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-