2004-0245 - Pete Edwards [Applicant] - Application for a Design Review on a 9,420 square-foot vacant lot to construct a new 4,100 square-foot two-story house where up to 4,050 square feet can be considered without Planning Commission review. The property is located at 1397 Cordilleras Avenue in an R-1 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District. (APN: 323-07-054) HB

Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, noted that Heather Bradley is the project planner and presented the staff report on behalf of Ms. Bradley.  She summarized the history of the Design Review application noting that staff has been working with the applicant for several months and staff expressed concerns to the applicant about the overall size of the proposed project.  Staff noted that staff had discussed with the applicant options for their proposal. The applicant decided to submit a design that exceeded the 4,050 square foot threshold requiring Planning Commission review and an opportunity to appeal before the City Council. Ms. Ryan noted that the proposed project does not conform with the Single Family Design Guidelines.  She further noted that the applicant may point out that there are larger homes in the neighborhood and while it is true, she noted that these homes were designed where the size and bulk is not as apparent and blend in with the character of the neighborhood compared to the proposed project.  Staff was unable to make the required Findings and recommended denial of the Design Review.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff that since the applicant was unable to provide renderings to address Findings #2.2.5 – front yard landscaping and #2.2.6 – materials and craftmanship, and if this information is provided during the public hearing, would the Commission be able to determine the design conformance with the Single Family Design Guidelines. Ms. Ryan responded that typically, decision for a Design Review could be completed absent of these items. However, she stated that staff felt that landscaping and material is secondary compared to the bulk and size of the design.

Vice Chair Moylan then confirmed that staff’s biggest concerns is the combination of bulk and size.  Ms. Ryan said yes.

Vice Chair Moylan commented that for this particular location, it would not be possible for a two-story where the second story is as big as the first story.  Ms. Ryan responded that the Design Guidelines were developed to encourage some individuality in style and diversity. The lots in the neighborhood are large allowing a broader range of styles; however, she noted that if the home was designed smaller the style would be acceptable but the mass and scale together should be addressed.

Vice Chair Moylan confirmed with staff whether the issue is the combination of the style and the size and not just one or the other.  Ms. Ryan said yes.

Comm. Hungerford thanked Ms. Ryan for the explanation and clarified with her whether the Commission is only considering the Design Review.  Ms. Ryan said yes.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

Pete Edwards, applicant, stated that they started the process in December 2003.  He explained the designed selection process used by the property owner and concluded to submit a country-French style. During the application process, there were several revisions while working with staff, but staff was not supportive of the end result.  He presented a power point presentation showing several homes in the neighborhood that have been approved with large square footage, a house with no setback and less articulation and windows that have privacy impact to adjacent properties.   He noted that there is no privacy impacts to the property on the northside.  He said that he is willing to work with staff on the materials and he noted that the design addresses the vision triangle being that for the corner lot.

Michael Sodam, applicant’s project manager, stated that during the design process staff provided them with countless examples, limitations and requirements but during their research they observed several homes that were approved not meeting the design guidelines such as articulated roof lines.  They saw homes with flat rooflines.; setbacks on the second floor that are less than the first floor but the design looks like a mushroom, no sheer wall and yet there are some homes that have sheer walls.   He questioned whether the City intends to provide a uniform set of standards yet several houses are not conforming.  He stated that the proposed design is rather conservative compared to other homes that are already built. 

Vice Chair Moylan commented that staff expressed concerns on Findings #2.2.2 - Respect the scale, bulk and character of the adjacent neighborhood.   He asked the applicant which of the pictures presented are adjacent to the project site.  Mr. Edwards responded that 1397 La Bella is adjacent to the project site.

Comm. Klein stated that during his site visit, he noticed that there are two fences and the front fence appears to be 25 feet.  Mr. Edwards responded that the front fence is 25 feet and the back is about 52.9 feet from the property line.

Comm. Klein then asked whether he intends to reclaim the space in the back as rear yard and add some landscaping.  Mr. Edwards said yes.

Jim Callan, resident who lives directly south of the project site, expressed concerns about the left side elevation and with the second story that could impact his privacy.  He stated that if this could be addressed he would be happy with the design.

Vice Chair Moylan asked Mr. Callan whether he lives across the street from the project site and whether his privacy concern is from the project site into his side yard.  Mr. Callan said yes that although he has a six-foot fence, there would be a privacy impact looking into his side yard from the second floor window of the proposed project.

Harriette Rowe, resident, commented that one of the house that was presented was built prior to the creation of the Single Family Design Guidelines as a result of the large home issue. She reminded the builder that there are some homes that are not in conformance with the Guidelines.  She also commented that the lot is deep but the design uses left and right sides of the lot and if the neighborhood is supportive of the design, then go for it.

Pete Edwards, applicant, stated that he received no opposition from adjacent neighbors; that he is willing to change the window placement or use clerestory windows to address the privacy concerns and that he is willing to work with the neighbors.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Vice Chair Moylan commented that the lot is big and suited for a big house. The mass alone is not an issue, but the combination of mass and style.  He stated that the City could use more colonial homes with stucco walls. He further stated that the driving force for his decision is the effect to adjacent homes.   A colonial design with the size of the proposed house would clash with adjacent homes. He felt that it would not take too much change to the design to make something that would work. He stated that the applicant was unable to demonstrate that the proposed design meets the required Findings. He felt optimistic that it could be redesigned to meet the design review criteria.

Comm. Hungerford commented that the Commission is charged to apply the design criteria addressing the scale, bulk and character of the neighborhood and whether the design would match the character of the neighborhood. He felt that it would not take much to scale it back to match the character of the neighborhood. He was unable to make the required Findings.  He supported the motion.

Chair Babcock supported the motion and encouraged the applicant to work with staff with the redesign.  She commented that she likes colonial design and suggested scaling it down and use a true colonial.

Ms. Ryan stated that the decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within the 15-day appeal period.