DRC - 1 CITY OF VENTURA Dts1GN Rf.v1tw CoMMITTtt STAFF RtPORT Project No.: Case No.: Applicant: Planner: 11514 DRC-4-17-40056; W-11-18-48132; CDP-11-18-48131 Raven Ridge Development Elizabeth Richardson, Senior Planner (805) 658-4722 Jeffrey Lambert, AICP, Community Development Director Location: 117 North Ventura Avenue APN: 071-0-260-300 Recommendation: Forward an approval recommendation with conditions to the Administrative Hearing Officer for a Design Review Permit, as contained in the attached Notice of Decision to the Administrative Hearing Officer Zoning: T5.1 Neighborhood Center Land Use: Downtown Specific Plan Regulatory Review: DTSP Sec. 2.30.060, 3.10.120, 4.10.010, 5.10.020 & 8.10.040 & SBMC Sec. 24.545 Environmental Review: Required through future action by other City decision- making authority PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a request for Formal Design Review (DRC 4-17-40056), pursuant to Municipal Code Sec. 24.545.020, for the demolition of the existing 16,959 square foot industrial building and the construction of 35 new 100% affordable residential apartment units ranging from 418 square feet to 781 square feet in size and an 802 square foot community room and 1,400 square foot roof deck. The development would consist of a three (3) and four (4) story Courtyard building. The proposed building sits on top of a ground level podium which wraps around an outdoor courtyard located centrally along the southern property line. The project also includes a subterranean 45-space parking garage with 5 bicycle parking spaces. The project is within an approximately 0.42 acre property located at 117 North Ventura Avenue in the T5.1 Zone district, Coastal Zone, with a land use designation of Downtown Specific Plan.
Transcript
DRC - 1
CITY OF VENTURA
Dts1GN Rf.v1tw CoMMITTtt STAFF RtPORT
Project No.:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Planner:
11514
DRC-4-17-40056; W-11-18-48132; CDP-11-18-48131
Raven Ridge Development
Elizabeth Richardson, Senior Planner (805) 658-4722
Jeffrey Lambert, AICP, Community Development Director
Location: 117 North Ventura Avenue
APN: 071-0-260-300
Recommendation: Forward an approval recommendation with conditions to the Administrative Hearing Officer for a Design Review Permit, as contained in the attached Notice of Decision to the Administrative Hearing Officer
Zoning: T5.1 Neighborhood Center
Land Use: Downtown Specific Plan
Regulatory Review: DTSP Sec. 2.30.060, 3.10.120, 4.10.010, 5.10.020 & 8.10.040 & SBMC Sec. 24.545
Environmental Review: Required through future action by other City decisionmaking authority
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a request for Formal Design Review (DRC 4-17-40056), pursuant to Municipal Code Sec. 24.545.020, for the demolition of the existing 16,959 square foot industrial building and the construction of 35 new 100% affordable residential apartment units ranging from 418 square feet to 781 square feet in size and an 802 square foot community room and 1,400 square foot roof deck. The development would consist of a three (3) and four (4) story Courtyard building. The proposed building sits on top of a ground level podium which wraps around an outdoor courtyard located centrally along the southern property line. The project also includes a subterranean 45-space parking garage with 5 bicycle parking spaces. The project is within an approximately 0.42 acre property located at 117 North Ventura Avenue in the T5.1 Zone district, Coastal Zone, with a land use designation of Downtown Specific Plan.
DRC - 2
The proposed building is best described as a modern interpretation of the area's Spanish and Industrial heritage, and the primary building materials include smooth stucco, tile and dark wood finishes.
Access to the site is proposed from North Ventura Avenue.
BACKGROUND
This is the second time the project has been scheduled to receive Formal Review from the DRC.
On June 12, 2017, the proposed development was preliminarily reviewed by the City Council as part of the Community Development Pending Projects Preliminary Check-in. The Council provided the following individual member comments:
• Concern about this project visually blocking views from the Cannery development · located directly to the north.
• Concern about this project's compatibility with the shopping center and Cannery development.
• Concern about where overflow parking would be accommodated. • The building height seems too high for this specific site because the shopping
center directly to the south is only one-story. • Building design should blend more with the design of the neighborhood and the
Cannery development.
On August 2, 2017, the Westside Community Council Revitalization Committee (WCC) reviewed the project and provided notes and surveys (Attachment B).
On December 20, 2017, the Design Review Committee formally reviewed the project which consisted of a 35 unit multi-family project. As reflected in the minutes, comments were provided on the site plan, architectural design, and landscaping (Attachment C). The staff report and plan materials are located here: https://caventura.civicplus.com/AgendaCenterNiewFile/Agenda/ 12202017-14 77
STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff's evaluation includes Comprehensive Plan (Local Coastal Program) and General Plan policy consistency and technical analysis primarily relating to the project's compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP), which uses common form-based code principles similar to other coded planning areas of the City, and the Municipal Code.
Staff has analyzed the proposed project based upon review of the contents of the application and associated materials, historic case files on record with Community Development; with applicable Downtown Specific Plan and zoning requirements.
PROJ. No. 11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 2
DRC - 3
Local Coastal Program/General Plan Consistency
The project site is located within the Downtown Community which is described as the City's urban core and historic center of the City. Civic uses include City Hall, Seaside Park, Grant Park, the Ventura County Museum, San Buenaventura Mission and is home to a number of historic sites and landmarks. The community includes tremendous potential to create "around-the-clock activity" leading to increased vitality. Per regulation, this portion of Downtown is within the Local Coastal Program (LCP) as implemented by the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) and certain provisions of the General Plan.
The Downtown Specific Plan area is identified within the 2005 General Plan as the most intensely developed area of the City. Maximum density of residential units per acre is not designated geographically within the DTSP by parcel, but the allowed density is based on the predicted level of development of the DTSP land area and assigns a conceptual range of 21 to 54 units per acre. In practice, this density is applied based on the entire land area within the DTSP and not down to the individual project. The premise behind the Form Based Code of the DTSP is that density is not regulated by the zone and a project's compliance with the form as intended by the DTSP code standards would regulate the project density. The proposed project density is 83.33 units per acre. The 2005 General Plan Development Intensity & Pattern Table 3.2 predicted 1,650 residential units within the Downtown Specific Plan, and this project would add 35 units to the 1,016 already entitled or constructed units for a total of 1,051 units that have been entitled since the adoption of the 2005 General Plan, and an additional 245 units are being processed for a total of 1,296 units. Consequently, the project does fit within the DTSP predicted development, and a total of 354 additional units could be_ entitled and constructed in the DTSP area.
The LCP also seeks appropriateness of urban form through the implementation of a DTSP that emphasizes pedestrian orientation, integration of land uses, and treatment of streetscapes as community living space, and environmentally sensitive building design and operation. The proposed multifamily apartment units are designed with material composition and an intentional subdued color palette that compliments the surrounding context. The proposed development utilizes building placement and design to have a subterranean parking to mask parking areas from the right of way and integrates the project with the surrounding existing urban development. As such, the project is consistent with the following LCP policies and goals:
Community and Design Element, Policy 1. 2: Encourage design compatible with the positive characteristics of existing development.
Land Use Element, Goal 1: Support the adoption and implementation of local and regional guidelines which encourage urban development to be located within incorporated cities.
PROJ. No. 11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 3
DRC - 4
Land Use Element, Goal 5: Encourage orderly growth and development, parlicularly through the development of vacant and unproductive properlies in areas that are already developed.
The proposed project would be consistent with the LCP/General Plan as it would consist of a residential building in an area designated for residential development.
The General Plan 2014-2021 Housing Element "Sites Inventory" identified the project site as a vacant and/or underutilized property that could provide an estimated 17 residential units based upon a density of 41 units per acre. The Housing Element also anticipated that of these 17 residential units, 3 units would be affordable units as identified in the following chart:
Total Units Very-Low Low Moderate Market Housing 17 2 1 14 Element Estimate
Proposed 35 * 4 31 Project
* The applicant team has not identified the assumed rents for the proposed project. However, the project is subject to the Mello Act and will require that staff evaluate and determine if affordable rental units if feasible onsite or within 3 miles of the project site, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65590-65590.1.
The project does meet the following 2014-2021 Housing Element Goals and Policies:
HE Goal 2: Facilitate the provision of a range of housing types to meet the diverse needs of the community.
HE Policy 2. 1 - Provide high quality housing for current and future residents with a diverse range of income levels. Promote housing that is developed under modem sustainable community standards.
HE Goal 3: Provide adequate housing sites through appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing needs.
HE Policy 3.3: Encourage efficient utilization of the City's limited land resources by encouraging development at the upper end of the permitted Zoning Code/Comprehensive Plan density.
PROJ. No. 11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 4
DRC - 5
The project proposes to maximize the development potential allowed on site, and by extension maximizes the use of land in the City and would allow high quality housing, potentially adding to the available range of housing types throughout Downtown including thirty-five (35) affordable units (4 Low, 31 Moderate); 100% of the total units proposed.
The proposed building and site improvements would contribute to a development that is consistent with the following goals, policies and actions of the Downtown Specific Plan:
Goal 1: Preserve Ventura's special sense of place by insisting on high standards of architecture, urban design and landscaping so that new development complements the eclectic architecture and historic richness of our Downtown.
Policy 1 B: New development and the substantial remodel of existing development in the Downtown shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of this Specific Plan and the Development Code.
Action 1. 12: Ensure all development, including substantial remodels, adheres to Development Code standards.
The proposed project would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan/LCP, DTSP, and General Plan Housing Element as it would consist of utilizing local design guidelines to redevelop an underutilized lot into a multi-family residential development with thirty-five (35) affordable units.
Policy 6A Provide access to and around the Downtown through a variety of options, emphasizing rail, buses, bikes and walking.
Action 6.9 Require all new development contribute toward a Transportation Demand Management (TOM) fund to be used to develop regional programs to offset air pollutant emissions associated with growth anticipated under the DTSP. The TOM fund shall be used to finance City programs to reduce regional air pollutant emissions.
The project has been conditioned to pay the TOM fee which will be used along with TOM fee collected from other Downtown projects to fund City program reducing air pollutant emissions.
Economic Development
The proposed multi-family residential project also meets the intent of the adopted 2013-18 Economic Development Strategy - Entrepreneurship and Economic Gardening Attraction Action which directs the City to provide a wide range of housing to support new job growth.
PROJ. No. 11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 5
DRC - 6
Historic Context
The subject site is not identified in the 1983 Cultural Heritage Survey. The project site does not contain an existing or potential landmark, point of interest, or historic resource, and it is not located within an existing, proposed, or potential Historic District. The existing industrial building was constructed in 1971. On November 22, 2017, staff conducted a 5-day posting to the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) Members for a historic evaluation for the scope of work and no members requested to review the project.
Director's Interpretation
The Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Urban Standards, Article 2.30.060 T5.1 Neighborhood Center Section D Building Types states that Courtyard Building type is allowed on lots with a lot width between 100 feet and 150 feet. Article 9.10.010 Glossary of Terms defines Lot Width as "the length of the principal frontage lot line". Article 8.10.050 Variances: Warrants and Exceptions do not list lot widths for building types as an allowed Warrant or Exception, and therefore the Courtyard Building type is not allowed on a site with a lot width of less than 100 feet in the T5.1 zone.
Through the evaluation of The Lofts, Project-11514, the Design Review Committee determined the project's urban design was better if the Courtyard Building Type standards were applied rather than the Commercial Block Building Type which was allowed by the code.
The Community Development Director has the authority to interpret a Development Code provision by making a Finding for the basis of interpretation. The Community Development Director has made an Interpretation (Attachment D) that form-based codes now calibrate Building Types on a zone-by-zone basis which considers existing urban contexts, where lot sizes are already set and may vary considerably. The application of the Courtyard Building Type across the DTSP zones is to be calibrated for areas with different intensities allowing for functional buildings which meet the open space requirements of the Courtyard Building Type while still providing compatibility in diverse contexts and meeting urban design and adequate pedestrian and vehicle access objectives of the original DTSP.
The Downtown Code as adopted allows the Courtyard Building Type in all 6 zones and applies the 100-foot minimum lot width standard in all zones. The current industry standard for a code testing phase would identify a larger minimum lot width dimension for the lower intensity T 4 neighborhood zones and a smaller, more compact minimum lot width within the higher intensity T5 and T6 center and core zones.
In order to remain consistent with the intent of the DTSP goal of good urban design, the interpretation requires Courtyard Building Types on lots with lesser minimum lot width
PROJ. No.11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 6
DRC - 7
while still ensuring that functional buildings and outdoor space are designed to be compatible with the bulk, mass and scale and in character with the existing neighborhood.
Specific to the T5.1 zone, the Director found side yards and side street setbacks are optional, which pragmatically allows Courtyard Building Types to be designed on lots narrower than 100 feet. For instance, courtyard buildings could gracefully accommodate a "C" court or"L" court and the courtyard itself1. In courtyard buildings without side yards to provide light and air and emergency egress for the interior spaces, the depths of the single-aspect wings typically decrease from 30 feet to 20 or 25 feet, or even shallower. For such "C" courts, combinations of wing depths in the 15 to 25-foot range and court widths in the same range yield many good possibilities on lots between 50 and 75 feet wide.
Consequently, a Courtyard Building Type may be used on this property with a lot width frontage of 73.4 feet, provided the DRC finds the design to be consistent with the goals of the DTSP.
T5.1 Zone Analysis Consistency
The T5.1 Zone provides an area in which commercial and residential uses may develop and function safely, efficiently and harmoniously and protects commercial and residential uses from encroachment of incompatible uses that are more appropriately located in other zones. The applicant team has included Zoning Consistency Tables within their project plans (Attachment E) which provide a summary of the zoning analysis on the project.
Staff has reviewed the applicant's Zoning Consistency Tables for the proposed project and found that it would be consistent with most of the requirements of the T5.1 Zone, the Courtyard Building Type requirements (except for height ratios), Forecourt Frontage Type Standards and the DTSP Design Guidelines.
The T5.1 and Courtyard Housing Building Type standards contain administrative provisions for design deviations through the use of Warrants per Downtown Specific Plan Sections 8.10.050.A.1.c.ii & 8.10.050.A.1.b and Exceptions per Downtown Specific Plan Sections 8.10.050.A.2.b. A Warrant may be approved if the design exhibits the highest standards of urban design, architecture and landscaping while addressing Downtown's authentic and rich heritage at the scale of a neighborhood block, lot and building. The neighborhood form is compact, walkable and mixed-use which is meant to be comfortable, safe and ecologically sustainable. An Exception may be approved if the Warrant findings can be made and if can be demonstrated that the parcel of property has physical characteristics so unusual, and not shared by adjacent parcels, that complying with the evaluation standard would create an exceptional hardship.
