financial, LLC, 8251 Toloso Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 Owner/Applicant: Project Title: PLN 2007-1233 / DRC 2012-0023 Project Location: 8389-8403 Amapoa Ave., Atascadero, CA 93422 (APN 031-241-019) San Luis Obispo County Project Proposed Tentative Subdivision Map amendment for an additional two (2) air space Description: condos in connection with an approved six (6) air space condo tentative map. DRC to review proposed site plan and architectural elevation revisions. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (HDR) Zoning: Residential Multi -Family RMF -20 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND REPORTS DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting of the Design Review Committee will be held on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 3: 30 p.m. Agendas, Minutes and Staff Reports are available online at www.atascadero.or? under City Officials & Commissions, Design Review Committee. ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 2-13-13 CITY OF A TASCADERO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Regular Meeting — Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 6:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, California CALL TO ORDER — 6:00 p.m. Chairperson Fonzi called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Fonzi, Committee Members Kelley, Ward, Cooper, and DeCarli Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Warren Frace Senior Planner Callie Taylor Assistant Planner Alfredo Castillo Fire Chief Kurt Stone Fire Marshal Tom Peterson Director of Public Works Russ Thompson Deputy Director of Public Works -Engineering David Athey Others Present: Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group Property Owners Greg Smith & Jeff Smith, Eagle Ranch Approximately 60-80 people in the audience APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: By Committee Member Kelley and seconded by Committee Member Ward to approve the Agenda. Motion passed 5.0 by a roll -call vote. PUBLIC COMMENT None Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes January 31, 2013 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF DRAFT ACTION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2012 Page 2 of 9 MOTION: By Committee Member Ward and seconded by Committee Member Kelley to approve the consent calendar. Motion passed by unanimous vote. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW — RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 2. PLN 2008-1280, EAGLE RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN The DRC will be reviewing the latest project proposal and will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the project is ready to begin the EIR process. Property Owners: Greg Smith, Jeff Smith, Eagle Ranch LLC, PO Box 25010, Ventura, CA 93002 Applicant: RRM Design Group, 3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project Title: PLN 2008-1280, Eagle Ranch Specific Plan Project Project Location: Atascadero's southern boundary Project The Project: The Eagle Ranch project includes applications for a General Plan Description: Amendment, Specific Plan and Annexation for a 3,450 +/- acre area located on Atascadero's southern boundary. Current Proposed Project Statistics: ❑ 494 single-family lots • '/� —1 acre: 72 lots (mostly merchant built) • 1 — 5 acre: 387 lots (semi -custom and custom homes) • 5 — 20 acre: 35 lots (custom homes) ❑ 93 multifamily & mixed-use units located at Village Center: • 79 senior housing units (19 of those would be affordable units) • 12 workforce housing units (condo/townhome style) • 2 mixed-use units (affordable units located above commercial) ❑ Resort Hotel: (42.4 acres) at historic ranch headquarters • 100 rooms • Full service resort, spa & equestrian center ❑ Highway Commercial (15.2 acres) • 200 room, 2-3 story hotel • Conference center and event area • Full service restaurant on adjacent parcel ❑ Village Center: (1.8 acres) • 15,000 square feet of neighborhood retail & offices & mail center ❑ Public Park: 10.7 acres ❑ Equestrian Staging Area: 1.5 acres ❑ Public Trails: 16.3 miles total • Class 1 Multi -use Path; 3.9 miles, 8' wide, paved, along main loop • Unpaved trail: 9.7 multiuse trails, mostly along existing ranch roads Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes January 31, 2013 Page 3 of 9 throughout project and to