Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 9586 (70 Skyview Terrace)RESOLUTION NO. 9586 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED95-100) FOR FIVE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON LOTS 1, 2, 3, 5, AND 6; Montevideo Subdivision (Oakview School Site), 70 Skyview Terrace; AP No. 165-220-01 (Joseph G. Buel, Appellant) WHEREAS, on November 1, 1995, an application requesting an Environmental and Design Review Permit for four single family residences on lots 1, 2, 3 and 6, one duplex residence on lot 10, a change from the approved plan 4 to the new plan 5 on lot 5 and minor alterations to the approved grading plans for lots 11, 12 and 13 at the Montevideo Terrace Subdivision (Oakview School Site) was found by the Planning Department to be complete for processing; and, WHEREAS, on February 13, 1996 the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the proposed Design Review Permit application, accepting public testimony and the written report of the Planning Department staff and approved the application; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Joseph G. Buel appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit in a letter dated February 16, 1996. This letter requests the approval be denied based on Points 1 through 3 listed below: Point 1: Lot 6 was removed from compliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines without proper notification and participation by the surrounding neighborhood. Point 2: The two story design Plan 5 for Lot 6 does not meet the Oakview Master Plan design review criteria of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and was so stated by the Design Review Board that they "... made a mistake in approving the design 5 for Lot 6 at their February 6, 1996 meeting." Point 3: The Planning Commission was not convinced that the plan 5 for Lot 6 met the Master Plan design review standard of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and did not answer the pleas of the neighbors but was rather intimidated into their approval by the Planning Director, who stated that he had discussed with the City Attorney that a change to a one story design could not be requested by the Planning Commission and that such a requirement would not be defensible by the City. WHEREAS, on March 18, 1996, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit, accepted public testimony and the written report of the Planning Department staff, closed the public hearing and determined that the appeal was without merit. Kul ' 7 I ,Ili' n �� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Rafael City Council does hereby makes the following determination and findings relating to the Points of the appeal: Point 1: Lot 6 was removed from compliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines without proper notification and participation by the surrounding neighborhood. The portion of the appeal relating to Point 1 is denied. The City Council finds that on August 4, 1995 notices of public hearings held by the Planning Commission on August 15, 1995 and the City Council on September 5, 1995, were mailed to property owners within 300' of the Montevideo Terrace subdivision. The project description included in the notice was for a final map, minor amendments to the Planned District (1673), and an amendment to the master environmental and design review permit (ED94-14). Files in the Planning Department include a copy of the notice and mailing labels. Mr. Joseph G. Buel, 63 Lucas Park, AP No. 165-153-09 was included in this mailing list. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting indicate that there was no public testimony offered on this item. Point 2: The two story design Plan 5 for Lot 6 does not meet the Oakview Master Plan design review criteria of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and was so stated by the Design Review Board that they "... made a mistake in approving the design 5 for Lot 6 at their February 6, 1996 meeting." The portion of the appeal relating to Point 2 is denied. The City Council finds that the Oakview Master Plan establishes design criteria for evaluating individual building proposals. The following criteria were adopted for determining compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood (page 3, Oakview Master Plan). "House architecture shall create interest in all building facades, incorporate energy efficient design and utilize colors and materials judged compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Compatibility will include the use of pitched roofs." The colors and materials proposed for Plan 5 include horizontal siding with 2x wood trim, shutters on the windows and brick columns and accents on the front wrapping around the sides. The roof is pitched and is composition shingle. The DRB recommended the basic design approach as far as compatibility with the neighborhood was in the right direction by picking up elements in the neighborhood and the additions of shutters. The colors and materials and roof pitch of these houses are the same as the houses currently under construction on Lots 4, 7, 9 and 11 through 20. The Design Review Board expressed concerns for Lot 6. The Planning Commission acknowledged these concerns and based their approval on the DRB recommendations and concerns, and additional mitigation proposed to address the concerns regarding Lots 3 and 6. Point 3: The Planning Commission was not convinced that the plan 5 for Lot 6 met the Master Plan design review standard of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and did not answer the pleas of the neighbors but was rather intimidated into their approval by the Planning