The historic El Jardin building in Downtown Ventura is essentially a double "C" court with a zaguan entry from Main Street), sited on a 50-foot-wide lot·
PROJ. No.11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 7
DRC - 8
In staff's analysis, the proposed project generally meets the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan, but would require a Warrant at this time.
Staff solicits the DRC to comment on whether the proposed design is compatible with the neighborhood context in general and the adjacent development in particular.
Site Plan
The slightly irregular shape and location of the subject parcel creates a unique challenge for the applicant regarding building placement, site and parking access. The site has a more trapezoidal shape, with a narrower front lot line than rear lot line. The parcel is also surrounded by a recently approved residential development now under construction (Cannery I), and existing Mission Shopping Center to the south; and Ventura Avenue lines the entire frontage.
A private alley is located directly south of the site and to the rear of the Mission Shopping Center and is owned by the shopping center. The Applicant has indicated they have approached the shopping center about using the alley for accessing the subject site but no agreement was reached and therefore the entrance ramp to a subterranean garage access is on Ventura Avenue.
No reciprocal pedestrian access between this project site and the residential development to the north is indicated on the project plans.
At the December 20, 2017 DRC meeting the following comments were made regarding the overall site design:
• Study the mitigation of roof deck noise along north elevation • Resolve front yard encroachment over property line
Since the project was last reviewed by the DRC the Building Type analysis for the building has been changed from a Commercial Block Building Type to a Courtyard Building Type consistent with the Director's Determination. While the orientation of the building on the site has not been modified nor has the design of the courtyards, the design of the building is consistent with Courtyard Building Type requirements (except for height ratios).
The roof top deck has been designed with a 4-~ foot wide planter placed along the northern edge of the building to separate the active outdoor space from the adjacent building.
PROJ. No. 11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 8
DRC - 9
f ...... :·, ....... _____ ·-·· :
. "" ................. -..... ]
! ... ;
-.
•
, . : ...
:' I :' p. - - - - - : . . :" nvate S!rG
... __ _ ---
; ' . ::
'
.... • • • • • •
• • • I
.t I . .. : ; 1 • • l· '
• • I • • • l. ,. :
. i .; • . r :
, ' : • t I . l .. •, r • I : ,'
4 '. : •
Figure 1: December 20, 2017 Site Plan ............ ..... ____ }
I ,. I
I
• • • • • •
·- ----
----
• • • • •
------·
r .... .......
•
:·
/
.. . • • • •
.' I
t
: I : I
I t I
. ., .. : ' ~ :
Figure 2: Staff solicits the ORC to confirm if the site plan changes are in keeping with their
comments
PROJ. No. 11514 ORC/12/05/18/ER
Page 9
DRC - 10
Building Type - Courtyard Housing
At the December 20, 2017 DRC meeting the following comments were made regarding the Building Type:
• Study building type other than Commerc•al Block possibly courtyard
The Director's Interpretation prepared for this project has allowed the Courtyard Housing Building Type to be used. A Courtyard Housing Building Type is proposed. The Courtyard Housing Building Type is described as a group of dwelling units arranged to share one or more common courtyards upon a qualifying lot in any zone. Dwellings take access from the street or the courtyards. Dwelling configuration occurs as townhouses, flats, or flats located over or under flats or townhouses. The courtyard is intended to be semi-public space that is an extension of the public realm.
The project is consistent with all Courtyard Housing standards, except for the building height ( as dis cussed below).
The main entrance to the building is directly from and faces the street and is accessed by a paseo. No ground level residential units directly front the building. Rather the front of the building is composed of an indoor/outdoor gathering room, main entrance and subterranean garage entrance.
Parking entrances to subterranean garages and/or driveways should be located as close as possible to the side or rear of each lot, and are subject to an elevated Design Review if they do not. As noted above, the applicant does not have access to the private alley located directly south of the site. Consequently, the entrance ramp to the subterranean garage can only be on Ventura Avenue.
The intent of a courtyard is to provide areas for activity for the occupants of a building. The primary shared open space for a Courtyard Housing Building Type is to be a courtyard. The project provides several areas for activity, including two courtyards, a community room and a roof deck.
Staff solicits the DRC to confirm if the Courtyard Building Type change is in keeping with their comments
PROJ. No. 11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 10
DRC - 11
Building Height
At the December 20, 2017 DRC meeting the following comments were made regarding the building height:
• Mass, Bulk and scale are appropriate
The project Building Type has been revised from a Commercial Block Building Type to a Courtyard Housing Building Type. The change in Building Types changes the allowed height ratios. While the architectural design of the building including bulk, mass and scale of the building and building height has not changed the ratios per the DTSP requirements have.
The project building height ratio includes 82% 3-story and 17. 9% 4-story floor area ratio. This floor area ratio is almost consistent with the T5.1 Height standards which allows a 75% 3-story, 25% 4-story floor area ratio and is almost consistent with the Courtyard Housing Building Type standards allows a 15% 2-story, 60% 3-story and 25% 4-story floor area ratio. Staff recognizes the Courtyard building has a Building Size & Massing standard that allows for greater heights, which are intended to allow an architecturally interesting project with a variety of heights that break up the massing of a project. A comparison of the height limits is provided in the following chart.
... · .
Zoning Standard . Footprint Ratios ..
T5.1 Zone Maximum Height 75% - 3 stories 25% - 4 stories (Warrant)
Courtyard Housing Building Type Suggested Height Ratios for 15% - 2 stories 3.5-story buildings 60% - 3 stories
The 4th floor is step backed from the 3rd floor fa9ade which will limit visibility from adjacent right-of-ways. While there currently is a one-story shopping center adjacent to the site, the immediate area is zoned to allow for 3 and 4 story buildings. The recently constructed Cannery I site is located directly adjacent to the north and is a combination of 3 and 4 stories.
Staff supports the Warrant to allow the building height ratio as proposed as it results in a design that is compatible with the built and envisioned neighborhood. Staff solicits the DRC to provide comments on the proposed project's height ratio given the concerns regarding compatibility with the built and proposed neighborhood, and to reconfirm
PROJ. No. 11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 11
DRC - 12
support for the required Warrant.
Frontage Type - Forecourt
The Frontage Type combined with the Building Type establishes a building's relationship to the street, blending building scale and syntax to accommodate the pedestrian. All Frontage Type standards within the DTSP are subject to an elevated Design Review.
A Forecourt is proposed as the project Frontage Type. A Forecourt is not covered, and must be at least 10 feet by 10 feet. A Forecourt may be suitable for gardens, outdoor dining, or in some cases vehicular drop-offs. A fence or wall at the Frontage Line, with a pedestrian opening in all cases, may be provided to define the space of the court. This Frontage type should be used sparingly and in conjunction with Stoops or Shopfronts.
The proposed Forecourt is of a. somewhat irregular trapezoidal shape measuring 14 feet by 20 feet, which exceeds the 10 foot by 10 foot minimum standards; however, to achieve this size, the Forecourt encroaches into the public right-of-way.
The applicant has worked with the Public Works Department Land Development Division regarding the front yard encroachments of the front patio and forecourt, and Land Development is agreeable to process a right-of-way License Agreement allowing the project to encroach into the right-of-way. The project is conditioned for a License Agreement to be processed prior to Building Permit issuance.
Architecture
The proposed building's architecture has not been modified since the DRC last reviewed the project. As the DRC did not have any comments requesting modification to the architecture, no further comments are provided.
The project is conditioned to undergo a formal Confirmation of Details process. The conditions may be amended to the DRC's satisfaction to assure a satisfactory height ratio is to be provided (Condition No. 25).
Open Space
The proposed project complies with the Courtyard Building Type open space requirement. The larger outdoor courtyard area located centrally and oriented south to take advantage of the available sunlight, within the site takes up 17% of the lot, and is the primary open space within the project site. A secondary courtyard is located northeast of the primary courtyard and takes up 5% of the site for a total of 22% of courtyard area is located on the ground floor. The proposed landscaping is designed to capture water from storm events.
PROJ. No. 11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 12
DRC - 13
Landscaping
At the December 20, 2017 DRC meeting the following comments were made regarding the landscape plan:
• Further develop the landscape plan
The landscape plans have been updated to include plant types, location and WUCOLS. Proposed plants include both trees, shrubs, vines and succulents in the courtyard and private patios and shrubs and succulents on the rooftop outdoor space.
Proposed plant types include:
Trees Vines • Nude Sheath Bamboo • Royal Trumpet Vine • Tipu Tree • Creeping Fig • Varigated Brisbane Box
Shurbs Succulents • Variegated Fox Tail Agave • Sunburst Aeonium • Dwarf Asparagus Fern • Short leaved Aloe • Cast Iron Plant • Coral Aloe • Red Pencil Tree • Gian Chalk Dudleya • Elijah Blue Fescue • Catalina Island Live-forever • Blue Oat Grass • Paddle Plant • Pine Muhly • Kleina • Coffeeberry • Barbeque Rosemary • Snake Plant • Giant Chain Fern
Staff requests the DRC provide comments concerning the revised landscape plan and plant pallete.
Parking
The subterranean parking garage proposes 45 parking spaces which is broken up into 20 standard single spaces and 26 tandem parking spaces. To be consistent with the DTSP, the project is required to provide 35 parking spaces and therefore as proposed the project complies with required parking standards of the DTSP.
The project provides an area for bicycle parking located within the garage that could accommodate 5 bicycle spaces, which is consistent with the DTSP.
PROJ. No. 11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 13
DRC - 14
Other Department Technical Review
The proposed project has been distributed to various Departments for technical review. No technical issues were raised by Departments regarding the design of the project; however, Department project conditions are to be incorporated into the Administrative Coastal Development Permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the DRC to forward an approval recommendation with conditions to the Administrative Hearing Officer for a Design Review Permit, as contained in the attached Notice of Decision.
Next Steps
The project is subject to the following: • MS4 Permit Compliance • CEQA compliance • City Council "Call for Review" Notification • Administrative Coastal Development Permit and Warrant approval • Design Review Committee Confirmation of Details • Plan Check and Grading and Building Permit Issuance • Design Review Compliance Inspection
ATTACHMENTS A. Site Location and Context B. Westside Community Council Revitalization Committee Notes & Surveys· C. December 20, 2018 DRC Minutes D. Director's Interpretation E. Notice of Decision with Exhibits (Project Plans)
PROJ. No. 11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 14
DRC - 15
Attachment A
Site Location & Context
DRC - 16
1-(1)
(I)
PROJ-11514 Attachment A
Site Information and Context
DRC - 17
~ -ID
z w Cl Cl'.'. <C C)
Cl)
w ' ::>
z w > <(
PROJ-11514 Attachment A
Site Information and Context
DRC - 18
PROJ-11514 Attachment A
Site Information and Context
DRC - 19
PROJ-11514 Attachment A
Site Information and Context
DRC - 20
PROJ-11514 Attachment A
Site Information and Context
DRC - 21
Attachment.B
Westside Community Council Revitalization Committee Notes & · Surveys
DRC - 22
35W Box 377 Ventura, CA 93001 www.wccventura.org
wee PROPOSED SURVEY
PROJECT: (l-l C L /!) ns DATE: 3· 2, 2.0l 7 Rating scale is 1 through 5 1 5 MOST meeting the needs of the Westside.
1. Density.
1 2 {!:) 4 5
1 (!) 3 4 5
3. Parking.
1 {J) 3 4 5
4. Circulation.
1 2 3
5. Services {police, fire. parks, road demands, school demands, etc.}
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Nancy Butler Francis, Chair David Ferrin, Vice-Chair Mark Abbe, Commissioner Rob Corley, Commissioner Laura Kay Dunbar, Commissioner Jane Farkas, Commissioner Dan Long, Commissioner
Jeffrey Lambert, Community Development Director Jennifer Lee, Assistant City Attorney
Dave Ward, Planning Manager Scott Kolwitz, Principal Planner
Julie Stuva, Recording Secretary
CITY OFVENTURA
Of.SIGN Rf.Vlf.W COMMITTf.f. MINUTf.S Brian Brodersen, Chair David Ferrin, Vice-Chair Albert Antelman, Member Tyson Cline, Member Fiona Dunne, Member
Jeffrey Lambert, Community Development Director Dave Ward, Planning Manager Scott Kolwitz, Principal Planner
Julie Stuva, Recording Secretary
JOINT MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2017 - 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 501 POLI STREET
Chair Brodersen called the meeting to order at 6: 10 PM in the Council Chambers of Ventura City Hall.
ROLL CALL: PLANNING COMMISSION
Present:
Absent:
Commissioners Abbe, Corley, Dunbar, Long, Vice-Chair Ferrin and Chair Francis
Commissioner Farkas
ROLL CALL: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Members Antelman, Cline, Dunne, Vice-Chair Ferrin and Chair Brodersen
None
Jennifer Lee, Assistant City Attorney Dave Ward, Planning Manager Scott Kolwitz, Principal Planner Elizabeth Richardson, Senior Planner Jared Rosengren, AICP, Senior Planner Susan Tebo, President, Tebo Environmental Consulting Julie Stuva, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Francis led the Commission and Committee in the Pledge of Allegiance.
DRC - 36
DRAFT - Design Review Committee and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 20, 2017 Page 9
Windows should be recessed a minimum of 2inches • nspout and gutter style should be appropriate for architectural style . .
be ro d.
Member Antelman s
AYES:
NOES: None
RECUSED:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Vice- air Ferrin declared the m a Chair Brodersen recused.
5.
California En . tal Quality Act Not required fort ,.. f ction.
' ' , i;ohfion of the existing 16,959 , e const'ftction of 35 new residential
uare feet to 781 squar~ feet in size and nd 1,400 square foot roof deck within
ated at 117 North Ventura Avenue;
DRC-4-17-40056
Case Planner: Jared Rosengren, AICP, Senior Planner
SPEAKERS: Staff: Scott Kolwitz, Principal Planner, Jared Rosengren, AICP, Senior Planner Applicant: Tyson Cline,· Applicant, Catherine Young, RNT Architects, Monika Banakaite, RNT Architects, David Schuman, Raven Ridge Division, Eric Berg, (Pacific Coast Land Design)
DRC - 37
DRAFT - Design Review Committee and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 20, 2017 Page 10
Members of the Public: Tom Harkins, (Ventura), George Vidacovich, (Ventura), Randal Beeman, (Ventura) Documents: PowerPoint by Staff and Applicant Ex Parte Communication: Committee Member Cline recused himself as the applicant
is his client.
Vice-Chair Ferrin made a motion to continue the project to a date uncertain subject to the following comments:
• Study building type other than Commercial Block • Mass, Bulk and scale are appropriate • Appreciate diversity of architecture along Ve venue • Project provides "eyes on the street" alon · venue and Alley Way • Further develop the landscape plan • Open spaces are well placed • Study the mitigation of roof deck n • Resolve front yard encroachment o
Member Antelman seconded th
AYES: · d Chair Brodersen
NOES:
and recused.