Santa Margarita Hwy 101 underpass • National Forest Connector Trail: 2.7 miles, single track from the ALPS site near 3 Bridges to the Los Padres National Forest ❑ Open Space: 2,510 acres (73.2% of the project site) • Includes 2,239 acres of open area, mostly for cattle grazing • 271 acres of private ownership open space ("no -build" areas) Purpose: At the January 31st DRC meeting, the Committee will review the applicant's latest project proposal. Public comments received at the December 13, 2012 Neighborhood Workshop will be discussed. The DRC will be making a recommendation to the City Council regarding beginning the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The public is encouraged to attend the DRC meeting, and there will be an opportunity for public comment. Director Frace gave a brief presentation on the Design Review Committee at its role as it relates to the Planning Commission and City Council. The final decision to move this project forward to the EIR process will be on February 26, 2013, at a joint Planning Commission/ City Council meeting. The project has been redesigned since it was presented to the public last year. The redesigned project will be presented tonight by the applicant. The overall design remains more or less the same but the lot sizes have increased. The most recent meeting was on December 13, 2012, and during that meeting, there were four breakout groups; each group went through a process to list their concerns and priorities. In general, the key issues discussed were about neighborhood traffic impacts, project character and compatibility, and discussion about the trail system. All of these issues would be analyzed in the EIR. Steve Weinberger from W -Trans is the traffic engineer consulting on the EIR. Director Frace showed the latest traffic numbers. Staff is looking for direction and a recommendation from the DRC tonight in regards to a Class 1 walkable trail along Atascadero Avenue. Director Frace explained what a Class 1 trail is. Director Frace answered questions from the DRC members and then introduced Victor Montgomery from RRM Design Group. Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group, made a presentation on the project. Mr. Montgomery showed slides and the progression of the lot sizes and site plans, and how it has evolved through a series of neighborhood meetings. He explained major points of the project including the following: • Single Family Lot Types • Project Entry Designs • The Village Center • Multi -family housing • 79 -unit senior housing • Workforce housing • Affordable housing • 100 -room equestrian -oriented resort hotel • 10 -acre park with a small amphitheater • Highway Commercial Area • Meeting and conference area in addition to conference rooms in the hotel Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes January 31, 2013 Page 4 of 9 • Events lawn area • Restaurant • Trails • Equestrian Staging area This new plan has 494 lots; 186 fewer single-family lots than previously presented. 73% of the Ranch is proposed as permanent open space, much more than the existing lots would provide. Mr. Montgomery explained setbacks on the different types of lots and how some lots have a no -build area or designated building envelope. He also explained the Phasing Map and the Atascadero Avenue design objectives. The Post Office will not deliver mail to individual homes in the Eagle Ranch project, so mail will be picked -up at the Village Center. Mr. Montgomery answered questions from the DRC members. The EIR process would take about a year, and then it would go to Planning Commission and City Council before going to Annexation hearings with the County and LAFCO. Chairperson Fonzi explained that she would open public comment in sections so that the public could comment on one portion of the project at a time. PUBLIC COMMENT The following people spoke during the public comment: Atascadero Ave North Entry Cora -Ortega increased traffic concerns Terry Grebel - Atascadero Road traffic and safety concerns Gary Thompson - Atascadero Ave/San Diego Road exit, noise, speed, traffic Nancy Spitzer - flood concerns (Exhibit A) Atascadero Ave So Entry Lenora Shealy— Lives across from main entrance; concerned with traffic, noise and lights Susan Tishu - Eagle Creek, concerned with traffic being pushed south to Santa Barbara Staighth Smith - Colorado Road - wants options