The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDRC_2015-04-15_AgendaPacket http://www.facebook.com/planningatascadero @atownplanning Scan This QR Code with your smartphone to view DRC Website CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA Committee Meeting Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:00 P.M. City Hall Room 106 (1st Floor) 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, California CALL TO ORDER Roll Call: Chairperson Bob Kelley Committee Member Duane Anderson Committee Member Mark Dariz Committee Member Roberta Fonzi Committee Member Jamie Kirk APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF DRAFT ACTION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Agenda Regular Meeting, April 15, 2015 Page 2 of 3 http://www.facebook.com/planningatascadero @atownplanning Scan This QR Code with your smartphone to view DRC Website DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW 2. PLN 2014-1522 / DRC 2014-0054, 10785 EL CAMINO REAL (ATASCADERO FAMILY APARTMENTS) Property Owner: 9355 Avenida Maria LLP, 5947 Variel Ave., Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Applicants: Corporation for Better Housing, 5947 Variel Ave., Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Project Title: PLN 2014-1522 / DRC 2014-0054 Atascadero Family Apartments Project Location: 10785 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 APN 045-321-020 / 045-321-021 (San Luis Obispo County) Project Description: The project consists of design review of proposed 86 unit multi-family apartment complex completed in two phases located at the intersection of El Camino Real / Avenida Maria. Proposed project includes the following:  Two corridor style buildings 2-stories in height (24-feet) with two (2) 32-foot tall mechanical / staircase shafts with decorative architectural features;  One (1) corridor style building 3-stories in height (37-feet, 4-inches) with two (2) 43-foot tall mechanical / staircase shafts with decorative architectural features;  A total of 86 apartment units with a mix of 1,2,3 and 4 bedroom units;  157 total parking spaces provided, 86 of which are proposed to be covered carports with solar panels installed to reduce on-site energy consumption consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP);  Proposed construction and materials to utilize US Green Building Council methodology to obtain Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) certified platinum;  On-site recreational amenities including tot-lot, basketball court, outdoor eating areas;  On-site management is proposed including full-time manager;  On-site social services programs available for residents only;  Proposed landscaping plan including use of drought tolerant native plants  Preservation of 46 on-site native trees, including critical blue oak woodland;  Removal of 21 on-site native trees to allow for proposed improvements including buildings, parking lots, and road improvements; General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (HDR) Zoning District: Residential Multi-Family (RMF-20) Staff Recommendation: DRC recommends to the Planning Commission approval of proposed site plan / architecture elevations / landscaping plan with modifications. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Agenda Regular Meeting, April 15, 2015 Page 3 of 3 http://www.facebook.com/planningatascadero @atownplanning Scan This QR Code with your smartphone to view DRC Website COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND REPORTS DIRECTOR’S REPORT Signage Improvement Program Update ADJOURNMENT The next scheduled DRC meeting is April 29, 2015. Agendas, Minutes and Staff Reports are available online at www.atascadero.org under City Officials & Commissions, Design Review Committee. DRC Draft Action Minutes of 3/25/15 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF ATASCADERO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Regular Meeting – Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:00 P.M. City Hall, Room 106 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California CALL TO ORDER – 3:04 p.m. Chairperson Kelley called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Bob Kelley Committee Member Duane Anderson Committee Member Roberta Fonzi Absent: Committee Member Jamie Kirk Committee Member Mark Dariz Staff Present: Interim Community Development Director Bobby Lewis Senior Planner, Callie Taylor Assistant Planner Alfredo Castillo Recording Secretary, Annette Manier Others Present: Chris Thomas Dan Edwards Diane Helbert APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: By Committee Member Fonzi and seconded by Committee Member Anderson to approve the Agenda. Motion passed 3:0 by a roll-call vote. PUBLIC COMMENT None ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 4-15-15 DRC Draft Action Minutes of 3/25/15 Page 4 of 4 CONSENT CALENDAR Committee member Fonzi asked that the minutes be changed on Page 3 to include the following wording, which she said was discussed and would like added to the minutes of March 11, 2015: “Staff to consider evaluating a CFD overlay (or some other mechanism) to assist in defraying the cost of providing additional City services.” The Committee agreed with the change. 