Director, who stated that he had discussed with the City Attorney -2- that a change to a one story design could not be requested by the Planning Commission and that such a requirement would not be defensible by the City. The portion of the appeal relating to Point 3 is denied. The City Council finds that the Planning Commission considered the written report of the planning department staff and public testimony at the February 13, 1996 meeting and concurred with the analysis contained in the Report to Planning Commission that all of plans are consistent with the Master Plan. The Master Plan does not include a ratio of one story homes as a design criteria for neighborhood compatibility. The Planning Director informed the Planning Commission at the February 13, 1996 Planning Commission meeting that the Oakview Master Plan permits a house up to 30' in height on Lot 6 and, that the City Attorney's office advised that it would be very difficult to deny a two-story house based on height. The Planning Commission could deny the design of the two-story house if it did not meet the design criteria contained in the Master Plan. The Planning Commission determined that all the house plans were consistent with the design criteria contained in the Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE San Rafael City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit, based on the findings stated in this resolution and project conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A. I, JEANNE M. LEONCIlVI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, California, HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a Regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the Sixth day of May, 1996, by the following to wit: AYES: Councilmembers: Cohen, Heller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None • ANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk Wn EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: ED95-100 Public Works Department: 1. An engineered site plan showing all existing and proposed site conditions shall be submitted with the application for a building permit. 2. A level "B" soils report shall be submitted with the application for a building permit. 3. The project soils engineer shall review the site, foundation, and drainage plans for compliance with the recommendations of the project soils report. 4. All earth and foundation work shall be done under the direction of a soils engineer; and a final report shall be submitted prior to acceptance of the work. Fire Department: 5. All roadways shall be at least 20 ft. wide unobstructed and have an all weather surface capable of supporting 40,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. 6. Roadway turning radius shall not be less than 35 ft. 7. Roadway grades shall not exceed 18%. 8. An approved hammerhead or cul de sac turn around shall be installed and be capable of accommodating fire department apparatus. 9. All roadways shall be installed prior to framing. 10. No Parking Fire Lane signs and curb markings shall be installed for all access roadways, parking lots and driveways specified by the fire marshal conforming to Fire Prevention Std. 204. 11. Addresses shall be posted conforming to Fire Prevention Std. 205. 12. Fire Hydrants shall be installed capable of supplying the required fire flow. The hydrants shall be spaced at 300 ft. intervals, spotted by the fire marshal and be installed prior to framing. 13. All fire hydrants shall be Jones model 3740 installed and painted by the developer/owner conforming with Fire Prevention Standards. 14. Based on the required fire flow, an automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout conforming to NFPA Std. 13D as modified by the fire marshal. 15. A permit application shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau with two sets of plans for review prior to installation of all automatic and fixed fire extinguishing and detection systems. Specification sheets for each type of device shall also be submitted for review. 16. A 30 ft. wide break (brush clearing) shall be maintained around the structure. 17. Spark arrestors shall be installed conforming to the UBC. 18. UUSFM smoke detectors and openable bedroom windows shall be installed conforming to the Uniform Building Code. 19. Based on the inaccessibility to ladder the building for rescue from bedroom windows, approved emergency escape ladders shall be installed on at least one window in each bedroom specified. Police Department: 20. Address a. The street numbers shall be displayed in a prominent location on the street side of the property in such a position that the number is easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. The numbers shall be no less than 4" in height and shall be of a contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. The address numbers shall be illuminated during darkness. b. The address shall be in a sequence with the numerical order of the rest of the street/building. 21. Exterior Fixtures a. Exposed roof vents and ducts of sufficient size to permit adult, human entry shall be grated or constructed of an impact -resistant material to the satisfaction of the Police Department. Skylights shall be secured and hatch openings shall be burglary -resistant. Glazing shall be of a burglary -resistant glass or glass -like material. 22. Roof Access a. Perimeter walls, fences, trash storage areas, etc., shall be built to limit if not in fact prevent access to the roof or balconies. 