Title
PLN16-0039 - 3244 Sterling Avenue - Applicants: Catrina and Jarred Fobian Appellants: Anne and Ted Rogers. A review of the revised design for a previously appealed Design Review to allow a second story addition to an existing one-story residence. The revised design consists of a 909-square foot second-story addition that has a side yard setback of five feet and nine inches (5’-9”) on the west side, creating a separation of twenty- seven feet and five inches (27’-5”) from the westerly neighbor. The second story is also set back from the front elevation to expose the roof of the original first story. The overall height of the residence will be twenty-four feet (24’). The property is listed on the Historical Buildings Study List with an S designation. The project is located within an R-1 (One-Family Residential) zoning district. The project qualifies for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 - Existing Facilities of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Body
To: Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
From: Linda Barrera, Planner I
BACKGROUND
On April 25, 2016, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the appeal of an approved Design Review application PLN16-0039 to allow the construction of a second story addition to an existing one-story bungalow residence at 3244 Sterling Avenue. The neighbors at 3240 Sterling Avenue appealed the decision over concerns related to the size of the addition and its shading impacts on their property. The April 25, 2016 Staff Report is attached as Exhibit 1 for reference.
At the hearing, the Planning Board considered public testimony and identified several design issues to be addressed before a final decision on the project could be made. The Planning Board remanded the project back to staff to work with the applicants to address the appellants’ shading concerns and revise the design to create a more sculpted second story.
The applicants have revised the second-story addition and have incorporated the Planning Board’s recommendations into the new design. After the applicants shared the plans with their neighbors, the appellants expressed their appreciation for addressing their primary concerns but they still do not fully support the revised design. The applicants have, however, received support from other neighbors. The Planning Board’s direction and the revisions to the design are summarized below. The revised plan set is attached as Exhibit 2.
DISCUSSION
At the April 25, 2016 hearing, the Planning Board reviewed the design that was approved by staff which consisted of a 954-square foot second story and included a small gable on the front elevation and another on the west side elevation facing the appellant’s house. The project proposed to continue a legal non-conforming side yard setback of 3’-3” facing the appellants’ house, where a 5’ setback is the standard. AMC Sections 30-5.7(k)&(l) provides that additions along non-conforming setbacks may occur if a finding can be made that no adverse effects such as shading or view blockage would occur on adjoining properties (referred to as a “k & l finding”). Staff presented the shadow studies submitted by both the applicant and the appellant at the hearing.
Upon review of the project, the Planning Board recognized that the addition adequately incorporated craftsman style architectural features and that gestures were made to integrate the design with that of the original home and character of the neighborhood. Given the small square shape of the lot and the building footprint of the existing house that could be expanded in any direction without encroaching into the required yards setbacks the Planning Board acknowledged that several of the standards in the Guide to Residential Design could not be rigorously applied to this project. Namely, the 1 ½ story addition or rear two-story addition outlined as options available for adding a second story to bungalows would not be possible on this lot.
However, since the project could not be strictly held to the Guide’s standards, the Planning Board asserted that the addition must not negatively impact the existing small-scale character of the homes on Sterling Avenue. Therefore, the Planning Board established that a reduction in the scope of the second story would be appropriate for this site in order to create a more articulated second story. To achieve this the Planning Board suggested stepping back the addition on the west side and front elevation and scaling down the proportion of the second story compared to the first story. Additionally, the Planning Board agreed with the appellants that the loss of morning sun on their property was significant as a result of the project.
The Planning Board provided the following direction to staff and the applicant for revising the design:
• Prioritize stepping back the west side elevation
• Create a more subordinate, more sculpted second story
• Redesign the side gable on the west elevation
• Reduce the shadow impact on the westerly neighbor
• Align the gables on the front elevation
• Share the revisions with the neighbors
Revised Project Design
On May 17, 2016, the applicants presented staff with a revised design for the second story addition. The new design would add a 909-square foot second story to the existing 1,079 square foot home. To achieve the reduced square footage, the second floor was stepped back 2’-6” from the west side elevation. The newly proposed second floor side yard setback on the west elevation is 5’-9”, creating a total separation of 27’-5” from the addition to the appellant’s home. Thus, the current proposal no longer requires a “k & l finding” because it is located 9” outside of the required 5’ side yard setback. The revised design meets all of the development regulations of the R-1, One-family Residential Zoning District as follows:
|
Table 1: Zoning Compliance R-1 Zoning District |
|
|
Standard Regulations: |
Proposed: |
Compliance: |
|
Maximum Building Height |
30 ft. |
24 ft. |
Complies |
|
Maximum Main Building Coverage |
40% |
31% No Change |
Complies |
|
Minimum Front Yard Setback |
Average front yard setback of adjacent properties |
9 ft. 3 in. No Change |
Complies |
|
Minimum Rear Yard Setback |
12 ft. |
13 ft. 3 in. No Change |
Complies |
|
Minimum Side Yard Setback (East) |
5 ft. |
15 ft. 3 in. No Change |
Complies |
|
Minimum Side Yard Setback (West) |
5 ft. |
5 ft. 9 in. (Addition) |
Complies |
To accommodate the second story’s reduced floor area, the floor plans on the first floor and second floor were altered considerably. The staircase on the first floor was moved and reconfigured, effectively eliminating the laundry room on the ground floor. On the second floor, the office was removed to fit the reconfigured stairs and the square footage of each of the bedrooms on the second floor was reduced.