6. PROJ-102 equest for Formal Design Review for an amendment t~ approved mixed- development consisting of the ~~ of subterranean parking, sim · · ation and modificatio e architectural style, and the reconfiguration of un· d c rel layout resulting in a 78-unit condominiu~ residential~ , in ing two inclusionary units within two, three-s~tfential courtyard buil I nd 81 ground-level garage-park· :paces. Additionally, the project inclu three-story
· se building with four flex spaces and 1,121 square of
DRC - 38
Attachment D
Director's Interpretation
DRC - 39
CITY OFVENTURA
COMMUNITY DtVf.LOPMf.NT Date: November 20, 2018
TO: Community Development - Planning Division
FROM: Jeffrey Lambert, AICP, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Official Interpretation of the Downtown Specific Plan Lot Width Development Standards Courtyard Building Type Limitation
Issue: The Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Urban Standards, Article II, Sections 2.30.020.D (T4.1 Urban General 1), 2.30.030.D (T4.2 Urban General 2), 2.30.040.D (T4.3 Urban General 3), 2.30.045.D (T4.3.5 Urban General 3.5- Promenade Parcels), 2.30.050.D (T4.4 Thompson Corridor), 2.30.060.D (T5.1 Neighborhood Center), and 2.30.070.D (T6.1 Urban Core) Building Types states that a Courtyard Building Type is only allowed on lots with a lot Width between 100 feet and 150 feet. Article 9.10.010 Glossary of Terms defines Lot Width as "The length of the principal frontage lot line." Article 8.10.050 Variances: Warrants and Exceptions do not list lot widths for Building Types as an allowed Warrant or Exception, and therefore the Courtyard Building Type is not allowed on a site with a lot width of less than 100 feet in any DTSP zone.
Through the evaluation of The Lofts, Project-11514, the Design Review Committee determined the project's urban design was better if the Courtyard Building Type standards were applied rather than the Commercial Block Building Type which was allowed by the code.
Discussion: Form-based codes (and the principles and concepts of New Urbanism that most form-based codes are intended to apply through zoning) are focused on generating human scale, pedestrian-oriented urban patterns and architectural forms that are compatible with existing urban contexts.
The purpose of the Building Type minimum lot width is to ensure that functional buildings and outdoor space are designed to be compatible with the bulk, mass, scale, and character of the existing neighborhood. Outdoor spaces must be of a size that are comfortable and functional and the pedestrian and vehicle access to the site must be organized. At the time the DTSP was approved in 2007 industry standard for Courtyard buildings was simple and considered a building was on average 30 feet wide with 5- and 10-foot side yard setbacks and a 30-foot wide courtyard. With the prototype in mind and lot width increments of 25 feet the minimum lot width of 100 feet was established. These standards were one-size-fits-all for all zones within the DTSP meaning they did not address different urban form compatibility in diverse contexts.
Since the adoption of the DTSP, form-based codes now calibrate Building Types on a zone-byzone test. This zone-by-zone test is especially important for form-based codes being applied to existing urban contexts, where lot sizes are already set and may vary considerably. For formbased codes prepared for areas of new development, the dimensions of all lots are also regulated by the code through the subdivision process. But in applying new codes to existing areas it has been recognized to be vitally important to review the widths and configurations of
DRC - 40
CD Memo Page 2
existing lots (particularly those that are atypically located or shaped) within each new zone, to evaluate how the intentions of the proposed standards for a given building type would be applied to that type of lot. Zones with a lower intensity have a greater minimum lot width than a zone that is a higher intensity. The minimum lot width of 100 feet is appropriate for the T 4.1 zone but not the higher intensity T5.1 and T6.1 zones. Creating a range of acceptable lot widths would expand the appropriateness for building types within areas with a higher intensity. If a functional building could be designed meeting the open space requirements of the building type, the project could meet the objectives of the original DTSP by allowing projects with good urban design and adequate pedestrian and vehicle access to be placed on properties that do not meet the strict requirements of the DTSP.
The DTSP, locally approved in 2007 and LCP certified in 2011, was the City's first attempt at a form-based code. As part of the justification for the interpretation, Sargent Town Planning provided an analysis (Attachment A) on the evolution of form-based codes and how Ventura's Downtown Specific Plan represents an early version that tied a higher degree of specificity to building types than later form-based codes adopted by other jurisdictions. The analysis provides illustrations of Courtyard Building Type Configurations and speaks to how industry standards have evolved in the application of lot widths and· building types within areas of different intensities. Industry standard now applies intensity to the formula for lot width allowing building types to be placed on narrower lot frontages while still having a project of good urban design.
Director Authority: Pursuant to DTSP Rules of Interpretation, Section 8.10.070, the Director has the authority to interpret a Development Code provision by making a Finding for the basis of interpretation and the interpretation's consistency with the Specific Plan, General Plan, and Comprehensive Plan, and the basis of interpretation is supported by industry standards related to the implementation of form based codes and the evolution of being less restrictive in terms of building types. The Community Development Director has determined the following conditional finding:
Form-based codes now calibrate Building Types on a zone-by-zone basis which considers existing urban contexts, where lot sizes are already set and may vary considerably. The application of the Courtyard Building Type across the DTSP zones is to be calibrated for areas with different intensities allowing for functional buildings which meet the open space · requirements of the Courtyard Building Type while still providing compatibility in diverse contexts and meeting urban design and adequate pedestrian and vehicle access objectives of the original DTSP.
The Downtown Code as adopted allows the Courtyard Building Type in all 6 zones and applies the 100-foot minimum lot width standard in all zones. The current industry standard for a code testing phase would identify a larger minimum lot width dimension for the lower intensity T 4 neighborhood zones and a smaller, more compact minimum lot width within the higher intensity T5 and T6 center and core zones.
In order to remain consistent with the intent of the DTSP goal of good urban design, the interpretation requires Courtyard Building Types on lots with lesser minimum lot width while still ensuring that functional buildings and outdoor space are designed to be compatible with the bulk, mass and scale and in character with the existing neighborhood.
DRC - 41
CD Memo Page 3
Additionally, removing the unintended hardship for residential development would further the City's General Plan, Comprehensive Plan, Specific Plan and Housing Element goals and policies.
Director's Code Interpretation: During review of any planning permit application, staff shall apply the following, in accordance with Downtown Specific Plan Article II, Sections 2.30.020.D (T4.1 Urban General 1), 2.30.030.D (T4.2 Urban General 2), 2.30.040.D (T4.3 Urban General 3), 2.30.045.D (T4.3.5 Urban General 3.5- Promenade Parcels), 2.30.050.D (T4.4 Thompson Corridor), 2.30.060.D (T5.1 Neighborhood Center), and 2.30.070.D (T6.1 Urban Core) Building Types:
T4.1,T4.2, T4.3 and T4.3.5 Zones: The Courtyard Building Type 100-foot lot minimum lot width standard is appropriate for the T 4.1 and T 4.2 zones, in which side yard setbacks of 5 feet minimum (or 5 to 15 feet when abutting side streets) are expected to provide side yard separations to neighboring properties, which in many cases are occupied on the ground floor by private patios for ground floor dwelling units. That leaves 80 to 90 feet for the wings of a "C" court building and the courtyard itself. With typical wing depths of 25 to 30 feet, and courtyard widths of 25 to 35 feet, a 100-foot lot width is clearly sufficient but not excessive.
T4.4, T5.1 and T6.1 Zones: In the T4.4 zone, side yards and side street setbacks may be optional and in the T5.1 and T6.1 Zones side yards and side street setbacks are optional, which pragmatically allows Courtyard Building Types to be designed on lots narrower than 100 feet. For instance, courtyard buildings could gracefully accommodate a "C" court or"L" court and the courtyard itself1. In courtyard buildings without side yards to provide light and air and emergency egress for the interior spaces, the depths of the single-aspect wings typically decrease from 30 feet to 20 or 25 feet, or even shallower. For such "C" courts, combinations of wing depths in the 15 to 25-foot range and court widths in the same range yield many good possibilities on lots between 50 and 75 feet wide.
If any applicant should disagree with the application of this policy in practice, they may decide to only use a Courtyard Building Type on a property with a minimum lot width as specified in the DTSP. This Director's determination is in compliance with Article 8.10.070 of the Downtown Specific Plan.
Attachment: Director's Interpretation: Sargent Town Planning Form based Code Analysis August 26, 2018.
Recordation and Distribution Procedure: This Code Interpretation is distributed to the City Council, Planning Commission, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk and Community Development Department staff.
This code provision will be amended as part of the next available DTSP - Development Code Amendment process.
The historic El Jardin building in Downtown Ventura is essentially a double "C" court with a zaguan entry from Main Street), sited on a 50-foot-wide lot
DRC - 42
• • 1 sARGENT I l l TOWN PLANN ING
MEMO Date: 26 August 2018
To: Tyson Cline
From: David Sargent
Project: 117 N. Ventura Avenue Lofts, Ventura, California
Subject: Advances in Industry Standards for Form-Based Code Preparation
Pursuant to our meeting with City staff on May 30 we provide this memorandum outlining recent developments in form-based coding techniques that have advanced the industry standard beyond the techniques employed by Ventura's Downtown Code.
Background
Form-based codes (and the principles and concepts of the New Urbanism that most form-based codes are intended to apply through zoning) are focused on generating human scale, pedestrian-oriented urban patterns and .architectural forms that are compatible with existing urban contexts.
Courtyard building.typologies are one of several patterns that have proven successful over time in delivering multi-family housing intensities in neighborhood and town center contexts throughoutthe region, and for which there are strong precedents in Ventura. ·
Accordingly, that type was included in the Downtown Code, and applied to all 6 zones -the Urban General Zones (T4.1 through T4.4), the Neighborhood Center Zone (TS.1, in which the subject property lies), and the Urban Core Zone (T6.1). The minimum lot width in all 6 zones is identified as 100 feet.
Lot Width Regulations
Key considerations in regulating the minimum lot width for new development include:
• To help ensure that functional buildings and on-site open spaces can be fitted gracefullyonto each lot.
• To help ensure that the size, scale and location of new buildings render them in scale and in character with adjoining buildings and the intended urban environment.
• To help ensure that on-site open spaces - in the form of private yards, private patios and balconies, shared yards, courtyards, roof terraces, shared entry courts - are comfortable, functional spaces in harmony with the on-site building(s) and neighborhood yards and buildings. ·
• To help ensure that pedestrian and vehicular access to the lot and to the building(s) is
1 of 3
DRC - 43
organized to support the intended human scale and pedestrian orientation of the building(s).
Many criteria in addition to lot width contribute to meeting these objectives, but lots that are too narrow for the intended type can thwart those efforts.
Courtyard Buildings
Buildings organized around outdoor courtyards have been an important building type in towns and cities around the world since the beginning of towns and cities. They are also one of the most characteristic urban housing types in Southern California, capitalizing as the do on the mild climate to generate semiprivate indoor/outdoor living environments in urban contexts. From their heyday in the first 3 decades of the 20th Century through a revival in recent decades, a wide range of courtyard sizes, types and configurations have been instrumental in integrating high quality housing of many types into neighborhoods throughout the region.
As part of the Downtown Code preparation, a range of such configurations was documented and then abstracted into flexible standards. See the variations studied on the attached graphic pages. The prevailing practice in the industry at that time was relatively simple standards that based on a common prototype. The "C" court, open to the street, was the most common sub-type - including numerous examples in Downtown and Midtown Ventura - and the development standards including the lot width standard were based on that sub-type. That prototypical "C" court building includes side yard setbacks of 5 to 10 feet, building wings approximately 30 feet in depth, and a courtyard approximately 30 feet wide. With this prototype in mind, and within a system of lot width minimums in increments of 25 feet, a minimum lot width of 100 feet was established for this building type.100'.
Advances in Industry Standards
In the almost 15 years since the Downtown Code was drafted, a key advancement of form-based coding practice has been the introduction of a rigorous phase of "code testing". This step is especially important for codes being applied to existing urban contexts, where lot sizes are already set and may vary considerably. For form-based codes prepared for areas of new development, the dimensions ofall lots are also regulated by the code through the subdivision process. But in applying new codes to existing areas it has been recognized to be vitally important to review the widths and configurations of existing lots (particularly those that are atypically located or shaped) within each new zone, to evaluate how the intentions of the proposed standards for that building type would be applied to that type of lot.
If this new industry standard/code testing step had been completed for the Downtown Code, the following procedures would have been completed and the identified considerations taken into account:
1. Zone by Zone Testing and Calibration: The application of building typologies across a number of zones (that is, a number of different intended urban environments) now includes the step of calibrating all the standards forthat type to the lot sizes in that area, and to the intended resulting urban and architectural scale and character.
The Downtown Code as adopted allows the Courtyard Building Type in all 6 zones, and applies the 100-foot minimum lot width standard in all zones. The current industry standard for a code testing phase would identify a larger minimum lot width dimension for the lower intensity T4 neighborhood zones and a smaller, more compact minimum lot width within the higher intensity TS and T6 center and core zones.
Specifically, the 100-foot lot minimum lot width standard is very appropriate for theT4.1 and T 4.2 zones, in which side yard setbacks of 5 feet minimum (or 7:5 to 10 feet in many cases) are expected to provide side yard separations to neighboring properties,
2 of 3
DRC - 44
which in many cases are occupied on the ground floor by private patios for ground floor dwelling units. That leaves 80 to 90 feet for the wings of a "C" court building and the courtyard itself. With typical wing depths of 25 to 30 feet, and courtyard widths of 25to 35 feet, a 100-foot lot width is clearly sufficient but not excessive.
However, in the T 4.3, T 4.4, T 5.1 and T 6.1 zones, where side yards are optional, itis clear that lots narrower than 100 feet could gracefully accommodate a "C" courts or"L" courts. The historic El Jardin building in Downtown Ventura is essentially a double "C" court with a zaguan entry from Main Street}, sited on a SO-foot-wide lot.
In courtyard buildings without side yards to provide light and air and emergencyegress for the interior spaces, the depths of the single-aspect wings typically decrease from 30 feet to 20 or 25 feet, or even shallower, as in the El Jardin building. For such "C" courts, combinations of wing depths in the 15 to 25-foot range and court widths in the same range yield many good possibilities on lots between 50 and 75 feetwide.
2. Lot Size and Configuration Testing: Through today's code testing process, atypically shaped and · oriented lots such as the subject lot - which is narrower in the front, wider in the rear, and with an alley or functional equivalent along one side lot line - would be recognized as strong candidates for a courtyard configuration with the court opening to that side, as the alley (or in this case the shopping center service access area) offers openness to sunlight and air.
In early code writing practice (of which the Downtown Code is a fine example}, a primary objective was to keep the standards as simple as possible/effective in order to not unduly constrain creative design. But in doing that, a trade-off was to not rigorously evaluate each lot and the proposed standards, leaving that for the design review process. The intent was to not prevent other courtyard configuration options, but that intent was implicit rather than explicitly stated in the Code, as has become common practice in today's codes. And when City staff applied the system of Warrants and Exceptions to the Downtown Code, the discretion for design review to adjust the dimensional standards for odd lots was unfortunately removed.