1. APPROVAL OF DRAFT ACTION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015 There was Committee consensus to approve the minutes as corrected. (Anderson abstained) DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW 2. PLN 2014-1525 / DRC 2015-0055 HISTORIC BUILDING ADDITION AND FAÇADE RENOVATION AT 5900 EL CAMINO REAL. Property Owner: Corey Rabbon, 1239 Higuera St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Applicants: Dan Edwards & Diane Helbert, 1716 Lee Ann Ct, San Luis Obispo, 93401 Project Title: PLN 2014-1525 / DRC 2014-0055 Historic Building Retrofit & Façade Enhancements Project Location: 5900 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 APN 030-181-014 (San Luis Obispo County) Project Description: The project consists of a retrofit to reinforce an existing URM building at 5900 El Camino Real. The plans for the renovation include an extensive exterior remodel. The applicants have focused on restoring the some of the original historic design elements on the front and the back sides of this historic structure. The existing 2,100 square foot first floor commercial space, and the existing second floor 815 square foot residential space, will be remodeled to accommodate new tenants. A 1,285 square foot addition is proposed on the rear half of the building on the second floor to add a second residential unit. Site improvements at the rear of the building are included to provide parking for the r esidences, screening of trash cans, and minor landscape additions. General Plan Designation: Downtown (D) Zoning District: Downtown Commercial (DC) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the DRC endorse the façade enhancements, site improvements, and residential addition as proposed. Senior Planner Taylor gave the staff report and answered questions from the DRC members and the applicants. PUBLIC COMMENT The following people spoke during public comment: Chris Thomas, Dan Edwards, and Diane Helbert. Chairperson Kelley closed the Public Comment period. DRC Draft Action Minutes of 3/25/15 Page 4 of 4 Discussion revolved around doors, trash enclosures, a historical plaque, and a chase for exhaust in the kitchen. There was Committee consensus to recommend the following: 1. Approval of the proposed front and rear façade design elements, color and materials, 2nd floor addition at rear of building (addition of one (1) residential unit) and site design; and, 2. Staff and the applicant to look into the relocating the trash storage area from the rear of the building and moving it to the public right-of-way across the alley with a City Encroachment Permit. An area adjacent to HWY 101 within the right-of-way is DRC’s preferred location for the trash storage. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND REPORTS None DIRECTOR’S REPORT Signage Improvement Program Update Interim Director Lewis and Assistant Planner Castillo gave an update on the status of the Sign Improvement Program, and stated that 185 commercial businesses were visited. The City is working closely with the Chamber of Commerce on this project , and we are letting businesses know that there are other alternatives as part of their business plan. ADJOURNMENT – 4:05 p.m. The next DRC meeting will be held on April 15, 2015, at 1 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED BY: _______________________________________ Annette Manier, Recording Secretary t:\~ design review committee\minutes\minutes 2015\draft action drc minutes 3 25-15.docx DRC Draft Action Minutes of 3/25/15 Page 4 of 4 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Atascadero Design Review Committee Report In Brief - Community Development Department Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP, Planner, (805) 470-3436, acastillo@atascadero.org PLN 2014-1522 / CUP 2015-0288 / DRC 2014-0054 Atascadero Family Apartments – 86 Unit Multi-Family Apartment Complex Owner: 9355 Avenida Maria LLP, 10785 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Address: 10785 El Camino Real / 9355 Avenida Maria Project #: PLN 2014-1522 / CUP 2015-0288 / TRP 2015- 0181/DRC 2015-0054 General Plan: High Density Residential (HDR) Zoning: Residential Multi-Family (RMF-20) Project Area: 3.9 Acres Existing Use: Vacant / Existing single- family Residence Staff Recommendation: DRC recommends to the Planning Commission approval of proposed site plan / architecture elevations / landscaping plan with modifications. Design Review Items  Review of proposed site plan including landscaping, trash enclosures, parking, setbacks, and proposed street improvements  Review of proposed architectural elevations  Review or proposed floor plans Atascadero Family Apartments – 86 Units 5 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Background City staff has worked with the applicant, Corporation for a Better Housing, since early 2014 on a location suitable for a multi-family housing development. The applicant is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that constructions and manages affordable housing developments throughout the State of California. This is the applicant’s first project in San Luis Obispo County. The applicant met with City staff since August of 2014 developing site plans and architectural elevations for a proposed multi-family housing development at the intersection of El Camino Real and Avenida Maria. The site is zoned RMF-20 with a minimum of 20 units to the acre and a maximum of 24 units to the acre. The applicant