explored Jack McCabe - cyclist concerned about traffic and project not ready to move forward to EIR Dan C'arinc Deb Dide - San Rafael concerned with traffic numbers, road, culvert, road widening Cyndi Spain — concerned with no traffic study on San Carlos and is County keeping taxes? Matt Gillette - San Carlos traffic and Los Osos yield problem, proposed utilities, phases. Upper San Diego Road Red Heesch - filed comments in supplemental packet, concerned that new road to be open will be feeding Eagle Ranch traffic into neighborhood. Sandy Jack - San Diego Road connection, public parking in neighborhood, safety concerns, trailhead concerns Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes January 31, 2013 Page 5 of 9 Jim Dubois — If Fire Department has to have an exit, why do they have to have a 2 -way road? Encouraged members to look at the property, wants a single road for 2nd access into the ranch. George Merritt — Is the Fire Department going to be increased in size? Do we have the resources? He was here for the Hwy 41 fire. Visual Character/Road, Highway Commercial/Bikeway Trails Sraight Smith — how close is the hotel to the residential area? Kelley Hughes — Colorado Road — a lot of empty homes, what is retail occupancy rate with hotels? Can our City support this development? Jack McCabe — Hotel is at the City's request; have market studies been done? Phasing/Affordable Housing None Traffic - General John Daley — When San Rafael becomes a feeder, people will use Colorado Road to Santa Rosa which will be increased traffic on Santa Rosa interchange. Serious concerns with the traffic there. Diana Larsen — Existing lots on San Rafael are minimum 3 '/z acres. RRM has been cooperating; traffic concern on San Rafael if becomes shortcut to Atascadero Ave., how will phasing be maintained with future developers? Karen Borden — Concerned San Rafael will feed all the people from 3F meadows to HWY101; need stop signs & no speed bumps, please slow traffic on San Rafael. Jack McCabe — Traffic impacts are greater because you have increased density Paul Hyman — Applicant takes too much credit for changing inflated density. Density is directly related to traffic. Project as a Whole Paul Hyman — City, applicant and neighbors have worked hard but there is a communication failure. Project has not changed much. Wants a smaller project. Should have no granny units. He has a petition (Exhibit B — not received by Recording Secretary) with 20 signatures he asked to be put into the record. Lenora Shealy — Wants to know what this will do to property values, sales prices. Chris Smith — Supports Paul Hyman and Jack McCabe and is concerned with density. Lots on Los Osos are too skinny, not consistent with neighboring lots Jack McCabe — Values our Atascadero neighborhoods. Existing los have little developable value; this project is a win fall for owners. Property values go down, not enough time for EIR. Twyla Martin — Read two more paragraphs from Paul Hyman's petition. John Daley — LAFCO must be involved and not be a shadow process Gary Thompson — Concerned with rural nature, Atascadero Avenue should not be an express route. Jody Smith — Property values will decrease, please listen to our comments. Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes January 31, 2013 Page 6 of 9 Exhibit C — Mitch Paskin letter turned in Exhibit D — Doug Piirto letter turned in Exhibit E — Patti Davis comment letter turned in Chairperson Fonzi closed the Public Comment period. Russ Thompson answered questions in regards to traffic calming incorporated in to Atascadero Avenue. There will be no rumble strips; talked about crosswalks being raised to slow traffic down. Victor Montgomery answered concerns regarding headlights. The median is anticipated to be landscaped. This should screen the lights and we are creating bigger distance. Ms. Spitzer's flood issues (Exhibit A) will be addressed in the EIR. Russ said there are existing flooding problems now. The City is aware of this and increased drainage will be studied and mitigated. The developer cannot increase the natural flow, so there will be storm water detention and retention on site. Russ Thompson talked about traffic oriented towards the south entrance. The tradeoff is that there will be a great deal of traffic and that road will be widened. Part of the EIR will incorporate this, and the road will be