It is worth noting that the historic Pasadena offices of renowned architect Wallace Neff - in which the firm that prepared the Downtown Code is based - is in fact such a courtyard building. That landmark structure is sited on a 45-foot-wide lot on California Street, with a lovely courtyard oriented toward the alley running along the west side of the lot.
We welcome any opportunity to discuss this matter in more detail with you, your client, and City staff if that would be helpful. We always welcome any opportunity to be of service to the City of Ventura in advancing the interests of the Downtown.
Best regards,
SARGENT TOWN PLANNING, INC.
David Sargent, Principal
3 of 3
DRC - 45
COURTYARD HOUSI N G CONFIGURATIONS
Courtyard Housing may be designed in a variety of configurations and , depending on the type, can seamlessly fit anywhere in Downtown . Though the shape, size, orientation , and section of each courtyard type may differ, all the types share a number of important characteristics
they both frame the street and provide an interior, protected garden(s) ; their street frontage form is house derivative and house compatible; they provide direct access to all dwellings (no corridors, no lobbies, no elevators) .
Courtyard Housing developments range in density from 10 to 50 dwelling units per acre (du/ a). Typically ,
DRAFT Downtown Specific Plan Ventura, California
' ~ I
'
PUBLIC R.O.W.
- ,
' 1 I
I
I
W. I-------1 1 . __ , [
fw w 0::: f(f)
fw w 0::: f(f)
_____ .J
fw w 0::: f(f)
PUBLIC R.O.W.
~1 I I r r
PUBLIC R.O.W.
H ·- · c - - - - - - -
fw w 0::: f(f)
,
fw w 0::: f(f)
H ~ U~ LI~ R~ -~ - -
Crawford Multari & Clark Associates Maule & Polyzoides Architects and Urbanists
October 2004
,
1
DRC - 46
developments which exceed densities of 20 du/ a· must provide parking in subterranean garages.
The following diagrams show the basic court types. The fronts of the build ing , where relevant frontage types should be applied, are designated with thick, black lines.
DRAFT Downtown Specific Plan Ventura, Californ ia
A. Bungalow Court: a Bungalow Court is comprised of individual , detached singlefamily dwellings oriented around a common courtyard. This type is the least dense and can seamlessly fit into any single-family residential neighborhood .
PUBLIC R.O.W.
;I I-w w c:: I-Cf)
I : I I I
I - - - - - - -I
E. Zaguan Courtyard: A Zaguan Courtyard is very similar to a Forecourt Courtyard , the only difference being that the passageway leading from the court to the street is covered by a roof. The zaguan , a covered passage that passes through the building and gives access to the street, can be gated.
B. Side Courtyard: a Side Courtyard is defined on one or two sides by attached flats and/or townhouses. The courtyard may be completely open to the street (for a more suburban setting) or be hidden from the street by the building (for a more urban setting) .
,,_ D~ PUBLIC R.O.W.
I [ - - - - - - ·- 1
R 1, I-w I w
I I c:: I I-
Cf)
: I I j J - - - - - - -
11
F. Composite Courtyard: a Composite Court is a courtyard comprised of a large primary courtyard from which small , secondary patios branch-off. The pri_mary courtyard can be any of the previous attached-dwelling types discussed previously.
C. Open Courtyard: an Open Courtyard is a court that is surrounded on three sides by a "U" shaped building. The fourth side is completely open to the street.
I; ------ - 1 I
I I j I I:
I I
I-
' 1 I
w w
11 c:: I-
I U)
I I. I I ,. I
I - - - - - - - J I
H. Multiple Courtyard: a Multiple Courtyard consists of two or more separate courts. Though distinct spaces, these courtyards, comprised of any of the previous types, are connected via public passageways open to the sky or via zaquans.
D. Forecourt Courtyard: a Forecourt Courtyard is surrounded by buildings on three sides. The fourth side is partially open to the street, the open, unroofed portion (the forecourt) , providing a transition to the street. In this courtyard type, access from the street to the courtyard can be controlled with a gate.
I SIDE STREET
I. Corner Lot Courtyard: a Corner Lot Courtyard places any of the previous courtyard types at the intersection of two streets. Since this type faces two streets, the side of the courtyard that does not provide access to the street must provide frontages to the the street and to the courtyard.
G. Corner Courtyard: a Corner Courtyard places the passageway leading from the street to the courtyard at the corner of the lot. The passageway is open to the sky. Access to and from the courtyard can be controlled with agate.
Crawford Multari & Clark Associates Maule & Polyzoides Architects and Urbanists
October 2004
2
DRC - 47
COURTYARD HOUSING ORIENTATION
An important component of Courtyard Housing design is the orientation of the courtyard to the sun. In general, courtyards that are oriented with their long axis in the northsouth direction can be narrowerthan courtyards that are oriented with their long axis is the east-west direction . The following diagrams illustrate the impact that courtyard orientation can have on the amount of sunlight that enters a courtyard on the shortest day of the year: December 21.
COURTYARDWITHLONGAXISORIENTEDINEAST/WESTDIRECTION
N s
E
w
A. Because of the low angle of the sun in relation to the horizon, a courtyard that is th irty foot (30') wide court that is surrounded by two-story buildings will be constantly in shade.
DRAFT Downtown Specific Plan Ventura, California
N s
E
w
B. Widening the court to forty feet ( 40 ') permits direct sunlight to enterthe court.
N s
E
w
C. Similarly, lowering the south wing of the build ing to one story permits direct sunlight to enter the court.
COURTYARD WITH LONG AXIS ORIENTED IN NORTH/ SOUTH DIRECTION
w E
N
A. A thirty foot (30') wide court that is surrounded by two-story buildings will be shaded in the morning.
w E E
N N
B. At noon, the entire court will be bathed in sun.
C. By the late afternoon , the court is immersed in shade once again.
Crawford Multari & Clark Associates Moule & Polyzoides Architects and Urbanists
October 2004
3
DRC - 48
Attachment E
Notice of Decision
DRC - 49
NOTICE OF DECISION DRC-2018----DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL
PROJECT-11514 CASE NO. DRC-4-17-40056
On December 5, 2018, the Design Review Committee forwarded an approval recommendation with conditions to the Administrative Hearing Officer for a Design Review Permit for the site plan, building elevations, colors and landscape plan associated with the request for a Design Review Permit (DRC-4-17-40056) for the demolition of the existing 16,959 square foot industrial building and the construction of 35 new 100% affordable residential apartment units ranging from 418 square feet to 781 square feet in size and an 802 square foot community room and 1,400 square foot roof deck. The development would consist of a three (3) and four (4) story Courtyard Housing building. The proposed building sits on top of a ground level podium which wraps around an outdoor courtyard located centrally along the southern property line. The project also includes a subterranean 45-space parking garage with 5 bicycle parking spaces. The project is within an approximately 0.42 acre property located at 117 North Ventura Avenue in the T5.1 Zone district with a land use designation of Downtown Specific Plan. The project is comprised of a portion of an unnumbered parcel lying northerly of Lot 5 of the Tico Tract, In the City of San Buenaventura, County of Ventura, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 3, Page 4 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, commonly referred to as Assessor Parcel Number 071-0-260-300. Design Review approval is hereby granted based on the findings and subject to the conditions as follows:
FINDINGS FOR CASE NO. DRC-4-17-40056
1. Required Finding: 'The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of the general plan and any adopted architectural criteria for specialized areas, such as designated historic districts, theme areas, planned developments, or specific plans," per Zoning Regulation Section 24.545.100 (1).
The proposed design and layout of the development project would contribute to a development that is consistent with the following goals, policies and actions of the City's General Plan, specifically the Housing Element, and the Local Coastal Program of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Downtown Spedfic Plan and Development Code:
2005 General Plan Compliance: 2014-2021 Housing Element
HE Goal 2: Facilitate the provision of a range of housing types to meet the diverse needs of the community.
DRC - 50
HE Policy 2. 1 - Provide high quality housing for current and future residents at all income levels. Promote housing that is developed under modern sustainable community standards.
HE Goal 3: Provide adequate housing sites through appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing needs.
HE Policy 3.3: Encourage efficient utilization of the City's limited land resources by encouraging development at the upper end of the permitted Zoning Code/Comprehensive Plan density.
The proposed project would contribute to the provision of a range of housing types to meet the diverse needs of the community by adding 35 residential apartment units to the City's overall housing inventory. The unit mix would be comprised of 10 studio units, 20 one-bedroom units, and 5 two-bedroom units arranged in a Courtyard Housing Building Type. The range of unit sizes would accommodate individuals, couples, and small families seeking low-maintenance housing with communal amenities within walking distance of recreational destinations, Downtown shopping, services, and work places.
The proposed project is consistent with Goal 2 and associated policies because it would add 35 apartment units to the City's overall housing inventory and more specifically to the Downtown District. The 2005 General Plan Development Intensity & Pattern Table 3.2 predicted 1,650 units within the Downtown Specific Plan, and this project would add 35 units to the 1,016 already entitled or constructed units for a total of 1,051 units that have been entitled since the adoption of the 2005 General Plan, and an additional 245 units are being processed for a total of 1,296 units. Consequently, the project does fit within the DTSP predicted development, and a total of 354 additional units could be entitled and constructed in the DTSP area.
The General Plan 2014-2021 Housing Element "Sites Inventory" identified the site as a vacant and/or underutilized property that could provide an estimated 17 residential units based upon a density of 41 units per acre . The Housing Element also anticipated that of these 17 residential units, 3 units would be affordable units. The project proposes to maximize the development potential allowed on site, and by extension maximizes the use of land in the City and would allow high quality housing, potentially adding to the available range of housing types throughout Downtown including thirty-five (35) affordable units (4 Low, 31 Moderate); 100%. of the total units proposed. The 35 units will contribute to the City's ability to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 2
DRC - 51
Comprehensive Plan (Local Coastal Program)/Downtown Specific Plan
The proposed design and layout of the development project would contribute to a development that is consistent with the following goals, policies and actions of the Downtown Specific Plan and Development Code:
The proposed design and layout of the project would contribute to a development that is consistent with the applicable elements of the Municipal Code and the Downtown Specific Plan by including, among other things: recognized building types, frontage type and use of building architecture containing adequate wall articulation; pervasive use of exemplary surface texture, windows, and detailing; integration of well-defined vehicular circulation; and utilization of an architectural style that is compatible with adjacent structures. The proposed design and layout of the project would also improve the neighborhood livability and strengthen pedestrian and open space connections.
The LCP also seeks appropriateness of urban form through the implementation of a DTSP that emphasizes pedestrian orientation, integration of land uses, and treatment of streetscapes as community living space, and environmentally sensitive building design and operation. The proposed multifamily apartment units are designed with material composition and an intentional subdued color palette that compliments the surrounding context. The proposed development utilizes building placement and design to have a subterranean parking to mask parking areas from the right of way and integrates the project with the surrounding existing urban development. As such, the project is consistent with the following LCP policies and goals:
Community and Design Element, Policy 1. 2: Encourage design compatible with the positive characteristics of existing development.
Land Use Element, Goal 1: Supporl the adoption and implementation of local and regional guidelines which encourage urban development to be located within incorporated cities.
Land Use Element, Goal 5: Encourage orderly growth and development, parlicularly through the development of vacant and unproductive properlies in areas that are already developed.
The proposed project would be consistent with the LCP/General Plan as it would consist of a residential building in an area designated for residential development.
The proposed building and site improvements would contribute to a development that is consistent with the following goals, policies and actions of the Downtown Specific Plan:
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 3
DRC - 52
DTSP Goal 1: Preserve Ventura's special sense of place by insisting on high standards of architecture, urban design and landscaping so that new development complements the eclectic architecture and historic richness of our Downtown.
DTSP Policy 1A: Enhance preserve and celebrate the Downtown's historic and prehistoric resources.
DTSP Policy 1 B: New Development and the substantial remodel of existing development in the Downtown shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of this Specific Plan and the Development Code.
Action 1. 12: Ensure all development, including substantial remodels, adheres to Development Code standards.
DTSP Goal 5: Provide high quality, urban housing for a diverse range of income levels. Encourage efficient utilization of Downtown's limited land resources by promoting infill development.
DTSP Policy 5C Augment the historic and unique character of the downtown by ensuring new residential development and remodels exhibit the highest standards of architecture, urban design, and landscaping.
D TSP Action 5. 9 Ensure all residential development, including remodels, adheres to the Development Code, including design criteria suggested by the Design Guidelines, to sustain an eclectic mix of architectural styles that complements the downtown's unique and historic character.
The proposed project meets the intent of the DTSP by providing an opportunity for housing that serves to bring activity to the Downtown.
The proposed project would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan/LCP, DTSP, and General Plan Housing Element as it would consist of utilizing local design guidelines to redevelop an underutilized lot into a multi-family residential development with thirty-five (35) affordable units.
Policy 6A Provide access to and around the Downtown through a variety of options, emphasizing rail, buses, bikes and walking.
Action 6.9 Require all new development contribute toward a Transportation Demand Management (TOM) fund to be used to develop regional programs to offset air pollutant emissions associated with growth
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 4
DRC - 53
anticipated unqer the DTSP. The TOM fund shall be used to finance City programs to reduce regional air pollutant emissions.
The project has been conditioned to pay the TOM fee which will be used along with TOM fee collected from other Downtown projects to fund City program reducing air pollutant emissions.
The DTSP consists of Urban Standards, Building Types, Frontage Types and Design Guidelines to regulate neighborhood character and building design transitions from large to smaller scale. The Urban Standards pertain to the scale of neighborhoods that require buildings to define the street as a public room and prohibit surface parking areas from disrupting frontages and allows a variety of building types and setbacks.
The proposed multi-family residential project also meets the intent of the adopted 2013-18 Economic Development Strategy - Entrepreneurship and Economic Gardening Attraction Action which directs the City to provide a wide range of housing to support new job growth.
The subject site is not identified in the 1983 Cultural Heritage Survey. The project site does not contain an existing or potential landmark,. point of interest, or historic resource, and it is not located within an existing, proposed, or potential Historic District. The existing industrial building was constructed in 1971. On November 22, 2017, staff conducted a 5-day posting to the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) Members for a historic evaluation for the scope of work and no members requested to review the project.
Downtown Specific Plan Development Code
The Design Review Committee finds the proposed design and layout of the development project would contribute to a development that, as conditioned, is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan Development Code.
The Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Urban Standards, Article 2.30.060 T5.1 Neighborhood Center Section D Building Types states that Courtyard Building type is allowed on lots with a lot width between 100 feet and 150 feet. Article 9.10.01 O Glossary of Terms defines Lot Width as "the length of the principal frontage lot line". Article 8.10.050 Variances: Warrants and Exceptions do not list lot widths for building types as an allowed Warrant or Exception, and therefore the Courtyard Building type is not allowed on a site with a lot width of less than 100 feet in the T5.1 zone.