formally submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Tree Removal (TRP), and Density Bonus request in February 2015. Staff has reviewed the application and provided preliminary comments. Staff and the applicant are seeking recommendation for the following design related items to the proposed project to continue moving the item forward to Planning Commission and ultimately City Council approval. DRC Action: DRC is being asked to review, provide a recommendation, and provide any additional input on the items that are noted in the Staff Report. The DRC should focus comments related directly to the proposed architectural improvements, proposed site plan, and landscaping plan. The DRC ensures that the physical design of new development meets the following objectives, as established by Atascadero Municipal Code (AMC): Atascadero Municipal Code 9-2.107(a) – Design Review (1) Maintaining the rural character and identity of Atascadero; (2) Enhancing the appearance and character of the City, by reviewing the architecture and site plans for commercial, office, industrial, single-family residential subject to CEQA and multifamily residential projects; (3) Ensuring that development is compatible with surrounding uses and improvements by requiring building designs that provide appropriate visual appearance and site plans to mitigate neighborhood impacts. Planning Commission and City Council Action: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing; receive a staff report and project recommendation; ask for clarification, if any; open the public hearing and receive comments; make an environmental determination and project recommendation to the City Council, which pertains to potential affordable housing applicants or future residents, applicant’s request for the use of density bonus, and other technical items that will be discussed during the hearing. It should be noted that any decision rendered by the Planning Commission and City Council is considered a Quasi-Judicial hearing, which is subject to Federal and State due process laws, fair hearing requirements of California Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.5, and additional requirements 6 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 applicable to these particular hearings including environmental impact determinations prior to project approval. California Courts and State Law have held that these types of hearings must be fair and reasonable remaining free from any impartiality or prejudice. Item 1 – Proposed Project / Site Plan The proposed site consists of two legal lots of record on 3.9 acres. Currently the site has one vacant single-family residence on-site that will be demolished as a part of the proposed project. Based on the AMC Section 9-3.173, the minimum number of units allowed on-site is 78 units with a maximum of 94 units on-site. The applicant is proposing a total of 86 units, or 22 units per acre. This is consistent with the City’s Zoning Code. The applicant is proposing the following as a part of the proposed project:  86 total apartment units including a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom apartments;  Two corridor style buildings 2-stories in height (24-feet) with two (2) 32-foot tall mechanical / staircase shafts with decorative architectural features;  One (1) corridor style building 3-stories in height (37-feet, 4-inches) with two (2) 43- foot tall mechanical / staircase shafts with decorative architectural features;  A total of 157 parking spaces; 86 spaces covered / 71 uncovered;  Solar panels to be utilized on top of carports to provide alternative energy sources, consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan;  Proposed construction and materials to utilize US Green Building Council methodology to obtain Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) certified platinum;  On-site recreational amenities including tot-lot, basketball court, outdoor eating areas;  On-site management is proposed including full-time manager (non-care taker type);  On-site social services programs available for residents only through the use of two (2) recreational rooms;  Proposed landscaping plan including use of drought tolerant native plants  Preservation of 46 on-site native trees, including critical blue oak woodland;  Removal of 21 on-site native trees to allow for proposed improvements including buildings, parking lots, and road improvements. Buildings are located on the western side of the property near Avenida Maria to avoid construction within an existing blue oak woodland area. The buildings are located along El Camino Real and Avenida that provides a relationship between buildings and the street. The parking areas are hidden from visibility along both Avenida Maria and El Camino Real, consistent with the City’s Appearance Review Manual (APR). The applicant utilizes the varying topography on-site to reduce the visual appearance of the 3-story building, as this building sits at a lower portion of the site compared to higher elevations along El Camino Real and near the rear of the proposed project. Proposed 2- story buildings are located at the intersection of El Camino Real and Avenida Maria, as well as the rear portion of the site. The height and bulk of these buildings create compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, consistent with