constructed to handle this traffic safely. We will look at alternatives that won't force all traffic to the south. Victor Montgomery answered questions about cyclists and safety and said there will be a bike path. We have not studied it in detail, but we anticipate we will accommodate this traffic. Russ Thompson addressed the concerns with the San Rafael and San Carlos entrance/exits. Russ said that San Carlos is currently acts as a driveway, and that portion will be upgraded to current City standards. Roads internal to the project will be maintained privately. San Rafael will most likely be publicly maintained. He explained the turning movements in the traffic study at San Carlos. Utilities will be extended and there will most likely be natural gas on the ranch property. Russ Thompson addressed issues in regards to traffic impacts and culverts and stated the City recently did the citywide culvert assessment. Traffic studies still show that most of traffic goes to Santa Barbara Road interchange instead of Santa Rosa interchange. When a final traffic report is done, those issues will come into better focus. Kurt Stone talked about road standards on San Diego Road and explained why a secondary access point is so important and mandated by Code. In the EIR, traffic will be looked at and how that relates to the Fire Department access and a 1 -way road. He explained that having a 2 -lane road minimizes vehicle accidents that could block the road in an emergency. This is going to fix an existing safety problem. Putting a gate will create a problem; a through access road is the only option in his opinion. The Fire Department is open to ideas for a Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes January 31, 2013 Page 7 of 9 better solution and can study those in the EIR. This road is currently scheduled for Phase 8, possibly 10+ years out. Victor Montgomery said that granny units have not been studied in traffic updates thus far. They do not have dramatic effects but they will be looked at. Director Frace said that the City allows them, however, we don't see huge numbers being built. We can definitely look at this during the EIR process. Victor Montgomery answered questions about lots that are too skinny and shared driveways. Shared driveways are appropriate solution. Director Frace explained how the LAFCO process will be handled. After we have completed our process, the project will go to LAFCO for a final decision. Russ Thompson addressed the fatalities on the "S" curve on Atascadero Avenue. This portion of the road will be straightened out and traffic should slow down there and the median will have some traffic calming effects. This will also be studied in the EIR. Chairperson Fonzi adjourned the meeting for a break at 8:30 p.m. Chairperson Fonzi readjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. COMMITTEE DELIBERATIONS Susan DeCarli — • Park and Ride Lot near equestrian -stage area? • Atascadero trail gap — needs clarification Director Frace explained that a detached trail may have more flexibility. Transition at Ortega needs study. Area between Ortega & South entrance does not provide trail. MOTION: By Committee Member DeCarli and seconded by Committee Member Cooper to direct staff to look at doing a Class 1 trail along entire Atascadero Avenue Ranch property frontage. Motion passed by 5.0 by a roll call vote. Susan DeCarli • Talked about wanting the process for the EIR to move forward • Some smaller lots could provide a broader range in diversity of housing types and would like to have this as an alternative scenario. • Senior housing component is not a good fit because this is an isolated location. • Project lacks housing diversity (adding back homes most people could afford to buy.) Chuck Ward Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes January 31, 2013 Page 8 of 9 • Tax split between the County vs. the City. Director Frace explained the annexation policy and said that the county keeps all property taxes as of the day the project is sold and then the City gets 1/3. Council is concerned with the fiscal analysis and cost of services. The City will be starting the process with the County of San Luis Obispo to renegotiate the agreement and a decision will be up to the County Board of Supervisors. • Does the City have enough fire equipment to take on the increased area? Fire Chief Stone explained that it