Through the evaluation of The Lofts, Project-11514, the Design Review Committee determined the project's urban design was better if the Courtyard Building Type
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 5
DRC - 54
standards were applied rather than the Commercial Block Building Type which was allowed by the .code.
The Community Development Director has the authority to interpret a Development Code provision by making a Finding for the basis of interpretation. The Community Development Director has made an Interpretation that form-based codes now calibrate Building Types on a zone-by-zone basis which considers existing urban contexts, where lot sizes are already set and may vary considerably. The application of the Courtyard Building Type across the DTSP zones is to be calibrated for areas with different intensities allowing for functional buildings which
· meet the open space requirements of the Courtyard Building Type while still providing compatibility in diverse contexts and meeting urban design and adequate pedestrian and vehicle access objectives of the original DTSP.
The Downtown Code as adopted allows the Courtyard Building Type in all 6 zones and applies the 100-foot minimum lot width standard in all zones. The current industry standard for a code testing phase would identify a larger minimum lot width dimension for the lower intensity T 4 neighborhood zones and a smaller, more compact minimum lot width within the higher intensity T5 and T6 center and core zones.
In order to remain consistent with the intent of the DTSP goal of good urban design, the interpretation requires Courtyard Building Types on lots with lesser minimum lot width while · still ensuring that functional buildings and outdoor space are designed to be compatible with the bulk, mass and scale and in character with the existing neighborhood.
Specific to the T5.1 zone, the Director found side yards and side street setbacks are optional, which pragmatically allows Courtyard Building Types to be designed on lots narrower than 100 feet. For instance, courtyard buildings could gracefully accommodate a "C" court or "L" court and the courtyard itself1. In courtyard buildings without side yards to provide light and air and emergency egress for the interior spaces, the depths of the single-aspect wings typically decrease from 30 feet to 20 or 25 feet, or even shallower. For such "C" courts, combinations of wing depths in the 15 to 25-foot range and court widths in the same range yield many good possibilities on lots between 50 and 75 feet wide.
Consequently, a Courtyard Building Type may be used on this property with a lot width frontage of 73.4 feet, as the DRC finds the design to be consistent with the goals of the DTSP.
The historic El Jardin building in Downtown Ventura is essentially a double "C" court with a zaguan entry from Main Street), sited on a 50-foot-wide lot
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 6
DRC - 55
The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan Development Code as it consists of Courtyard Housing Building Types with a Forecourt Frontage Type which are recognized Building Types, Frontage Type and allowed uses within the T5.1 zone. The project includes a Warrant for Building Height Ratios for a 3.5 stmy building.
On December 20, 2017, the proposed project was Formally reviewed by the Design Review Committee and they provided assessment of the project design and overall support for the project. The DRC recommendations included design direction for the site design, building type selection - recommended a type other than Commercial Block, and landscaping.
The proposed project was revised in accordance with the DRC's direction provided on December 20, 2017. As currently designed, and as reviewed on December 5, 2018, the project as a whole provides high quality, urban housing for a diverse range of income levels by meeting the intent of the DTSP by providing activated building frontages that serve to enliven the street while placing parking away from the frontages with a building form in keeping with the principles of building placement, while providing market rate apartments at a price point and unit sizes that would accommodate individuals, couples, and small families seeking lowmaintenance housing with communal amenities within walking distance of recreational destinations, Downtown shopping, services and work places.
Downtown Specific Plan Development Code Warrants and Exceptions
In order to approve a Warrant or Exception, the review authority must make findings as follows:
Warrants: a. The Warrant, while not consistent with a specific provision of this Code, is
justified by its ability to fulfill this code's intent or by hardship, b. The Warrant would result in development compatible with the scale and
character of existing development in the vicinity, and c. The Warrant would result in development that is not detrimental to or that would
adversely impact adjacent properties.
Building Size and Massing, 3.10.120.G.5.d
The project includes a T5.1 Zone Maximum Height and Courtyard Building Height Ratio Warrant as the project does not meet the exact suggested height ratios of the T5.1 Zone Maximum Height or the Courtyard Housing type, but comes close to meeting the height "menu options".
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 7
DRC - 56
Zoning Standard Footprint Ratios
T5.1 Zone Maximum Height 75% - 3 stories 25% - 4 stories (Warrant)
Courtyard Housing Building Type Suggested Height 15% - 2 stories Ratios for 3.5-story buildings 60% - 3 stories
The intent of a building height ratio is to allow an architecturally interesting project with a variety of heights that break up the massing of a project.
The Design Review Committee had Formally reviewed versions of the project that include portions exceeding the 3rd story building footprint ratio and were receptive to the height increase as the additional height is concentrated at the eastern property line along Ventura Avenue while the three story massing is concentrated in the middle of the project site.
The fourth story massing is placed along the Ventura Avenue frontage. The 4th floor is stepped backed from the 3rd floor fa9ade which will limit visibility from adjacent right-of-ways. The lot frontage is 73 feet 5 inches wide at this point. While the height floor area ratio exceeds the allowed percentage, the building massing is shorter than seen on other buildings in the vicinity. While there currently is a one-story shopping center adjacent to the south of the project site, the immediate area is zoned to allow for 3 and 4 story buildings. The building directly adjacent to the north of the project site, The Cannery, is also a four story building that required a Variance for an increase in building footprint massing for the 4th floor from 25% to 62%. This project's increase in massing is for the 3rd floor located in buildings placed away from the Ventura Avenue frontage. The adjacent building is primarily 4 stories while the buildings placed around the project's courtyards are 3 stories. The lower height, decreased number of stories and 14 foot setback from the northern property line the increased building footprint ratio will not impact light and air to the adjacent residents.
The proposed height ratio is similar to adjacent Cannery project approved using the DTSP and MXD zoning. The Cannery is a 4 story building with 5th story penthouses. The building footage ratio required a variance to increase the 4th story from 25% to 62%.
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 8
DRC - 57
The DRC found the building height ratio as proposed results in a design that is compatible with the built and proposed neighborhood.
The project has been conditioned to Confirmation of Details process (Condition No. 25). The conditions may be amended to the DRC's satisfaction to assure a satisfactory height ratio is to be provided.
Given this information, the project meets the intent of the code, would result in development compatible with the scale and character of existing development in the vicinity, and would result in development that is not detrimental to or that would adversely impact adjacent properties.
2. Required Finding: 'The design and layout of the proposed development will accommodate the functions and activities that are proposed for the property, will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing, or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards," per Zoning Regulation Section 24.545.100 (2).
The design and layout of the proposed project, as conditioned, would accommodate the functions and activities that are proposed for the property, and would not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing, or future developments, and would not create traffic or pedestrian hazards because the proposed development would be compatible with surrounding uses and provides for safe and well-defined pedestrian and vehicular access.
The surrounding uses include multi-family residential and commercial uses. The proposed development utilizes building placement and design to integrate the project with both the surrounding existing urban development and provides for safe and well-defined pedestrian and vehicle access. The project includes the construction of a three (3) story, 19, 787-square foot, 35-unit residential courtyard building (including 4 low income and 31 moderate income units) with 45 parking spaces, 5 bicycle spaces and associated landscaping. The project is an infill development on a well-defined parcel and respects an existing street pattern that accounts for a range of specific functions and activities addressing pedestrian activity, linkage between the uses, and safe traffic flow and access. The project will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards, by designing vehicle access off a single subterranean garage entrance located against the northern property line that will be compatible with adjacent commercial and residential uses. The project's design improves the pedestrian experience along the project's street frontage by including a forecourt entrance that faces Ventura Avenue, by creating a safe pedestrian connection around the site, and by placing the majority of parking in a subterranean garage.
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 9
DRC - 58
3. Required Finding: 'The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and all reasonable design efforts have been made to maintain the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by this zoning ordinance and the general plan," per Zoning Regulation Section 24. 545.100 (3).
The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and all reasonable design efforts have been made to maintain the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Development Code because the proposed development, as conditioned, is compatible with the scale, style and colors of the existing surrounding development, and incorporates design elements that create an activated street scape within the project.
The proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial uses and utilizes paint colors and materials that are harmonious in character with nearby development. The applicant team identifies the proposed project's architectural type is best described as a modern interpretation of the areas Spanish and industrial heritage by utilizing simple materials typical to the neighborhood including smooth stucco, tile and dark wood finishes. The proposed massing of the building is predominantly a single mass fronting on Ventura Avenue; however, it has been modified to provide plane breaks in order to break up the massing/fagade. The adjacent commercial buildings are a single story commercial strip mall and a 4 story mixed use building.
The DRC found the proposed project, including the Height Ratio Warrant, to be harmonious and compatible with the scale of the existing surrounding development. Building materials provide a variety of surface texture and articulation. The project was reviewed for consistency with the Downtown Specific Plan Design Guidelines and found to be in conformance with the following applicable guidelines:
Downtown Specific Plan Design Guidelines
The intent of the Design Guidelines is to aid designers, the public, and decision -makers by expressing the community's shared vision for the quality and attractiveness expected in new development. The project complies with following Downtown Specific Plan Design Guidelines.
A. Context and Architectural Character
Proposed buildings should relate to the architectural characteristics of surrounding buildings, especially historic buildings, in order to be more compatible with their neighbors. The intent is not necessarily to replicate or emulate historic buildings,
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 10
DRC - 59
but to allow for a range of architectural expressions that complement the existing urban fabric. Therefore, proposed building designs should be based on and reflect thorough analysis of their surrounding patterns with regard to the following:
1. Building orientation;
2. Horizontal and vertical building articulation;
3. Architectural style;
4. Building scale and proportion;
5. Roof line and form;
6. Fenestration pattern and detailing;
7. Architectural detailing;
8. Exterior finish materials and colors; and
9. Lighting and landscape patterns.
Even where there is no consistent architectural character or pattern found in the surrounding area, building design and massing can be used. to complement architectural characteristics of neighboring buildings. In some cases, where the existing context is not so well-defined, or may be undesirable, a proposed project can establish an architectural character and pattern from which future development can take its cues.
B. Building Massing and Articulation
1. Each building should have at minimum a distinctive: horizontal base; occupied middle; and eave, cornice and/or parapet line that complement and balance one another. Horizontal articulations can be produced by material changes or applied facade elements
4. Building Base - This may be a simple as a small projection of the wall surface and/or different material or color. It may be created by a heavier or thicker design treatment of the entire ground floor for a building of two or more floors, or by a setback of the upper floors.
5. Pattern of Features - Windows, wall panels, pilasters, building bays, and storefronts should be based on a module derived from the building's structural bay spacing. Features based on this module should be carried across windowless walls to relieve blank, uninteresting surfaces.
C. Building Walls . 2. Wall surface materials - if the building mass and pattern of windows and
doors is complex, simple wall surfaces are preferable (e.g. stucco); if the building volume and the pattern of wall openings are simple, additional wall texture and articulation should be employed (e.g. bricks or blocks, rusticated stucco, ornamental reliefs). In both cases pilasters, columns, and cornices should be used to add visual interest and pedestrian scale.
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 11
DRC - 60
3. Side and Rear Building Facades - should have a level of trim and finish compatible with the front facade, particularly if they are visible from streets, adjacent parking areas or residential buildings.
5. Color- In general, drab earth tones should not be used. Building walls should contrast trim colors; for example, neutral or light walls with dark colors and saturated hues for accent and ornamental colors; white or light window and door trim on a medium or dark building wall. Colors of adjacent buildings should be taken into consideration.
D. Wall Openings 1. Windows - are an important element of building composition and an
indicator of overall building quality: a. All windows within a building, large or small, should be related in
operating type, proportions, and trim. Other unifying ele- ments should be used, such as common sill or header lines.
E. Roofs 1. Forms - Roof forms should complement the building mass and match the
principal building in terms of style, detailing and materials. Double-pitched roofs (such as gable, hip, pyramid), dormer windows, and chimneys are recommended to add variety and visual interest when viewed from downtown streets below and hillside areas above. Roofs of historic buildings in Ventura and neighboring cities should be used as an inspiration for new designs. Flat roofs are acceptable in the T-5 and T-6 zones if a strong, attractively detailed cornice and/or parapet wall is provided. Single-pitched - or "shed" roofs should not be used for the principal building
2. Parapet walls - are recommended; they should have a distinct shape or profile, e.g. a gable, arc, or raised center.
6. Mechanical equipment - on rooftops should be screened, preferably behind a parapet roof. Latticework, louvered panels, and other treatments that are compatible with the building's architecture may also be appropriate.
F. Miscellaneous Building Elements 1. Trellises, Canopies, Awnings and other building mounted accessories
b. Trellises and Canopies - Materials, colors, and form should be derived from the building architecture.
G. Site Improvements 1. Public and Semi-Public Open Space - where provided as part of new
development; e.g. pedestrian spaces, arcades, malls, courtyards, etc
2. Walls, Fences and Piers - should be used to define public and private boundaries and spaces. a. Design - Walls, fences and piers should be designed to be compatible
with the character of the principal buildings.
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 12
DRC - 61
i. Walls and fences should be open and/or low along street frontages - to maintain both a public character and sight distances for driveways where they occur.
c. Materials - should be compatible with the principal building. Post or pier materials may differ from fence materials, such as metal fences with masonry piers.
3. Paving Materials - recommended for pedestrian surfaces are listed below. In general, a maximum of two materials should be combined in a particular application: b. Brick Pavers
4. Furnishings, Art Work, and Special Features - are recommended for public and/or common outdoor spaces. a. Permanent Outdoor Seating - is recommended in all publicly
accessible ways and spaces. Seating should be either. ii. custom designed - in a style related to the architecture of the building
(permanent benches of stone, brick or precast concrete), b. Portable Seating - movable chairs, tables for cafes and other furniture
should be of substantial materials; preferably metal or wood rather than plastic. Tables used for outdoor dining within the public right-of-way (i.e. in sidewalk areas) shall be a maximum of three (3) feet in diameter if round and three (3) feet along the longest side if recti- linear
5. Plant Materials and Landscaping - should contribute to a comfortable, yet urban, downtown environment. The Streetscape Plan contained in this document and the City of Ventura "City Tree Master Plan" should be referred to in addition to the guidelines listed below. Drought-tolerant plant materials should be used as appropriate.
i. Plant Materials Along Street Frontages - should contribute to a harmonious, civic character.
ii. Street trees - shall be planted along all streets at a spacing of approximately twenty-five (25) feet on center to create a buffer between pedestrians and automobiles. Consistency in tree species, tree size, and spacing should be used to establish a strong street identity
ii. Trees with open branching structures - should be used. Deciduous trees are recommended to create shade in summer and allow sun in winter.
iii. Curbside planting strips - shall be drought-tolerant grasses or low-growing groundcover; materials that might cause pedestrians to trip shall not be used.
iv. Streetside planting areas -should have a simple palette of plant species. Drought-tolerant and/or native plants should be used.
