Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 9587 (70 Skyview Terrace)RESOLUTION NO. 9587 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) (Jerome H. Klein and William Byrd, Appellants) 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, Jerome H. Klein and William Byrd appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit in a letter received by the City Clerk on February 15, 1996. This letter requests the -approval be denied based on Points 1 through 10 listed below: Point 1: The intent of the Master Plan is that said subdivision is subject to design review and said subdivision is to maintain design standards consistent with the neighborhood. Point 2: It is clear from the minutes of the Design Review Board (DRB) that they had extraordinary difficulty in deciding the final design for Lot 3. (DRB minutes 1/17/1996). Point 3: The DRB admitted that "mistakes" were made pertaining to Lots 1, 2 and 3 in that there should have been two lots instead of three (DRB minutes 11/21/95, page 17). Point 4: The DRB stated that they thought Lots 1, 2, and 3 were to be treated as "custom homes" (Paul, DRB minutes 2/6/96, page 11). Point 5: The DRB also identifies that the "mass" of the home intended to be built on Lot 3 is a problem (DRB minutes 1/17/96, page 19). Point 6: The DRB was misled into believing that since the Master Plan calls for a 30' limit that only two story homes can be built on these lots. In fact, this is not the case as the Master Plan clearly states that design, materials, and architecture be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood (Planning Commission tapes, 2/13/96). Point 7: The DRB and the Planning Commission were led to believe that because of the approved 30' height limit that they can not make changes to the proposed two story homes for these Lots. Point 8: At the February 13, 1996 meeting, the Planning Director misstates the position of the City Attorney leading to the belief that the Planning Commission may not have a choice in changing a two story plan (30 foot height limit) into an attractive single or split level plan as suggested by the public in attendance. Herein may lay the problem of interpretation. The fact is that alternatives can be implemented without the concern of any suit by the developer. This is because the Master Plan is quite clear about maintaining design and architectural integrity. (Letter from Jerome Klein to Gary Ragghianti, 2/16/96). Point 9: At a meeting with the City Attorney and his assistant, it is disclosed that the manner in which the Attorney was requested to form an opinion was in fact out of context. Point 10: These "mistakes" and other errors led to serious concerns by many of the homeowners who are affected by these proposed structures. Clearly it can be noted that the ridgeline homes, now being constructed, are presenting a "Daly City" appearance. The intent of the Master Plan and 31/z years of work was to insure that the homes would relate by design, size and appearance to the neighborhood of San Rafael Park. The example can best be stated by the fact that on Skyview Terrace there are 21 homes: 6 one story; 5 two story; and, 10 split level. The addition of 3 two story out of proportion sized homes on Lots 1, 2, and 3 will be disproportionate to this balance. Of the nineteen homes in the new subdivision, 3 are single story and none are split level. 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. 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: -2- Point 1: The intent of the Master Plan is that said subdivision is subject to design review and said subdivision is to maintain design standards consistent with the neighborhood. The portion of the appeal relating to Point 1 is denied. The City Council finds that the intent of the Master Plan, as stated on page 1, is to provide for residential single family lots reflecting the pattern and character of the existing neighborhood. The Master Plan also requires each house to be subject to design review by the City and found to be in compliance with the standards contained in the Master Plan. The Design Review Board agreed that the colors, materials, and design details of the proposed houses are compatible with the neighborhood. Point 2: It is clear from the minutes of the Design Review Board that they had extraordinary difficulty in deciding the final design for Lot 3. (DRB minutes 1/17/1996) The portion of the appeal relating to Point 2 is denied. The City Council finds that the Planning Commission, in making their decision, was aware of the Design Review Board's difficulty with Lot 3. The major concern of the Design Review Board was the south elevation. Point 3: The DRB admitted that "mistakes" were made pertaining to Lots 1, 2 and 3 in that there should have been two lots instead of three (DRB minutesll/21/95, page 17). The portion of the appeal relating to Point 3 is denied. The City Council finds that only one member of the Design Review Board made this statement. There were no supporting comments by other Design Review Board members to indicate that this was an issue with the entire DRB. Point 4: The DRB stated that they thought Lots 1, 2, and 3 were to be treated as "custom homes" (Paul, DRB minutes 2/6/96, page 11) . The portion of the appeal relating to Point 4 is denied. The City Council finds that only one member of the Design Review Board made this statement with no supporting comments from the other three members present. This indicates that it was not an issue with the entire Design Review Board. Point 5: The DRB also identifies that the "mass" of the home intended to be built on Lot 3 is a problem (DRB minutes 1/17/96, page 19). The portion of the appeal relating to Point 5 is denied. The City Council finds that the Design Review Board stated that the "mass" issue of Lot 3 was not the height but the south elevation and how that elevation presented itself to the Oakview school site driveway. The Planning -3- Commission recommended that this elevation met the design criteria