APR section 2.b. Plan A Plan A 7 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Unit Breakdown Phase I Building # Unit Type Number of Units Building 1 1-bedroom Unit 0 2-Bedroom Unit 4 3-Bedroom Unit 16 4-Bedroom Unit 10 Unit Sub-total 30 units Building 2 1-Bedroom Unit 0 2-Bedroom Unit 18 3-Bedroom Unit 8 4-Bedroom Unit 4 Unit Sub-total 30 units Phase II Building 3 1-Bedroom Unit 22 2-Bedroom Unit 4 Unit Sub-total 26 units Project Totals 1-Bedroom Unit 22 2-Bedroom Unit 26 3-Bedroom Unit 24 4-Bedroom Unit 14 Total Units 86 8 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Parking The applicant is requesting a State Density bonus (attachment 2), consistent with California Government Code (CGC) Section 65915 et. seq. and the City of Atascadero’s Municipal Code Section 9-3.801. The City recently updated its Density Bonus regulations in 2013 for consistency with State Law. As a part of this update, the City was required to list potential “concession” or developer incentives to provide affordable housing. Although the developer is not requesting additional density, consistent with CGC § 65915(d) and AMC Section 9- 3.173(g), the applicant is requesting concessions from the City in order to make the development feasible. The applicant has met the thresholds established by CGC § 65915(b) et. seq. and AMC Section 9-3.804 by setting aside at least 15% of the total units are set aside to family with very low income (a family of 4 making less than $37,700 in San Luis Obispo County as of April 1, 2015), therefore the applicant qualifies for three (3) “concessions” or reduction in requirements of the municipal code. One requested reduction is the number of parking spaces required. Specifically, the applicant is requesting implementation of CGC § 65915(p) which states: California Government Code § 65915 – Density Bonus (State Requirement) (p) (1) Upon the request of the developer, no city, county, or city and county shall require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b), that exceeds the following ratios: (A) Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space. (B) Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces. (C) Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces. (2) If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subdivision, a development may provide "onsite parking" through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking. The applicant is providing the state mandated parking ratio requirement of 157 parking spaces. When compared to the City’s typical requirements for a multi-family project, the proposed project would have required 189 spaces. If approved, this would give a parking “concession” of 32 spaces. While the DRC may recommend the applicant provide additional parking, the applicant has met the State mandated requirement for parking for an affordable housing project. The applicant has provided a parking study of projects that it has completed of similar size to provide clarification to the DRC on parking (attachment 3). 9 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Proposed Parking Calculations – Atascadero Family Apartments Unit Types Number of Units Parking Requirement - AMC Parking Spaces Needed- AMC State Mandated Parking Ratios– CGC 65015.(p) Provided Spaces 1 bedroom unit 22 1.5 spaces per unit 33 spaces 1 space per unit 22 spaces 2 bedroom unit 26 2 spaces per unit 38 spaces 2 spaces per unit 52 spaces 3 bedroom unit 24 2.5 spaces per unit 65 spaces 2 spaces unit 48 spaces 4 bedroom unit 14 3 spaces per unit 36 spaces 2.5 spaces per unit 35 spaces Guest Spaces 1 per 5 units 17 spaces 0 space Total Number of Parking Spaces Required under AMC 189 spaces 157 spaces provided -32 space concession Total Parking Spaces Required per California Government Code section 65015.(p) 157 spaces 157 Spaces provided 10 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Proposed Site Plan 2-Story Building 3-Story Building 2-Story Building Recreation Areas Open Space Trash Enclosure Locations Recreation Areas Proposed Covered Parking 11 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Discussion Item #1: Site Plan The following is punch-list of items that the DRC should provide direction, recommendation on the proposed site plan portion of the project:  Applicant to clarify use, if any, of restricted access to the parking lot (gated access).  Public Works recommends installation of a sidewalk adjacent to Avenida Maria. There is an internal sidewalk system that allows access to transit. Currently the applicant is providing landscaping along Avenida Maria. Staff is seeking clarification on this item.  Staff is recommending the use of pavers at the project entry, as well as, the emergency access driveway. DRC provide input.  Staff is recommending additional trash enclosures and review of proposed enclosure location by Waste Management.  Staff is recommending that the applicant consult its arborist to ensure no additional tree removals are required for the solar installations on the proposed carports;  Staff is recommending reduction of the City’s side-setback requirements, requiring a 10-foot setback for a corner lot. This would be considered a “developer incentive” or City concession. The applicant did not request this as shown in attachment x and would be considered the final City concession. Staff is recommending additional plantings for this concession (see landscape plan discussion).  