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 13
DRC - 62
Common non-native species such as Juniper, Oleander, and Eucalyptus should not be used.
v. Plant materials that exhibit annual or seasonal color - are recommended to highlight special locations; e.g. flanking main building entries and driveways
c. Plant Materials in Other Locations - should be selected and placed to reflect both ornamental and functional characteristics.
i. Deciduous trees - should be the predominant large plant material used. They should be located adjacent to buildings and within parking areas to provide shade in summer and allow sun in winter. Species should be selected to be drought-tolerant, provide fall color and minimize litter and other maintenance problems.
ii. Evergreen shrubs and trees - should be used as a screening device, for example, along rear property lines, around mechanical appurtenances- and to obscure grillwork and fencing associated with subsurface parking garages.
iii. Flowering shrubs and trees - should be used where they can be most appreciated: adjacent to walks and recreational areas, or framing building entries, stairs, and walks.
iv. Plants with annual or seasonal color - are recommended to highlight special locations, such as courtyards, building entrances, or access drives.
v. Decorative vines - should be considered for use along fences, property boundaries, perimeter walls, and on blank buildin·g elevations.
vi. Palm trees - should be used sparingly. The Specific Plan identifies palms as the trees to be used to establish Figueroa, California, and Ash Streets as symbolic connections to the Oceanfront. Palms planted in other locations should be singular or in tight groupings so as not to compete with the visual importance of these streets.
d. Drought-tolerant - and/or native plants should generally be used. Common non-native-species such as Juniper, Oleander, and Eucalyptus should not be used.
The proposed design of the residential buildings would be compatible with the eclectic styles of other buildings in the Downtown area as it embraces both contemporary architecture with Spanish elements smooth stucco, tile and dark wood finishes) echoing the surrounding residential and commercial developments. Further, the proposed project is an orderly extension of the
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 14
DRC - 63
surrounding urban core with intentional street connections to integrate this portion of Downtown. The project's design of facing the ground floor communal patio on the street and placing all required parking underground would improve the pedestrian experience along the Ventura Avenue frontages of the site. Therefore, the project as proposed provides for safe and well-defined pedestrian ~ccess.
4. Required Finding: 'The design of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing with the level of maintenance and upkeep that might reasonably be expected of the occupants," per Zoning Regulation Section 24.545.100 (4).
The design of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants and neighbors, and it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing with the level of maintenance and upkeep that might reasonably be expected of the occupants and professional management company because it complements the architectural design of existing buildings in the area and utilizes compatible colors, materials, and textures. The proposed project includes a recognized building type and frontage type and includes varied horizontal and vertical massing with appropriate use of high quality architectural and landscape elements such planters that define the transition from the public to the private realm. An interior courtyard and roof top amenities are also included to promote outdoor experiences, residential engagement, and to foster a sense of community within the proposed apartment project as well as within the Downtown area.
Furthermore, the project is conditioned to return to provide a progress report to the DRC on the project details prior to the formal Confirmation of Details and the Confirmation of Details process (Condition No. 25).
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines the proposed project is considered Categorically Exempt under Section 15303 (c) (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines since it consists of the conversion of constructing an office or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 10,000 square feet (each) in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. Further, the project would not trigger any of the exceptions to the exemptions listed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. The exceptions to the categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 15
DRC - 64
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -- a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
The project site is located on a developed commercial site within the Downtown Specific Plan land use designations and is located on a partially developed site adjacent to existing urban uses on the north, west, east and south. The project location does not include any environmental resource. Therefore, the project will have no impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern.
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
The addition is consistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code and is compatible with the existing development (physical scale and character of the area). Any projects requiring discretionary approval would be analyzed with the General Plan/Municipal Code for consistency with CEQA to determine any potential impacts. No project specific or cumulative impacts have been identified for this development project. Therefore, the project will have no significant cumulative impact.
(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
There are no unusual circumstances that would cause the project to have a significant effect on the environment. The project area is currently a developed commercial site with an existing 16,959 square foot industrial building (to be demolished) with ancillary parking facilities, landscaping and amenities, and the project will not significantly alter or intensify the industrial uses. Therefore, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 16
DRC - 65
improvements, which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
The project is not located in or adjacent to a state designated scenic highway.
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site, which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
The proposed project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project, which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
The project area is currently developed industrial site with a 16,959 square foot building that would be demolished, and none of these developments are known to include a historic resource. Therefore, the project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE NO. DRC-4-17-40056
Planning Division - Standard
1. This approval is granted for the land or land use described in the application and any attachments thereto, and as shown on the site plan, floor plan and elevations labeled Case No. DRC-4-17-40056 and dated December 5, 2018 Exhibit "A" through "WW", attached hereto and incorporated herein subject to Confirmation of Details per Condition No. 25.
2. The location of all buildings, fences, parking areas, and other facilities or features shall be located and maintained substantially as shown on the plot plan labeled Case No. DRC-4-17-40056 and dated December 5, 2018 Exhibit "A" through "WW", attached hereto and incorporated herein subject to Confirmation of Details per Condition No. 25.
3. This Design Review (DRC-4-17-40056) approval shall be contingent upon and not effective until approval of the associated Coastal Development Permit (CDP-11-18-48131) and Warrant (W-11-18-48132) are approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer and the License Agreement is approved by the City Council. The Design Review timeframe would be effective upon final approval date of the Coastal Development Permit, Warrant and License Agreement, whichever occurs last.
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 17
DRC - 66
4. Prior to obtaining building permits and within 15 days hereof, the applicant and property owner shall file with the Planning Division written Acknowledgment of the Conditions stated herein on forms provided by the Planning Division, and all public notices posted on site are to be removed.
5. Concurrent with submitting applications for building permits, the applicant and property owner shall file with the Planning Division written Discretionary Approval Compliance Affidavit on forms provided by the Planning Division, confirming that the plans which are submitted for Plan Check are consistent with the plans, materials and colors as· approved by the Design Review Committee.
6. An approval granted by the Design Review Committee does not constitute a building permit or authorization to begin any construction or to demolish an existing structure. An appropriate permit issued by the Building and Safety Division must be obtained prior to constructing, enlarging, moving, converting, or demolishing any building or structure within the City.
7. Once permits have been issued to commence work on the improvements, it is the applicant/owners responsibility to diligently pursue completion per all conditions, requirements and as represented on the approved plans. Reasonable progress shall occur on a continual basis until completion to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Work shall not be discontinued for a period exceeding 30 days, without acceptable cause. The intent is to have the project completed in a timely fashion so as to prevent a potential blight from partially completed construction.
8. Compliance with and execution of all conditions listed herein shall be necessary prior to obtaining final building inspection clearance and/or prior to obtaining any occupancy clearance, unless stated otherwise herein. Deviation from this requirement shall be permitted only by written consent of the Community Development Director or designee.
9. This Design Review Committee Notice of Decision, in its entirety as adopted, shall be included in the initial plan check submittal that is submitted to the Inspection Services Division. The Notice of Decision shall be copied directly onto a sheet of the plans, which are submitted for plan check. The Notice of Decision shall remain a part of the plans throughout the plan check process and shall be part of the plans for which building permits are issued.
10. Unless construction is commenced no later than 12 months after this approval is granted and is diligently pursued thereafter, this approval shall be null and void pursuant to the City's Zoning Regulations. However, if the approved plot plan, elevation plans, and adjacent areas are unchanged ( except as allowed under Zoning Regulations Chapter 24.505), the Community Development Director may grant one additional 12 month extension of time for start of construction, provided
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 18
DRC - 67
the initial 12 month period has not already expired. Start of construction is defined as:
a. All zoning and related approvals are effective; and b. All required building and grading permits for the project have been
issued; and c. The "foundation inspection" and "concrete slab or underfloor inspection"
as defined in the California Residential Code, Section R 109 have been made and received approval from the Inspection Services Division, i.e., all trenches must be excavated, forms erected, and all materials for the foundation delivered on the job and all in-slab or underfloor building service equipment, conduit, piping accessories and other ancillary equipment items must be in place. The California Residential Code is the currently adopted edition commencing with Section 12.110.010 of the City of San Buenaventura Municipal Code. Nothing in this definition shall be construed to alter the applicable legal standards for determining when vested property rights to complete the project have arisen.
11. The construction superintendent shall notify all crews of construction work hours on the project site. In accordance with the City's adopted Noise Ordinance, no work shall take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The construction work hours shall be noted on the improvement plans and are generally accepted as 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday work requires prior concurrence by City. No work shall take place on Sunday or any legal or City observed holiday. The definition of "work" shall include running or idling of equipment.
12. No finai inspection or occupancy permit shall be granted until all construction and landscaping is complete in accordance with the plans approved and the conditions required herein.
13. All materials and colors used in construction and all landscape materials shall be as represented to or as specified by the Design Review Committee, and any deviation will require the express approval of the Community Development Director. Once constructed or installed, all improvements shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans and in a manner acceptable to the Director. This includes landscape materials being maintained in a healthy and weed-free manner at all times.
14. Wherever a condition requires that something be initially "built," "constructed," "equipped," "installed," "provided" or the like in a certain fashion or per certain requirements or approvals, it also requires that the same shall at all times be "maintained" in accordance with the condition, requirement or approval.
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 19
DRC - 68
15. Minor Changes may be approved by the Community Development Director, as provided for under Municipal Code Chapter 24.570. Substantial change will require the filing of an Application for Amendment.
16. No signs of any type are approved as a part of this action. Any signs viewable from the public right-of-way must receive a sign permit approved by City Planning Staff prior to installation as per Chapter 24.420 Sign Regulations of the Municipal Code.
17. No outside open storage of any kind shall be permitted on the site.
18. The developer shall provide mailboxes in locations to be approved by the US Postal Service.
19. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the State, City of San Buenaventura, and any other governmental entity shall be complied with at all times.
20. Approval is subject to the applicant paying all fees and assessments to the City of San Buenaventura, as required by the Municipal Code.
21. The City of San Buenaventura is implementing a Water Rights Dedication and Water Resource Net Zero Policy per Municipal Code Chapter 22.180. All projects are subject to compliance with the Policy, which includes implementation of conservation offsets, dedication of water rights, and/or payment of a Water Resource Net Zero Fee.
22. All approvals are subject to and dependent upon the applicant complying with all applicable Ordinances, Codes, regulations, or adopted policies. In the event the City determines that it is necessary to take legal action to enforce any of the provisions of these conditions, and such legal action is taken, the applicant shall be required to pay any and all costs of such legal action, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by the City, even if the matter is not prosecuted to a final judgment or is amicably resolved, unless the City should otherwise agree with applicant to waive said fees or any part thereof. The foregoing shall not apply if the permittee prevails in the enforcement proceeding.
23. In accepting the benefits of the conditional approval of this discretionary permit and approvals issued in conjunction with this discretionary permit, and as a condition of approval of this permit, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of San Buenaventura and its officers, employees, and agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its officers, employees, or agents brought to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the permit by any advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body of the City. This condition shall be construed to include, without limitation, applicant's agreement to pay any attorney's fees incurred by the City in its choice of defense
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 20
DRC - 69
counsel or awarded against the City or its agents, officers, or employees in any legal action to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval of the application in which the petitioner or plaintiff in such action is the prevailing party and is awarded attorney's fees.
A. Applicant's obligations set forth in this condition are based on the mutual understanding of the City and the applicant that the City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense, provided that the City's obligation to "cooperate fully" in such defense shall no include payment of any monies for or toward any fees, costs, or expenses of such defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. In any event, the applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement of any such claim, action, or proceeding unless the settlement is approved by the applicant.
B. Nothing contained in this condition is intended to, or shall be construed to, prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, provided that applicant shall remain obligated to pay any attorneys' fees incurred by City for in-house or outside counsel which may be chosen by City in the exercise of its sole discretion.
C. In the event the City determines that it is necessary to take legal action to enforce any of the provisions of these conditions, and such legal action is taken, the applicant shall be required to pay any and all costs of such legal action, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by the City, even if the matter is not prosecuted to a final judgment or is amicably resolved, unless the City should otherwise agree with applicant to waive said fees or any part thereof. The foregoing shall not apply if the permittee prevails in the enforcement proceeding.
Planning Division - Special
24. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant and property owner shall complete the processing of a License Agreement to allow the forecourt to encroach within the public right-of-way along Ventura Avenue, and file the approved / recorded documents with the Planning Division.
25. The property owner shall be responsible for creating and implementing a parking management plan which shall consist of designating which resident will use which parking space in order to assure that vehicle size corresponds with parking space size. Parking spaces shall be physically demarcated with a space number, which shall be assigned to individual tenants through their rental lease agreement.
26. The project plans will be revised to address potential pedestrian and automobile conflicts at the access garage. As part of building permit plan check, the project
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 21
DRC - 70
is to implement/install adequate safety lights, audible signals, and/or appropriate paving markers to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director in consult with the City Engineer.
27. Downtown Specific Plan area developers shall contribute toward a Transportation Demand Management (TOM) Fund to be used to develop regional programs to offset air pollutant emissions associated with growth anticipated under the DTSP. The total amount that would be contributed to an off-site TOM Fund, based upon the methodology described in Ordinance 93-37, is $512,445. The amount provided by residential development would be about 7 4% of this total, or $379,209. The amount provided by commercial development would be 26% of the total, or $133,236. Applicants for residential developments that would generate a net increase in units would pay $237/unit (assuming 1,600 residential units). Applicants for commercial development that would generate a net increase in building area would pay $0.30/square foot (assuming a total of 450,000 square feet). These fee estimates include an adjustment for inflation, but may be further adjusted by the City over time if development totals or emission factors change.
The TOM funds shall be used to finance City programs to reduce regional air pollutant emissions. Specific mitigation measures that could be undertaken using the TOM fund include, but are not limited to, enhanced public transit service, vanpool programs/ subsidies, rideshare assistance programs, clean fuel programs, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and park-and-ride facilities.