depends on the type of emergency and mutual aid system. He has seen this plan go through several modifications and it's a great project. In regards to homeowners who are concerned, he believes the developers will do it right and it's a wonderful project. Bob Kelley • We have all been to the meetings since 2008, and some changes that have come about have been ideas from all of us, including council members. He believes it is ready to go on to the EIR. • Addressed Committee Member DeCarli's concerns about housing; there are many small lot and starter home developments being constructed in the City already. Christian Cooper • Asked about San Carlos and San Rafael trips and Director Frace answered his questions. • Believes the project should move on to the EIR and understands neighbor's concerns. He thanked the public for their participation in the process. Roberta Fonzi • There are many things that need to be looked at in the EIR. • There are really good trails and open space proposed • The public will have an opportunity to comment again. • We need to look at all of the options. • She shares the public concerns and also treasures Eagle Ranch and the viewscape. • She is in agreement with Committee member DeCarli about a greater range of workforce housing options. • Fire protection is a large concern. MOTION: By Committee Member Ward and seconded by Committee Member Kelley to recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council that the project move forward to the EIR phase with options to look at additional workforce housing alternatives. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes January 31, 2013 Page 9 of 9 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND REPORTS None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Discussion about moving DRC meetings from Thursdays to the Wednesdays after the Tuesday City Council meetings. The committee was in consensus to change the DRC meetings from Thursdays to Wednesdays. ADJOURNMENT - 9:12 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED BY: Annette Manier Recording Secretary The following exhibits are available in the Community Development Department: Exhibit A -Nancy Spitzer email and exhibits Exhibit B - Petition not received by Recording Secretary Exhibit C - Mitch Paskin Exhibit D - Doug Piirto Exhibit E - Patti Davis Comment Card t:\- design review committee\minutes\minutes 2013\draft action minutes 1-31-13.docx t:\- design review committee\minutes\minutes 2013\draft action minutes 1-31-13.docx ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 2-13-13 ' Atascadero Design Review Committee "i979`- Report In Brief - Communityp Development Department -- 1 Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP, (805) 470-3436, acastillo@atascadero.org PLN 2007-1233 Amapoa Condo Tentative Tract Map Amendment/Redesign Owner: Puma Financial LLC Address: 8389-8399 Amapoa Ave. (6 Units) Project #: PLN -2007-1233 DRC 2012-0023 General Plan: High Density Residential (HDR) Zoning: Residential Multi -Family (RMF 20) Project Area: Approved 6 Air Space Condos; Proposed 2 Additional Air Space Condos for 8 Units Total Existing Use: I Vacant 1013 03130.1016ffi1�2x3-013 ffi10 _ 031.11301>QIt-2x1018 031.2aJ0,5 1, a• S 80'5 r. xd ML 01,.241.00, ffi]8 WI -2p-002 8110 .17 8385 47I?yyU! ffiOt 03,.211 031-2x3003 —3 031.2aJ.00A•, ❑ Appearance Review of revised Condo Elevation for additional 2 Units including proposed car ports and additional outdoor living area ❑ Color scheme and materials discussion ❑ DRC to review and provide direction on applicant proposed change driveway material change from decorative and colored concrete to asphalt ❑ DRC may recommend to planning commission project approval with modifications; DRC may recommend an additional review based on comments to review applicant revisions I ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 2-13-13 Background: In August 2008, the Planning Commission approved a six (6) air space condominium Tentative Tract Map at 8391 Amapoa Avenue. At the time of project approval, the zoning of the property was RMF -16. The project consisted of six (6) new residences as duplexes, with three total structures. Two of the units were proposed to be 1,525 square feet and the remaining four units were proposed to be 2,102 square feet. Each unit proposed either a one or a two car attached garage, providing a total of ten parking spaces. Three (3) guest parking spaces were provided towards the northeast area of the lot. Decorative colored concrete was proposed to be used on the driveway area in order to visually enhance the parking court and was included as a part of the conditions of approval. ..