Identify required Fire-turnaround if emergency access cannot be granted along Jordana Lane.  Work with City staff in identifying potential on-street parking along Avenida Maria, if feasible. Item 2 – Proposed Landscaping Plan The applicant has submitted a proposed landscaping plan. The applicant is preserving a significant blue oak woodland area on the eastern portion of the site. The applicant is proposing landscaping both internally in the project, along Avenida Maria, and El Camino Real in the form of additional native shrubs, groundcover and trees. 12 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Proposed Landscaping Plan 13 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Discussion Item #2: Landscaping Plan The following is punch-list of items that the DRC should provide direction, recommendation on the proposed landscaping plan of the project:  Eliminate the use of California Sycamores along El Camino Real and substitute with London Plane Trees every 30-feet on center.  Spread out proposed Blue Oak tree plantings along El Camino Real.  Provide additional native tree accent plantings along the corner of El Camino Real and Avenida Maria.  Substitute Bay Tree plantings along Avenida Maria for London Plane Tree or other screening tree that is fast growing, yet low water use tree. Item 3 – Proposed Architecture Elevations The applicant has architectural elevations of the proposed project. The applicant is proposing three (3) corridor style buildings located on the western portion of the site. Two of the buildings will be two-stories with a height of 24-feet from finish grade to the roof line. Additional mechanical / staircase shafts are included in both two-story buildings that are approximately 32-feet in height. The mechanical / staircase shafts exceed the City’s height limit requirements per AMC Section 9-4.113. The applicant is proposing one (1) three-story building that is approximately 37-feet in height with a mechanical / staircase shafts approximately 43-feet in height. Similar to the two-story building, it exceeds the height requirements. With the applicant’s density bonus request, a height waiver was the 2nd item that was requested as a concession item. The AMC does allow for height waiver’s to be granted through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff and the Fire Department reviewed the proposed heights and have no issues with fire safety and the ability to provide fire services to the buildings. The proposed architecture is mix of stucco and California Craftsman elements and includes architectural elements and variations such as pop-outs, roofline variations, use of shutters, awnings, and other architectural features throughout the buildings. The architectural elevations and floor plans are included in Attachment 4. 14 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Proposed Architectural Elevations – Three Story Building Proposed Architectural Elevations – Renderings Proposed Architectural Elevations – Two Story Building 15 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Proposed Color and Materials Board 16 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Discussion Item #3: Architectural Elevations The following is punch-list of items that the DRC should provide direction, recommendation on the proposed architectural elevations of the project:  Proposed awnings should include decorative ornamental caps.  Use of hardy plank siding should be carried throughout all pop-outs projections, consistent with the City’s Appearance Review Manual.  Use of hardy plank siding to be used in place of stucco at columns to roof pop-out gable.  Use of different color for 2nd / 3rd story shutters. Color should provide variation to proposed stucco colors.  Staff recommends the use of architectural grade roofing materials.  Provide staff an elevation of the proposed carports. Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the DRC discuss the items that are including in the punch-list for the site plan, landscaping plan, and architectural elevations. The proposed project meets many of the guidelines set-forth in the City’s Appearance Review manual including varying rooflines to reduce monotonous roof lines, using architectural elements such as pop-outs to reduce bulk, utilizing grade elevation change to reduce visual heights, internal parking lots, and providing a well landscape site plan. Staff is recommending that the DRC provide direction and recommendations to move this item forward to the Planning Commission with proposed changes. Attachments: Attachment 1: Aerial Map Attachment 2: Applicant Density Bonus Letter Attachment 3: Applicant Parking Survey Attachment 4: Applicant Design Package 17 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Attachment 1: Aerial Map Proposed Project Area 18 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Attachment 2: Applicant Density Bonus Request 19 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 20 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Attachment 3: Applicant Parking Survey 21 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 22 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-15-15 Attachment 4: Applicant Design Package See Attached 11 x 17s 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38