Planning Division - Design Review
28. The Design Review Committee shall review and approve all construction documents, including all on-site paving and off-site/on-site landscaping and street tree details, concurrent with submitting plans for building permit plan check, to assure that construction documents accurately and completely reflect the project description provided herein. The applicant shall, at a minimum, submit plan sheets showing the originally approved project in comparison with proposed construction plans. The review and approval process required by this condition includes all outstanding project description components not disclosed and previously approved. The following shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to building permit issuance:
a) Final determination of the building wall materials, configurations, construction methods, surface texture, trim, material combinations, dimensions, and general construction methods;
b) Final determination of the window and door schedules and specifications including, but not limited to, recess depth, glazing, sills and frame material;
c) Final determination of the vertical architectural elements;
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 22
DRC - 71
d) Final determination of the ancillary building elements such as recesses/projections related, but not limited to, columns, piers, arches, balconies and all mechanical and electrical equipment;
e) Final determination of the building colors; f) Final determination of the railing and wall details for yards, balconies and
property boundaries with retaining walls; g) Final determination of the courtyards' and forecourt's dimensions and layout
details; h) Final determination of the screening of above ground utility boxes; i) Final determination of the private communal spaces and associated
landscape amenities including but not limited to the decorative concrete paving, low planter and seat walls, permanent outdoor furniture, fire pits, fountain features, planter pots, tree grates, metal gates and railings, park amenities and other permanent features.
j) Final determination of all of the street tree species, sizes and locations, in consultation with the Parks Division;
k) Final determination of the planting species, Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) classification, plant sizes and quantity and irrigation plan;
I) Final determination of the external lighting for building and landscape areas, including streetlights;
m) Final determination of the Fire Department access/paths and associated alterations to landscaping, exterior standpipes and exterior fire protection equipment;
n) Final determination of the compliance with Green Building Code; o) Final determination of the compliance with Federal and State accessibility
compliance standards; p) Final determination of the trash enclosure details; and q) Final determination of the parking lot details, including bicycle security.
29. The applicant shall create a color and materials plan sheet noting the Design Review Committee's confirmed colors and materials for approval by the Planning Division prior to submittal to the Building and Safety Department.
30. The Applicant/Developer shall call Community Development at (805) 654-7725 to request a "DRC Inspection" during framing and prior to final inspection. Failure to have required DRC Inspections at the required times, may result in the delay of your project receiving a final inspection or occupancy permit. Additional inspections may be required to ensure compliance with DRC conditions of approval. The Applicant/Developer shall pay deposit fee to the Planning Division to cover the costs for compliance review and field inspections. Note: Additional inspections may be required to ensure compliance with DRC conditions of approval.
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 23
DRC - 72
31. All lighting is to be designed to confine the light within the site boundaries and to provide safety and security. All building entrances and pedestrian ways are to be adequately lighted. Lighting is to be shielded from neighboring properties and directed at a specific task or target. Exposed bulbs are prohibited, unless the Community Development Director determines exposed bulbs are integral to the architectural design.
32. Location of all exterior fire valves, backflow preventers, and other grade or pad mounted equipment shall be coordinated with the Fire Marshal prior to submittal for Plan Check and Confirmation of Details, if applicable, and integrated into the building design to reduce the visual impact of these amenities.
33. Backflow preventers are to be painted dark green and screened by appropriate landscape and/or wall material, as approved by the Community Development Director, allowing a three-foot clearance on both sides of the point of connection. All other ground or pad-mounted equipment shall be painted dark green and fully screened by appropriate landscape materials, as approved by the Community Development Director.
34. To comply with the State Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plans to be prepared by a licensed professional in compliance with the provisions contained in the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, AB 1881, as revised June 15, 2015. A California Registered Landscape Architect shall provide a Certificate of Compliance/Letter of Inspection prior to occupancy stating that the installation of landscaping is in accordance with the approved plan.
35. All landscaping shall be provided adequate landscape irrigation and the building and grounds shall be maintained so the building does not fall into a visible state of disrepair.
36. Trash enclosures shall be provided and maintained at the site. The enclosures shall be located and designed per Design Review approval and the Environmental Sustainability Division's Trash Enclosure Guidelines 2017. The enclosures shall have completely solid walls and completely solid gates a minimum of six-feet in height, and of sufficient height to totally screen the trash bin(s). The trash storage areas and enclosure shall be shown and detailed on the plans at plan check. The enclosure shall be of materials and colors to match the building. Chain link fence or other types of enclosures are not permitted. The trash storage areas shall be maintained in good repair at all times.
37. All utility structures visible from a right-of-way shall be screened consistent with the 2008 City-Wide Design Guidelines.
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 24
DRC - 73
38. Any mechanical and/or electrical equipment, including solar panels, to be located on the roof of the structure or "pad-mounted" on the site shall be shown on the site plan and elevation plans and shall be completely screened from view in a manner as approved by the Design Review Committee. Antennas and antenna systems, either "pad-mounted" or roof-mounted, which are visible from the exterior, are not approved as a part of this action and may not be installed without prior review and approval of the Design Review Committee.
39. Roof equipment shall be screened so as to not be visible from public rights-of-way. This includes adjacent freeways or other elevated roads in some cases. Methods of screening equipment shall be shown on plans at plan check. This may include raising the parapet to screen roof equipment.
40. Roof ladders shall be placed inside the building and shall not to be attached to or visible from the exterior of the building; unless approved otherwise by the Design Review Committee.
41. All areas shown as parking areas shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete and shall be suitably marked, outlining individual parking spaces and traffic flow. Said surfacing and marking shall be completed prior to final inspection of the structure or structures by the Building and Safety Division and Fire Department or prior to the issuance of any occupancy clearance. The surface of all parking areas shall be maintained in an adequate state of repair at all times subject to the satisfaction of the Building Official. All parking spaces shall be a minimum of nine (9) feet wide by twenty (20) feet deep, unless spaces for compact cars are used, in which case these spaces shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet wide by sixteen (16) feet deep. Compact parking spaces must be adequately signed or noted and such notations shall be included on all building plans.
42. Each compact parking stall is to have the word "compact" painted at the entrance of the space in letters a minimum of eight inches in height.
43. Prior to occupancy, faded striping in parking areas directly in front of the building shall be repainted per City standards
44. In accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 24.415.140, parking facilities for 4 bicycles shall be provided, the configuration and location of which shall be as review and approved of the City Planning Division. The project plans shall be revised to identify bicycle racks, with a minimum of 4 bicycle spaces, to be provided on site near the front entrance. Bicycle parking area dimensions and location shall be a paved area at least 6' x 1 '6" for each required parking space. Staff shall review all construction documents prior to building permit issuance to assure that the bicycle rack has been provided and is not in conflict with the applicable development standards for building in the Neighborhood Center (T5.1) zone district.
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 25
DRC - 74
The applicant shall submit a bicycle parking plan to be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official, a Senior Transportation Engineer, and the Community Development Director (or his/her appointee). All bicycle parking shall comply with AASHTO, NACTO, or APBP standards, as permitted by the California Building Code. The bicycle parking shall be designed to provide two (2) points of contact on the bicycle, be supported upright, and cause no stress onto tires. All provided bicycle parking shall be able to accommodate a standard U-lock. Bicycle parking area dimensions and location shall be a paved area at least 6' x 1 '6" for each required parking space and shall be located outside of pedestrian walkways, loading areas, landscape planters, etc. Where feasible, bicycle-parking areas should be covered.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 5th day of December, 2018
Exhibit List A-WW - Project Plans dated December 5, 2018
Dave Ward, DRC Secretary
Project-11514 DRC/12/05/18/ER
Page 26
DRC - 75
EXHIBIT _____ !\ ________ ____
THE LOFTS City Planning Submittal Raven Ridge Development
SHEET LIST
1 - 4 Project Data
6 - 12 Context
13 Civil Drawings
14 - 19 Landscape Drawings
20 - 39 Plans & Elevations
40 - 43 Renderings
44 - 47 Details
RNT Architects Inc. THE LOFTS City Planning Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 76
RESIDENTIAL
4180 LOFT A
4720 LOFT B
4180 1 BR FLAT
3905 2 BR FLAT
BUILDING SF CHECK
OTHER
802 Community Room
600 Mechanical
1400 Roof Deck
16985 Residential sf 19787 TOTAL BUILDING SF
4TH FLOOR AREA CHECK
4TH FLOOR OCCUPIED AREA GROUND FLOOR OCCUPIED AREA
1390 1 BR FLAT
0 2 BR FLAT
0 LOFT A
0 LOFT B
N/ A Roof Area
3
0
0
0
1390 Total 4th Floor Area (17 .5%)
1380
840
4900
0
802
7922
1754 ALLOWED (25% building footprint per zoning)
RNT Arch itects Inc.
1 BR FLAT 3
2 BR FLAT
LOFT A 10
LOFT B 0
Community Room
Footprint
GARAGE
1ST FLOOR
2ND FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
4TH FLOOR
FLOOR AREA ANALYSIS
AREA
17000 SF
7000 SF
6400 SF
5500 SF
2800 SF
21700 SF
OCCUPANCY GROUP
S-2
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
PARKING SPACES PROVIDED CHECK
13 Tandem 2
Single Spaces
26
19
45
35
Provided PARKING SPACES
Required (1 per unit)
UNIT
LOFT A
NO. TYPE
10 1 BR
LOFT B 10 Studio
1 BR FLAT 10 1 BR
2 BR FLAT 5 2 BR
35
UNIT SUMMARY
BED
Loft
1
2
BATH ADA
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
PER UNIT
AREA (sf)
418
472
418
781
TOTAL AREA(sf)
4180
4720
4180
3905
16985
EXHIBIT ____ ~---
2
PROJECT NARRATIVE
The proposed project is a 35 unit apartment building to take the place of an existing 16,959 square foot industrial building. The design approach focuses living within the requirements of the T5.1 zone and on a compact and efficient unit footprint design. Though the project could go bigger and higher, the scale was chosen carefully to balance resident experience with the neighborhood context.
The limited space dedicated to each unit is offset with gen·erous floor to floor heights inspired by loft-style living and the programming of many diverse resident community gathering spaces that function as an extension of the individual unit. This is designed to appeal to the young professional who values the perks of urban living and seeks community and connections over the suburban dream. The small size of each individual unit makes rent affordable and the project includes greater than the required number of affordable housing units.
The building style is a modern interpretation of the area's Spanish and industrial heritages. Simple materials and colors typical to the diverse neighborhood are reimagined in the project including smooth stucco, tile and dark wood finishes . Sun control is accomplished through an innovative perforated metal screen that incorporates the earthy tones of traditional Spanish clay tile roofing and creating a dynamic south-facing fa9ade.
A rhythm of simple volumes is differentiated by sun control measures that are tailored to the exposure of each building face . Each unit has access to light and air on two sides and an outdoor space with ground floor units enjoying private trellis-shaded outdoor spaces and upper floor units provided with balconies with which to better enjoy the views available.
The massing creates a dynamic street fac;ade and steps back to respect the adjacent residences. An entry forecourt features ample height and incorporates landscaping and the project's vertical circulation. An indoor-outdoor community room with sliding glass doors brings life to the Avenue. An opening from the main outdoor space within the project creates a direct connection .to the existing breezeway at the shopping center to the south both for the convenience of the residence but also to provide eyes on a previously overlooked area. Parking for residents is below grade and incorporates bike parking and is accessed from the Avenue .
PROJECT INFORMATION
THE LOFTS City Planning Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 77
Downtown Specific Plan - T5.1 Neighborhood Center
T5.1 Zone - - ' - Required/ Allowed ... Proposed Project - -Overlay Choose All Applicable:
Civic Building
Coastal Zone Coastal Zone
Hillside
Eastside Workplace
Westside Workplace
Fronf Setback Street Build 0 to 5 feet minimum Setback varies 3' - 5'
to-Lin~ - -
Side Yard Setback 0 to 5 feet 5 feet South side, 0 feet North side
Rear Setpa<;k Without Alley: 15 feet 15 feet
Height 1. 3 stories, 25% of building footprint may be 4-1. 3 stories , 23% of building footprint is 4 story
story
2. Arcade, Gallery, & Shopfront: 14 feet N/A
minimum, 18 feet maximum ground floor
3. All Others: 18 feet maximum ground floor 14 feet
4. Second floor and above: 12 feet maximum 12 feet -· -
Parking Setbacks Subterranean Parking may extend to a height of 3 feet max above finished grade, provided that
3 feet above finish grade at street. garage perimeter wall either aligns with face of building or becomes part of a
Incorporated into face of building .
Stoop frontage.
Parking Residentia l
1. 1 space/ 1500 sqft (1 per unit minumum) 45 Spaces provided (35 Required)
II . 2. No spaces required for single room occupancy N/A
units
Architectural -'Encroachment Balconies: 6 feet maximum into street and side Varies, 3 feet 6 inches on side setback, 5 feet
street build-to lines, and rear setback. on Ventura Avenue II ,, Baywindows, Chimneys, Cantilevered rooms, and
N/A ·- eaves: 3 feet maximum into all setbacks
'Frontage Types Arcade
Gallery
Shopfront Forecourt with 14 feet wide x 20 feet deep
,, court in front of property Forecourt
Stoop
Building f ypes Lot Width :
1. 25 to 150 feet: Row House Live / Work 73.4 feet frontage width - Ok per Director's
2. 20 to 150 feet: Commercial Block interpretations
3. 100 to 150 feet: Courtyard Housing
RNT Architects Inc. 3
Sec. 4.10.010
Overlay
Description
CQnfigur_ation
Elemen~
Downtown Specific Plan Frontage Types - Forecourt Required/ Permitted
Choose All Applicable:
Civic Building
Coastal Zone
Hillside
Eastside Workplace
Westside Workplace
Proposed Project
Coastal Zone
A Forecourt is not covered, and must be at least 10' by 10'. A Forecourt may be suitable for gardens, outdoor dining, or in some cases vehicular drop-offs. A fence or wall at the Frontage Line, with a pedestrian opening in all cases, may be provided to define the space of the court. This Frontage type should be used sparingly and in conjunction with Stoops of Shopfronts.
A great variety of Forecourt designs are possible, but the following guidelines apply:
a. 10 feet deep (clear) min, 30 feet deep (clear) max. Forecourts between 1 O' and 15' depth shall be substantially paved, and enhanced with landscaping . Forecourts between 15' and 30' in depth shall be designed with a balance of paving and landscaping.
b. 10' wide min; up to 50% of lot width.
c. Shopfronts may be between 10' and 16' tall , as measured from the adjacent sidewalk .
d. Bulkhead : 1 O inches min , 28 inches max
e. A 1-story fence or wall at the property line may be used to define the private space of the yard.
f. Minimum clearances: vertica l 8' from sidewalk, horizontal width of sidewalk.
Frontcourt at entry measures 14 feet wide x 20 feet deep
Complies
N/A
NIA
6' tall gate is provided
Vertical 14 feet clear, horizontal 14 feet clear
EXHIBIT __ C __ _
PROJECT INFORMATION / ZONING COMPLIANCE
THE LOFTS City Plann ing Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 78
-
Table 2: Courtyard Housing Type Standards Open Space Front yards are defiend by the street build-to line or
- - Required/ Permitted Proposed Project front yard setback and frontage type requirements Complies
The main entrance to each ground floor dwelling of the application zone.
Access shall be directly off a common courtyard or directly Complies from the street. Courtyard housing shall be designed to provide a
Access to no more than three second story dwellings shall be through an open or roofed (but Complies
central courtyard and/or partial, multiple, separated Complies, Courtyards are 17.4% of total area.
or interconnected courtyards with a cumulative total
not enclosed) stair. of at least 15% of the lot.
I Except for dwellings occurring at the fourth story,
I elevator access from subterranean parking may be Complies provided between the garage and podium only.