— P ane Syenmpra (Typ) Cape MY— Rpa.m.ry W D Z W Q 0 R—ry Q Q L-1 Plana Sycam.a (TyP( Cao. MMM 2008 Approved Site Plan ,. k-3 P—t. SPece. 1 TUPIta >rlva(e SpYce —;6 Pmete Sp . �:�. _ x , r BUILDING C i� � � �y ry, Cda.tlCaicrdeOrivexay i ✓i� iinat u"" z . T+. x. BUILDING A _n t Prnete Spece c rte.. L 2 SPece .. • r CO V Z _J tMa6 m u i Uni; 6 P'Iveta space The original project approval contained buildings having fairly large massing, but the units were proposed to be broken up through a variety of roof pitches, pop outs, and porches on each unit. Architectural details such as shutters, window trim, and trellis features over the garages were included. The windows were scaled appropriately for the elevations and include clusters of traditional hung windows and grouping or architecturally compatible square windows. The front and sides of the buildings include stone veneer banding on the lower portion of the fagade. The garage doors were conditioned to be architectural grade and shall be painted a color compatible with the color scheme the approved color scheme. KA ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 2-13-13 2008 Approved Building Elevations Front elevation facing parking court (Located at terminus of parking court, faces Amapoa) Building A Elevation facing parking court G G Building C Elevation facing parking court 3 RAW E Building A Elevation facing parking court G G Building C Elevation facing parking court 3 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 2-13-13 Concurrently with project approval, the original applicant submitted building plans for Buildings A, B and C. These plans were never approved by City Staff and are now a part of the City's Dormant Permit Program. Additionally, the map has never been recorded, however the map is still considered "active" by the City with an expiration date of August 2014. Proposed Amendment: In 2012, Puma Financial, a group of investors, purchases the property. The applicant has reviewed the approved plan set and wants to take advantage of the up -zoning that was approved by the City Council in 2011 as a part of the City's Housing Element update. The site is zoned RMF -20, which allows for development to occur at a minimum of 20 units to the acre, with a maximum of 24 units per acre, per direction given by the City Council as a part of adoption of the Housing Element. The site is approximately 0.34 acres. The RMF -20 designation allows for 7 to 8 units, consistent with the City's calculation of net acreage for a multi -family residential project. Based on this range, the applicant is proposed two (2) additional units to be added to the project. The applicant is not proposing an expansion of the original footprint of the previously approved project. To accommodate the additional units, the applicant is proposing additional one -bedroom units in building A and Building B. These units would be accessed by a new proposed stair case on the side of the units. Proposed Site Plan Revisions Site Site Plan Details The proposed additional units create additional parking considerations. The proposed site plan moves buildings A & B closer to Amapoa Avenue to the minimum RMF setback of 15 -feet. The applicant proposes to create four (4) additional covered parking spots by utilizing "living decks" that act as additional open space for Unit 3, Unit 5 and Unit 7. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the colored and decorative concrete 4 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 2-13-13 driveway that was previously approved. The applicant is proposing the use of decorative pavers for tenant and guest parking between Building C and Building B. Staff recommends that the previously approved condition remain to utilize colored or decorative concrete, with additional consideration of the use of decorative pavers, grasscrete or other porous material of a decorative nature to reduce stromwater runoff, and visually enhance the parking lot, which is visible from the Amapoa right-of-way. The condition that was approved by the Planning Commission is consistent with the City's