23. Exterior Doors a. All exterior doors shall be of solid core construction with a minimum thickness of one and three-fourths (1-3/4") inches or with panels not less than nine -sixteenths (9/16") inches thick. Side garage doors and doors leading from garage areas to private residences or multiple family dwelling residences are included in this requirement. b. Metal -framed glass doors shall be set in metal door jambs. c. Glass sliding doors shall have a secondary type locking device to the satisfaction of the Police Department. The secondary lock shall be a dead -bolt lock and shall be no less than one-eighth (1/8") inch in thickness and shall have a minimum hardened steel throw of one-half (1/2") inch. d. Exterior man doors and doors leading from garage area into the private residence shall have dead -locking latch device with a minimum throw of one-half (1/2") inch. A secondary lock is required and shall be a dead -bolt lock with a cylinder guard and a hardened steel throw a minimum of one (1 ") inch long. Both locking mechanisms shall be keyed the same. e. Metal -framed glass doors shall have a dead -bolt lock with a cylinder guard and a hardened steel throw that is a minimum of one (1 ") inch long. f. Exterior jambs for doors shall be so constructed or protected so as to prevent violation of the function of the strike plate from outside. The strike plate shall be secured to the jamb by a minimum of two screws which must penetrate into the solid backing beyond the jamb. g. Front doors shall have a front door viewer that provides a minimum of 190 degrees peripheral vision. h. Exterior doors that swing outward shall have non -removable pins. i. In -swinging exterior doors shall have rabbeted jambs. j. Glass on exterior doors or within 40 inches of an exterior door shall be break -resistant or glass -like materials to the satisfaction of the Police Department. 24. Windows a. All windows within 12 feet of the ground level shall have a secondary lock mounted to the frame of the window. The secondary lock shall be a bolt lock and shall be no less than one-eighth (1/8") inch in thickness. The lock shall have a hardened steel throw of one-half (1/2") inch minimum length. b. Louvered windows shall not be installed within 8 feet of the ground level. c. Any window in or within 40 inches of an exterior door shall be stationary and non - removable. 25. Landscaping a. If desired, a list of barrier plants is available from the SRPD Crime Prevention Office at (415) 485-3114. b. Landscaping shall not block or obstruct the view of any door, window, or lighting fixture. 26. Notes a. Any alternative materials or methods of construction shall be reviewed with the Crime Prevention Officer before installation. b. The Crime Prevention Officer shall be allowed to inspect and approve the construction prior to occupancy. c. Though not required, it is recommended that any new construction be pre -wired for an intrusion alarm system. Planning Department: 27. This Environmental and Design Review Permit approves the design of four single-family residential units on Lots 1, 2 and the duplex unit on Lot 10; landscape plans for Lots 1 - 3, 6 and 10; and, revised grading and landscape screening for retaining walls on Lots 11, 12, and 13 of the Montevideo Subdivision (Oakview School Site). The building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of this project as presented for approval as shown on the residential design plans prepared by Farrell -Faber Associates, dated February 8, 1996, by the Planning Department, and the landscape plan prepared by Lufkin Landscape Architects, Sheets L-1, L-2, and L-3, dated February 8, 1996 by the Planning Department, shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit. Any future additions, expansions, remodeling, etc., shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 28. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant is to comply with conditions of the Marin Municipal Water District to obtain water service to the new building. 29. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers) and appurtenances not entirely enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof) shall be screened from public view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall be indicated -2- on the building plans and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 30. All landscape plans shall meet the requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). The plans shall be submitted to MMWD for review and approval. 31. A two year landscaping bond shall be posted, or other agreeable method, to insure that all landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris for a period of two years. 32. All construction at the site, including subdivision improvements, shall be limited to the hours between 7:30 AM and 5:00 PM Monday through Friday. Construction is not permitted on Saturday or Sunday and City holidays. 33. All landscaping shall be installed prior to the occupancy of the building or the property owner shall post a bond in the amount of the estimated landscaping cost with the City of San Rafael. In the event that a bond is posted, all areas proposed for landscaping must be covered with bark or a substitute material approved by the Planning Department prior to occupancy and the approved landscaping must be installed within three months of the Marin Municipal Water District lifting their drought restrictions limiting water use for landscaping. 34. After the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a 30 day lighting level review by the Planning Department staff to insure compatibility with the surrounding area. 35. This design review approval is valid for a period of two years or until November 28, 1997, and shall be null and void unless a building permit has been issued or a time extension has been applied for. -3-