of the Master Plan and that the additional trees proposed by the developer softened it s appearance. Point 6: The DRB is misled into believing that since the Master Plan calls for a 30' limit that only two story homes can be built on these Iots. In fact, this is not the case as the Master Plan clearly states that design, materials, and architecture be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood (Planning Commission tapes, 2/13/96). The portion of the appeal relating to Point 6 is denied. The City Council finds that the Planning Director stated at the February 13, 1996 Planning Commission meeting (minutes page 30) that the Master Plan zoning permits houses up to 30' in height and it would be very difficult to defend a decision on the part of the Commission requiring a one-story house. The City Attorney concurred with this recommendation. The developer has the option to design a house consistent with the standards and design criteria contained in the Master Plan. 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 February 13, 1996 Report to Planning Commission that all house plans were consistent with the architectural guidelines contained in the Master Plan. The Master Plan does not include a ratio of one story homes as a design criteria for neighborhood compatibility. Point 7: The DRB and the Planning Commission were led to believe that because of the approved 30' height limit that they can not make changes to the proposed two story homes for these Lots. The portion of the appeal relating to Point 7 is denied. The City Council finds that the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission required changes to the proposed two story houses as reflected in the record. Point 8: At the February 13, 1996 meeting, the Planning Director misstates the position of the City Attorney leading to the belief that the Planning Commission may not have a choice in changing a two story plan (30 foot height limit) into an attractive single or split level plan as suggested by the public in attendance. Herein may lay the problem of interpretation. The fact is that alternatives can be implemented without the concern of any suit by the developer. This is because the Master Plan is quite clear about maintaining design and architectural integrity. (Letter from Jerome Klein to Gary Ragghianti, 2/16/96) The portion of the appeal relating to Point 8 is denied. The City Council finds that the Planning Director stated at the February 13, 1996 Planning Commission meeting (minutes page 30) that the Master Plan zoning permits houses up to 30' in height and it would be difficult to defend a decision on part of the Planning Commission to require one story houses. The Planning Director -4- also advised the Commission that it had discretion in evaluating the project for conformance with the Master Plan's compatibility criteria. 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 that all of the house plans, including Plan 5, were consistent with the Master Plan architectural guidelines. The Master Plan does not include a ratio of one story homes as a design criteria for neighborhood compatibility Point 9: At a meeting with the City Attorney and his assistant, it is disclosed that the manner in which the Attorney was requested to form an opinion was in fact out of context. The portion of the appeal relating to Point 9 is denied. The City Council finds that it is the City Attorney's opinion that the Master Plan permits two story residential structures on all lots except Lots 15 and 18 and that the City must approve a two story home on all lots except Lots 15 and 18 if the developer fulfills the design review and architecture conditions contained in the Master Plan and the City may not require the developer to put single story houses on any lot except Lots 15 and 18. Point 10: These "mistakes" and other errors led to serious concerns by many of the homeowners who are affected by these proposed structures. Clearly it can be noted that the ridgeline homes, now being constructed, are presenting a "Daly City" appearance. The intent of the Master Plan and 31/2 years of work was to insure that the homes would relate by design, size and appearance to the neighborhood of San Rafael Park. The example can best be stated by the fact that on Skyview Terrace there are 21 homes: 6 one story; 5 two story; and, 10 split level. The addition of 3 two story out of proportion sized homes on Lots 1, 2, and 3 will be disproportionate to this balance. Of the nineteen homes in the new subdivision, 3 are single story and none are split level. The portion of the appeal relating to Point 10 is denied. The City Council finds that Mr. Byrd and Mr. Klein made similar comments at the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing on the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Map, Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review permit for the development of the Oakview school site. The Planning Commission was aware that the Master Plan required only two lots to be limited to one story and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Master Plan with only two lots limited to one story. The Council approved the Master Plan that required only two lots to be limited to one story homes. The record indicates that there was a conscious decision not to require additional lots to be restricted to one story homes. The criteria in the Master Plan requiring compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood includes interest in all building facades, incorporate high energy efficient design and utilize colors and materials judged compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the use of pitched roofs. The criteria does not include a specific ratio of split-level, one and two story designs. -5- 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. LEONCINI, 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 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. ULJSFM 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-