Design Review Manual for parking lots. The DRC should provide direction for the applicant on the use of asphalt within the development. Based on the initial review by Staff, the applicant did not provide any indication of waste disposal. With the previous approval, individual garbage cans were to be provided in each individual unit. This is still feasible, however with the additional two (2) units without garage access, this will be problematic. It is recommended that the DRC provide direction to aid the applicant on a location of refuse for the additional units. Architectural Elevations Additionally, the applicant is proposes modifications to elevations from the previously approved project. Again, the largest change is associated with the additional "living decks" for Units 3,5, and 7. These decks provide the additional "outdoor open space" that is required for multi -family projects. Proposed Elevation for Building A FRONT ELEVATON BURO.O W UNIMA7 #2,93 The applicant is proposing to simplify the �. elevations by removing much the stone fagade as well as elminating shutters, window trims, _BE - and trellis features over the garages. The A proposed changes to the buildings have e increased their bulk appearance, which is in direct contrast to the original design. Staff has communicated to the applicant the need to wcNTELEVARON BUROGWUN" #I maintain the original high quality design that was a part of the original approval. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide additional variation of the appearance of the units to reduce the bulk, while being conscious of project budget. Staff has recommended to the applicant that the stone be included on elevations, but be utilized 5 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 2-13-13 on the columns and entryways of the project rather than the entire fagade. Staff has recommended utilizing the trellis to reduce bulk and dominance of the garage and to utilize shutters and/or window planters to provide variation and additional "green space" to the units. Proposed Architecture Elevation Modifications By Staff Add Shutters 1`17 iii �° I°e dd`p'i � �n i�z �,1� I •=�=_.•,�.�,�.`9_IFIF,o������r.., 9�r�r mi The proposed living decks add additional bulk to the buildings. Staff is recommending modification of the decks to reduce the bulk and provide a more integrated outdoor living space that resembles these craftsmen inspired design. Staff is recommending that rather than utilizing the screening of siding, a more open, porch like design be utilized. This approach will provide a more visually appealing project and reduce the issue of Proposed Elevation for Building B with 'Living Deck' �cl ism ,,� RIGHT ELEVATION BUILD -G-13 UNIT#$ bulk. The DRC should provide recommendations to the proposed elevations and the living deck. Any DRC direction on the architectural elevations such as reducing bulk, materials, garage doors, etc., would be helpful at this time to finalize the architectural details to move this project to the Planning Commission. Flnnr Plane The project proponent is proposing a mix of six (6) one -bedroom units and two (2) two- bedroom units (two story units). Similar to other projects that have recently been brought to the DRC, some of the floor plans contain the "office" or "bonus room" designation (Attachment 3). The following is a breakdown of parking provided on the 6 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 2-13-13 site based on the City's Zoning Code Standards for parking in a multi -family zone (Atascadero Municipal Code section 9-4.118(5): Parking Calculations for Amapoa Condo Project # of Bedrooms # of Spaces per Room Proposed Units Parking Spaces Required 1 1.5 6 9.0 2 2 2 4.0 3 2.5 2.5 0.0 4 3 3 0.0 Subtotal 8 13.0 Guest Parking (round up for a fraction) Guest Parking (round up for a fraction) 2.0 Total Parking Required (round up) 15.0 Any additional bedrooms will trigger additional parking requirements. As proposed, the project contains six (6) "office" designated living spaces that range in size. The project as proposed cannot accommodate any additional parking on-site. If the DRC recommends that the applicant designate these as bedrooms, the following would be the parking calculation: Parking Calculations for Amapoa Condo Project With Office Conversions to Bedrooms # of Bedrooms # of Spaces per Room Proposed Units Parking Spaces Required 1 1.5 2 3.0 2 2 4 8.0 3 2.5 2 6.0 4 3 0 0.0 Subtotal 8 17.0 Guest Parking (round up for a fraction) 2.0 Total Parking Required (round up) 19.0 The project would have a parking deficit of four (4) parking spaces. The DRC may recommend any additional language or conditions that Staff and the applicant can work on to ensure that these rooms do not convert to living spaces that can be enforced by an HOA or other entity that is used to execute recorded CC&R's or can recommend modifications to the floor plans to create a more "open concept" loft type living space for the one bedroom units. 