Stepping back the addition shifted the small front-facing gable on the second floor so that it aligns more closely with the larger front-facing gable of the first floor. Moving in the side elevation also exposed more of the original first story roof on the west side of the home, creating greater articulation. By stepping back the side elevation, the width of the second story was reduced to 30’-6” along the front elevation. Compared to the width of the first story along the front elevation, which is 44’-2”, the front elevation of the second story is 13’-8” narrower than that of the first story. This creates a significantly more subordinate second story in relation to the first story.
The applicants redesigned the roofline on the west side elevation. By removing the small gable on the west side, the new roofline is straight and low-pitched facing the appellant’s home. The verticality of the west elevation has been reduced approximately 4’ by eliminating the side gable. Redesigning the west elevation has also successfully reduced the shading impact on the appellant’s home. Where the previous design shaded a portion of the appellant’s home in the winter at noon, the revised design only projects a shadow on a very small corner of the appellant’s home in the winter at noon, but does not reach the appellant’s windows. During the summer month of June, the previous design projected a shadow on a corner of the neighbor’s house at 8 A.M., shading one of the appellant’s windows and blocking some of the morning light. The revised design does not cast any shadow on the appellant’s home, which allows the morning light to reach all of the windows in the appellant’s home on June at 8 A.M. Thus, the revised design achieved the reduction in shading impact as directed by the Planning Board.
Although the Planning Board suggested stepping back the addition from the front elevation to help reduce the scope of the second story, there were limitations to further increasing the distance of the second story from the front elevation. The proposed second story is set back between 2’ and 3’-6” from the existing first floor front elevation. As part of the design, the existing chimney is being extended to the second story along the front elevation. This entails having the chimneystack continue up through the roof of the second floor. The Citywide Design Review Manual states that chimney towers should be a prominent vertical element of craftsman style homes. In this particular home, and in many of the homes on Sterling Avenue, the chimney is a character-defining feature of the craftsman style architecture. Stepping back the second story front elevation would prevent the chimney from extending to the second floor. The California Building Code requires a chimneystack to be separate by at least 10’ from any neighboring structure. If the chimney were not extended to the second story, the second story would have to be stepped back at least 10’ from the edge of the chimney which would significantly compromise the floor plan and integrity of the design.
Applicant’s Outreach
Upon submitting the revisions to the City, the applicants shared the revisions with the appellants and their neighbors. The applicants have actively reached out to the neighborhood and shared the plans either in person or via email. They have received formal support from thirty-one of the forty neighbors on the block. The applicant’s neighbors have signed support letters and others have signed a petition confirming that they are either in support of or not opposed to the revised design (Exhibit 3).
The applicants immediately shared the revisions with the appellants and tried to contact the neighbors who attended the April 25, 2016 hearing. After receiving the revised plans, the appellants informed the applicant that they needed time to review and evaluate the project. Both the applicants and the appellants contacted staff to relay that the appellants are still not satisfied with the revised design. Although the appellants appreciate that the revisions address two of their primary concerns regarding shading impacts and reducing the verticality of the west side elevation, the appellants feel that that the revisions do not adequately address the Planning Board’s direction. The appellants indicated that the 50-square foot reduction of floor area on the second floor is not an adequate reduction in scope and that, because the revised design does not push the second story further back on the front elevation, the design does not create a more subordinate second story. The appellants’ comment on the revision is attached as Exhibit 4.
Conclusion
In conclusion, staff believes the revised project:
• Is a significant improvement over the plan originally approved by City staff,
• Adequately addresses the Planning Board’s requested changes,
• Addresses the appellants’ original concerns about the impact of the addition on their access to sunlight,
• Meets all of the zoning requirements for the site, including all required setbacks, and
• Complies with the Citywide Design Manual guidelines for second story additions.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project’s boundaries were notified of this public hearing and given the opportunity to review and comment. All project materials were also posted on the City website.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, which allows minor alterations of existing private structures involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that which exists. The proposed 909-square foot addition does not involve an expansion of the building footprint and will not generate any environmental impacts.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the revised design of Design Review PLN16-0039 with conditions in the draft resolution (Exhibit 5).
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Barrera
Planner I
Exhibits:
1. April 25, 2016 Staff Report
2. Revised Plan Set
3. Support Letters and Petition
4. Appellant’s Revision Comments
5. Draft Resolution