HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2012-06-05 #4 CITY OF
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date: June 5, 2012
Case Numbers: ED12-017
Project Planner: Kraig Tambornini – (415) 485-3092
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 108 Bayview Drive (Landry Residence Accessory Structures) – Environmental and Design
Review of a 640-square-foot detached accessory structure, new patio, pool, stairs and
planters in the rear yard of a 46,572 square foot hillside property with a 29.6% down-slope;
APN: 186-121-25; R1a-H Zone; Scott Landry, Applicant; Steve Landry, Owner.
PROPERTY FACTS
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: Hillside Residential R1a-H Single-family residence
North: Hillside Residential R1a-H/County Single-family residences
South: Hillside Residential County Single-family residence
East: Hillside Residential N/A Pt San Pedro Rd
West: Hillside Residential County Single-family residence
Site Development Summary
Lot Size Natural State
Required: 1 acre; 43,560 sq. ft.
Proposed: 1.07 acres (existing); 46,572 sq. ft.
Required: 25,428 sf; 54.6% (25%+24.6% ave. slope)
Proposed: 27,329 sq. ft.
Height Floor Area
Allowed: 15’ (accessory structure)
Proposed: 12’2”
Allowed: 6,500 sf gross max. allowed
Proposed: 5,516 gross sq. ft
Grading Tree Removal
Total: 948 cy cut & fill Total (No./Species): 10 Pinus (120”); 4 Umbellularia (40”).
Misc. non-native < 12” in size
Cut: 481 cy
Fill: 467 cy
Off-Haul: 14 cy
Requirement: 54 trees (for removal of 4 native Ca laurel
& 10 significant non-native pine)
Proposed: 31 trees (incl. 5 strawberry and 24
Madrone triple-planted)
SUMMARY
The project is being referred to the Design Review Board for review of site and design improvements of
a residential addition greater than 500 square feet, retaining walls over 3 feet in height and an elevated
deck in a hillside area; pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Zoning Code 14.25.040.B.1.a, .C.1 & .C.12.
The recommendation of the Design Review Board shall be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for its
consideration prior to taking an action on the proposed design improvements.
Based on review of the applicable criteria, staff has concluded that the project adequately addresses
the Hillside Design criteria and R1a-H zoning district standards. Staff requests that the Board provide
its recommendation on compliance with all pertinent design criteria, specifically considering the
following:
2
Site Design
• Whether replacement of the existing decking, patio and pool improvements appropriately respond
to this sites hillside conditions.
• Whether the heights, placement and length of walls are appropriately designed
Materials and Colors
• Whether colors and materials proposed for the walls and building adequately blend with the natural
setting and existing residential architecture.
Grading & Tree Removal
• Whether the level patio area would conflict with the hillside setting, particularly as viewed from any
public vantage points.
• Whether the number, placement and species of replacement trees are adequate and appropriate.
Landscaping
• Whether landscaping in downhill planters is appropriate for the setting.
Staff notes that a deed restriction would be required for the detached office/guest house structure so
that it is not converted into a second dwelling unit without prior review and approval by the City.
BACKGROUND
The existing house has two floor levels on a significantly downsloping lot, with the main entry at the
upper level. The residence was constructed prior to annexation into the City. Subsequent City
approvals were granted in 1977, 1979 and 1989 for the pool, retaining walls, residential additions and
decks. All prior work was completed before adoption of the Hillside Design Guidelines criteria in
October 1991. Most of the adjacent properties are located in County jurisdiction.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is proposed to create a more usable outdoor yard area for the residents, with a new pool
that can be properly secured, and a residential home office. The details are as follows:
Overview
The project proposes to remove and replace all existing backyard decking, patio, pool, rock walls and
stairways at ground floor level behind the residence. New yard improvements would include new patio
and deck areas, stairways, a 640sf guest house and office, raised planters, and bocce ball court. In
addition existing decking that connects the upper floor to the yard improvements are proposed to be
removed and new 540 sq. ft. of deck area installed. A pool equipment and storage area would be
relocated under the new patio, adjacent to the pool and outside of required setbacks.