In a project with multiple courtyards, at least two of South courtyard complies
the courtyards shall conform to the patterns below.
Minimum courtyard dimensions shall be 40 feet
Where an alley is present, parking and services N/A shall be accessed through the alley.
when the long axis of the courtyard is oriented Complies, South courtyard is 77' X 43' East/West and 30 feet when the courtyard is oriented North/South .
Where an alley is not present on an interior lot, parking and services should be accessed from the
Complies street by a driveway near the side lot line and be
Courtyards shall not be of a proportion of less than Complies, less than 1: 1 height ratio
1: 1 between their width and heiqht.
In 40 foot wide courtyards, the frontages and
flanked by planters, at least one-foot wide. architectural projections allowed within the applicable zone are permitted on two sides of the Complies
On a corner lot without access to an alley, parking and services shall be accessed by driveways of 7 N/A to 8 feet maximum width, and with 2-foot min. planters on each side.
courtyard; they are permitted on one side of a 30 foot wide courtyard
Private patios may be provided in side and rear Complies
yards , and in courtyards.
Parking and Services Required parking may be at-grade or as Courtyards shall be connected to the public way
I subterranean. If provided at-grade, one parking space for each dwelling unit shall be within a Complies
and/or to each other by zaguans, or paseos. Complies a) Zaguans shall be a minimum of 10' wide.
garage. The remaining required parking spaces b) Paseos shall be a minimum of 15' wide. may be within a garage, carport, or uncovered. Landscape Landscape should not be used to separate a front Dwellings may have direct or indirect access to yard from front yards on adjacent parcels. Front their parking stall(s) or direct access to stalls
Complies enclosed within the garage. A combination of these
yard trees should be of porch scale (no more than 1.5 times the height of the porch at maturity) except Complies
conditions is encouraged. at the margins of the lot, where they may be of house scale (no more than 1.5 times the height of
Where an alley is present, services, including all the house at maturity). utility access and above ground equipment and N/A trash container areas shall be located on the alley. Trees may be placed in side yards to protect the
Complies privacy of neighbors.
II Where an alley is not present, above ground equipment and trash container areas should be located at least 10 feet behind the fa<;ade of the Complies building and be screened from view from the street
Courtyards located over garages should be designed to avoid the sensation of forced podium Complies hardscape through the use of ample landscaping.
with landscaping or a fence .
Parking entrances to subterranean garages and/or
Frontage Entrance doors should be oriented toward Complies
courtyards and the street to the degree possible. driveways should be located as close as possible Complies to the side or rear of each lot.
No arcade or gallery may encroach into the Complies
II required minimum width of a courtyard.
Stoops up to 3 feet in height and dooryards up to 2 feet in height may be placed above subterranean
NIA parking, provided that they are scaled to the street and building.
Dooryards that face and/or encroach into a Complies
courtyard shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide. - - -
EXHIBIT ____ _
ZONING COMPLIANCE
RNT Architects Inc. 4
THE LOFTS City Plann ing Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 79
Building Size & Massing Buildings may contain any four combinations of dwelling unit configurations: flats , flats over flats , Complies townhouses, and townhouses over flats .
Dwellings may be as repetitive or unique as Complies
determined by individual designs
Buildings should be composed of one, two and three story masses , each designed to house scale , Complies and not necessarily representing a single dwelling.
Four story masses should be minimized inside Complies
courtyards and apparent on street frontages.
I The intent of these performance standards is to provide for Courtyard Housing buildings with varying heights. Suggested height ratios are as follows:
a. 2.0 stories : 80% 2 stories, 20% 1 stories
b. 2.5 stories : 60% 2 stories, 40% 3 stories 2 Stories: 40.5% II c. stories: 35% 2 stories, 50% 3 stories, 15% 4
These height ratios are maximums that correspond to the applicable zone (e.g., Courtyard Housing 2.0 and 2.5 are possible in the T4.2 Urban General 2 zone; and so on).
I
Dwellings at fourth stories shall be accessed by single-loaded corridors or exclusive elevator Complies service and configured as flats.
The visibility of elevators and of exterior corridors at the third and/or fourth stories should be
Complies min imized by incorporation into the mass of the building .
Exposure to Light & Afr At least two sides of each dwelling shall be exposed to outside light and air.
Complies
EXHIBIT ____ _ ZONING COMPLIANCE
RNT Architects Inc. 5
THE LOFTS City Planning Submittal January 31 , 2018
DRC - 80
REQUIREMENTS
State statutory limits are based on federal limits set and periodically revised by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. HUD's limits are based on surveys of local area median income (AMI) . The commonly used income categories are approximately as follows, subject to variations for household size and other factors (table at right):
Very low income: Low income: Moderate income:
30% to 50% of AMI 50% to 80% of AMI; 80% to 120% of AMI
Affordable housing cost" for lower-income households is defined in State law as not more than 30 percent of gross household income with variations (Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5) . The comparable federal limit, more widely used, is 30 percent of gross income, with variations . "Housing cost" commonly includes rent or mortgage payments, util ities (gas, electricity, water, sewer, garbage, recycling, green waste).
The General Plan 2014-2016 Housing Element "Sites Inventory" identified the project site as vacant and/or underutilized property that could provide an estimated 17 residential units based upon a density of 41 units per acre. The Housing Element also anticipated that of these 17 residential units, 3 units would be affordable units as identified in the chart at right.
The project is subject to the Mello Act and wi ll require staff evaluation of the feasibil ity of affordable units in and around the project site.
RNT Architects Inc.
VENTURA COUNTY INCOME CATEGORY/ NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD
2 3 4
Very Low Income $ 35,000 $ 40,000 $ 45,000 $ 49,950
Low Income $ 55,950 $ 63,950 $ 71,950 $ 79,900
Moderate Income $ 75,000 $ 85,700 $ 107,150 $ 115,700
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS REQUIRED/ PROVIDED
Total Units Very Low Low Moderate Market*
Housing Element Estimate 17 - 3 14 -
Proposed Project 35 . 4 31 -
* No market rate due to renta l units
EXHIBIT ______ f-________ ___ AFFORDABLE HOUSING
6 TH E LOFTS City Planning Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 81
LEGEND - Project Site - Shopping Center
C=:l Fairgrounds - City Hall
---Freeway Traffic
--- Major Vehicular Traffic
- Bus Route 16
- Bus Route 6
- Amtrak Route
- Bike Route
0 Bus Stop
• Amtrak Stop
~-~ Access to Olive Street
C)N
16 32
SITE CONTEXT
RNT Architects Inc. 7
THE LOFTS City Planning Submittal January 31, 2018
THE LOFTS City Planning Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 83
EXHtBIT ____ _ CONTEXT Photographs
RNT Architects Inc. 9
THE LOFTS City Planning Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 84
16 32
EXHIBIT LOCAL Context
RNT Architects Inc. 10
THE LOFTS City Planning Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 85
Axonometric View
Plan View
D EXHIBIT __ ~:.-· --- SOLAR STUDY September 21, 9 AM
RNT Architects Inc. 11
THE LOFTS City Planning_ Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 86
Axonometric View
Plan Vi:e:w~--------------.. .,
RNT Architects Inc. EXHIBIT __ , .... ___ _ SOLAR STUDY December 21, 9 AM
12 THE LOFTS City Planning Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 87
•
,-------- --/ I -___ , ASPH
///////// 24 3 24 .4 ~ JO' 20' o· 5' 10·
l
I SCALE: / " : /O '
IN AGE PLAN GR ADING & ORA s FD R DIMENSIONS PRELIMINARY TD ARCHIT ECT'S DRA\./[N G • = lO' <R EFER SCA LE, !ED HEREON) NOT NOT
DRC - 88
FEATURES - PODIUM LEVEL 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
FIRE PIT WITH STEEL KINDLING FIRE PIT AREA WITH LOG SEATS ON FINE GRAVEL TWO-TIER COMMUNAL TABLE LONG LOG BENCH OUTDOOR SHUFFLEBOARD TABLE TURF WAVE BLACKBOARD PAINTED WALL OUTDOOR KITCHEN COUNTER AND CABINETS
Pacific Coast Land Design. Inc. Lond,c.ape Ndlit4Cfurc • Urban Driij11'1 • Envtonmofllol: Nooning
RNT Architects Inc.
9. WATER FEATURE 10. GREEN WALL 11. SMALL GRAVEL ZEN GARDEN 12. SCREEN BLOCK WALL 13. LOW WALL CONTAINS BAMBOO AND PROVIDES SEAT FOR
BACKYARDS 14. BAMBOO FOREST WITH MEXICAN BLACK PEBBLE
GROUNDPLANE 15. STRIKING AND PLA YFULL BENCH 16. "COFFEE" BAR
14
17. SOUTH PLAZA
I I I
I I I I
I I I
7 I I
18. HORIZONTAL WOOD SLATS AND SCREEN BLOCK SHADE STRUCTURE
19. COR-TEN STEEL PLANTER 20. ACTIVITY ROOM SPILL OUT PLAZA W/HI-TOP TABLES AND
COUNTERTOP 21. SUCCULENT GARDEN 22. CONCRETE PLANTING BEDS 23. PLANTERS BUILT INTO WALL FOR ADDED TEXTURAL INTEREST 24. ACCESSIBLE GRAVEL BED PET "PEE PAD" SURROUNDED BY
18" HIGH COR-TEN PLANTER AND WOODEN SLAT BENCH.
aHHIBIT,:::a:;:====-1:W; __ _
CONCEPTUAL PLANT SCHEDULE - PODIUM SYMBOL LATIN NAME COMMON NAME WUCOLS TREES
() Phyl/ostachys nuda Nude Sheath
M Bamboo
(/'!\ \Y Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree M
() Tristania conferta Variegated Brisbane 'Variegate' M j{LophostemonJ Box
PODIUM SHRUBS - Agave attenuata Variegated Fox Tail L
'Kara's Strioes' Aaave
• Asparagus Dwarf Asparagus M
densif/orus 'Nana' Fern Aspidistra elatior
Cast Iron Plant M 'Sekko Kan'
~ Euphorbia tirucalli Red Pencil Tree L 'Sticks on Fire' Festuca gtauca
• 'Elijah Blue' (F. ovina Elijah Blue Fescue M var. alauca} Helictotrichon
Blue Oat Grass M semoervirens
A Muhlenbergia Pine Muhly L dubia
(j Rhamnus ca/ifomica Coffeeberry L
'Eve Case'
Rosmarin us • officinalis Barbeque Rosemary L 'Barbeque'
• Rosmarin us Prostrate Rosemary L officinalis 'Prostratus' Sansevieria
• trifasciata 'Silver Snake Plant L Queen' - Woodwardia Giant Chain Fern M fimbriata
PODIUM VINES - Distictis 'Rivers' Royal Trumpet Vine M - Ficus pumi/a Creeping Fig M
SMALL SUCCULENT MIX SUCCULENT MIX L Aeoniurn decorum 'Sunset' Sunburst Aeonium
Aloe brevifolia Short-leaved Aloe
Aloestriata Coral aloe
Dudleya brittonii Giant Chalk Dudleyo
Dudleya hossei Catalino Island Live-forever
Kalanchoe luciae Paddle plant
Senecio mandraliscae Kleina
TURF HYBRID BERMUDA
H SOD
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN Podium Level
THE LOFTS City Planning Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 89
I
I I
FEATURES - ROOF LEVEL 1. COMMUNAL DINING TABLE 2. INDOOR/OUTOOR BAR 3. SCREEN PLANTERS AROUND PARAPIT 4. SUN CHAIRS 5. COUNTERTOP SEATING OFFERS VIEW OF INTERIOR COURTYARD 6. FIRE PIT 7. INDIVIDUAL LOUNGE SEATING 8. COUNTERTOP SEATING OFFERS VIEW OF THE AVENUE, GRANT
PARK AND THE CROSS
Pacific Coast Land Design. Inc. londs~Nehlhtcturc ·Urban Dmbl • !rwh:JnrnentOl l'lanning
RNT Arch itects Inc.
I I
I I I
0 15
CONCEPTUAL PLANT SCHEDULE - ROOFTOP SYMBOL LATIN NAME COMMON NAME WUCOLS PODIUM SHRUBS
Festuca glauca
• 'Elijah Blue' (F. ovina Elijah Blue Fescue M var. glauca)
He/ictotrichon sempervirens
Blue Oat Grass M
Lavandula stoechas French Lavender L
Rosmarin us • officinalis Barbeque Rosemary L 'Barbeque'
Rosmarin us Prostrate Rosemary L officinalis 'Prostratus'
Sansevieria
• trifasciata 'Silver Snake Plant L Queen'
SMALL SUCCULENT MIX SUCCULENT MIX L
Aeonium decorum Sunburst Aeonium 'Sunset'
Aloe brevifolia Short-leaved Aloe
Aloe striato Coral aloe
Dud/eya brittonii Giant Chalk Dudleya
Dud/eya hassei Catalina Island Live-forever
Kalanchoe /uciae Paddle plant
Senecio Kleina mandra/iscae
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN Roof Level
THE LOFTS City Planning Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 90
MATERIALS LEGEND 1. BOARD FORMED CONCRETE 2. CERAMIC PLANTERS 3. CONCRETE BLOCK PLANTER 4. COR-TEN STEEL PLANTERS 5. MOUNDED TURF 6. ERGONOMIC SEATING 7. HORIZONTAL WOOD SLATS 8. MURAL 9. WATER FEATURE 10. VINES 11. FIRE PIT WITH STEEL KINDLING 12. CATENARY LIGHTS 13. METAL TRENCH DRAIN 14. MILLED STEEL FENCING 15. PERFORATED MET Al FENCING 16. BLACKBOARD WALL 17. HORIZONTAL UNIT PAYERS 18. GREEN WALL 19. WOODEN DECK TILES 20. DECK TILE INSTALLATION
Structrual Base (Slop
Pacific Coast Land Design. Inc. l,i;ind>l;opeAtt:llll'2cMe•Urt>onDo19" · En~ol~
EXHlulT ______ f' ________ ___ RNT Architects Inc.
16
LANDSCAPE Precedent Images - Materials
THE LOFTS City Planning Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 91
Pacific Coast Land Design. Inc. l ()l'lds,eope Atc:hlteci\l'e•Ul'bono.,lgn•~CIIPbwng
EXHIBIT_ .......... __ _ RNT Architects Inc.
17
ACTIVITY LEGEND l. GRAVEL ZEN GARDEN 2. OUTDOOR MOVIES 3. WALL DECORATION 4. BLACKBOARD PAINTED WALL 5. TURF W~VE 6. DOG RUN 7. OUTDOOR SHUFFLEBOARD
TABLE
LANDSCAPE Precedent Images -Activity
THE LOFTS City Planning Submittal January 31, 2018
DRC - 92
Pacific Coast Land Design. Inc. londSc~ NChi'tQChQ •UrtlQnDIHign•5i~tolP1onniog