7 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 2-13-13 DRC Review Items The following is a summarization of the items that need to be discussed and direction provide to the applicant: ❑ The use of asphalt as a driveway versus the approved decorative/colored concrete ❑ Location of waste disposal for units without garage or use of waste containers located on-site ❑ Appearance Review of additional architectural details to reduce bulk of proposed units ❑ Appearance Review of living decks to reduce bulk ❑ Review of proposed colors (to be presented at DRC Meeting) ❑ DRC to make recommendations or provide input on "office"/"bonus room designations" ❑ Any other additional considerations by the DRC Attachments: Attachment 1: Aerial Photo Attachment 2: Proposed Site Plan Attachment 3: Proposed Elevations Attachment 4: Proposed Floor Plan Attachment 5: Proposed Landscaping Plan s Attachment 1: Aerial Photo 1 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 2-13-13 9 Attachment 2: Proposed Site Plan AMAPOA AVE. ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 2-13-13 10 Attachment 3: Proposed Elevations Building ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 2-13-13 FRONTELEVATION BUBO'O'A' UWTS11 92,87 REAR ELEVATION BUILO'G'A' UNBS 01, OX 98 RIGHT ELEVATION BU10%W KITS Y7 LEFT ELEVATION BUILLD'G'A'UNITS9z,92 Building B ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 2-13-13 FRONT ELEVATION BUILO'G'B UWM oE. RT. j RIGHT ELEVATION BUILO'G'B UNRPB REAR ELEVATION samwe s mrs . n. o I LEFT ELEVATNNJ 13UILDNW13 UWTJM V , 12 Building C ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 2-13-13 FRONT ELEVATHM BUILD'G'C'UNn:8 ", RIGHT ELEVATION BUILO'G'C UNIT iS REAR ELEVATION BUILD'G'C' UNITS ft IN, LEFT ELEVATION BUILD'G'C' UNIT#4 13 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 2-13-13 Attachment 4: Proposed Floor Plans Building A M 40 -I x vvv a v3.;,t✓v ° vvvvvvvvv v — ° =a�vvvv�•��vvvv fJECKN�VI; vvvv ® vv 4�Iwvv vvvvvvvv °--fl..�w vvv o v F vV vvvvvvvvv I vvvv ° ung I V VY V® V- V � I _ _ V V L} - v �4AA I �' WL -•h �- — — I �/ vvvv ii °ew°e.� • I I rxdLn'G'n' uNlf �z-IstLe'v�L -------- ----------- - - fAYI�('A' �fi��i=�3idL'v --y 917 Q. Ff. 12150. ff. IA FR. LIV'G 10>8 50. ff. 2411 MR. LN'G 196550. Ff, ToM LIV'G 395 50. ff, Ctv. 14 <1J Building B C) U i 6 ` - 1 I o �v—moi • ��v u? vvvv " v v � _- vvvv • rr, I vvvv I vvvvvv v v v vv ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 2-13-13 v v ' u�a M a °es • - ,:� uvl,NG . It f f31JL 'G 'r3' Levlr #°- z sroRY 717 X0. Ff. Ix FLK'. WV'G �- I 50. Ff. 2nd FW. LIV'G 1 ULVIC4 �' tw 46-15t LEVEL Nr #7 � m, i 185 50. Ff, fOfAL LIV'G 780 x,. ft. MCK i -- '- 717 50, Ff. -5-71 50, Ff. GAR. OVER PAWG I I I I _ ` I r I ------------ ------------------ ---------------------------- ---------- 5 r I DLIL17'G 'D' WIT #7 LEVEL PIIILI7'6'6' LMf 48- 2 5fORY L"f 47 i 1092 50, Ff. LIV'G 1038 50. Ff. 2M U. LN'G 780 $4. ft. ma i W5 50. Ff. OR. M( EL 54 50. Ff. 2M FLP. L3&CONY MP PAWG I 1 I 15 0 • 0 4 - .TDkil6i � ®� �, rtiix � 0 once "mce vv ® vvvv — rml mj imi I m £ 1 vv D D V -- O V ED 19 \``\ `i � i llV1116 �L B�I� 7L Bjlt I I VVI/ i VVV I I / I♦ 5 r I DLIL17'G 'D' WIT #7 LEVEL PIIILI7'6'6' LMf 48- 2 5fORY L"f 47 i 1092 50, Ff. LIV'G 1038 50. Ff. 2M U. LN'G 780 $4. ft. ma i W5 50. Ff. OR. M( EL 54 50. Ff. 2M FLP. L3&CONY MP PAWG I 1 I 15 0 Building C I ITEM NUMBER: DATE: ZA1 E l> f u 2 2-13-13 16 k Bl ll! O O� v 6iN U. V O B V rml lml v� V ml lmj/ ) 1 omm— aza ----'F' 1 I _ 1 1 /M.mo IL BIO\ 1 I I �1 I BALCONY 1 I BALCONY I I 1 ti t i/ 1TG'C' IJNIf #4 Si p' 'C' UWf #5-251 Ff. 2rvJ FLK. L V'G 649 FLK . Ff. 7nd U. LIV'G SQ. Ff. Ad FLK. B C 413 . Ff. 2nd FLK. RAL 2 2-13-13 16 Attachment 5 Proposed Landscape Plan ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 21313 17