Grading and Retaining Walls
The elevated decks at the main entry level of the house are at 166.1’ elevation. The patio/pool level
would be at elevation’s 151.25 and 155, then stepping down to the bocce court and guest house level
at elevations 145 and 146.88. Landscape planter walls are proposed in the south side yard and along
the east facing downhill elevation. Short retaining wall sections would also support stairs to be replaced
along the south side of the house (Sheet A.301 Elevation 1a). The project requires grading for the new
pool and guest house/office addition with fill for the existing pool and proposed bocce court/planter
area. The landscape planter walls south of the new patio would be 3’6” high and in the side setback.
The downslope facing wall would be 2’ to 8’ tall (at the northeast corner), with an average height of 3’6”.
Colors and Materials
The concrete deck, wall and stairway improvements would be tinted light brown, with board formed wall
surfaces. Railings would consist of powder-coated dark brown steel posts and rails and horizontal
stainless steel cable rails. Siding and finishes for the guest house would include aluminum clad ‘Jeld-
Weld’ patio doors ‘ Dark Chocolate’ in color, ‘Resysta’ composite sliding sunscreens supported by a
wood ledger with steel brackets and sliding panel track, “Resysta” composite building siding and
3
decking with ‘Walnut’ finish, and copper scupper and downspout. The concrete walls would also
incorporate use of Cor-Ten steel and ‘Resysta' composite siding treatments in two places.
Landscaping and Tree Removal/Replacement
Ornamental landscaping is proposed around the new patio yard and pool areas. The existing
vegetation would be removed, which includes 14 native ‘Pinus’ and ‘Umbellularia’ and 7 non-native
‘Acacia’ and ‘Pittosporum’ tree species. Two large oaks, near the north side and rear of the house,
would be retained. No significant grade changes or development are indicated near these trees. A total
of 24 Madrone, 5 ‘Strawberry’ and 2 ‘Peppermint’ trees are proposed to be planted along the side
property boundary lines, for preservation of downslope and sideslope neighbor’s privacy.
Drainage
The project would add 573 square feet of hardscape (3.5 % increase). Drainage would be collected and
conveyed downslope and dispersed using hillside outlets to maintain existing sheetflow conditions
down the existing hillside. Drainage would flow overland for approx 80-feet from the new outlets until it
reaches an existing v-ditch at North San Pedro Road. Drainage across this densely vegetated hillside
site will be minimal and use typical hillside drainage and dissipation methods.
ANALYSIS
The project complies with the applicable zoning development standards, as discussed below. Potential
design concerns have been addressed in the discussion of Chapter 25, below, consistent with
Environmental and Design Review permit review requirements.
Chapter 4 – Base District
The R1a zoning district establish minimum 25 foot rear and 15 foot side yard setbacks, 25% maximum
lot coverage and 15’ accessory structure height limit (per SRMC 14.16.020.B). Pursuant to the
information on Plan Sheet A.101 and Plan Sheet A.301, the development standards of the district and
would not trigger any exceptions or variances.
Chapter 12 – Overlay District
The –H overlay district establishes a 25,428 square foot minimum natural state requirement (54.6% of
site area), maximum 6,500 gross building size limit, with height limits measured from natural grade
planes. The project conforms to the development standards of the –H overlay district with 27,329
square foot proposed natural state area, 5,516 square foot gross building area and 12-foot-2-ich tall
accessory structure height above natural grade. The disturbed natural state calculation includes yard
encroachments of downsloping neighbors.
Chapter 16 – Site and Use Regulations
The project complies with accessory structure standards including 15-foot height limit for accessory
buildings and maximum 4 foot retaining wall height allowed within required side yard setback.
A deed restriction would also be required to be recorded by the property owner, prior to issuance of
building permits, because the accessory structure includes bathroom and potential kitchen area. The
deed restriction is required to document that the building is not being proposed as a second dwelling
unit.
Chapter 25 – Environmental and Design Review Permit
Design Review is required to assure development would respect and protect the natural environment
and harmoniously integrate with the existing qualities of the site and neighborhood. Hillside
development projects subject to Zoning Administrator approval are referred to the Design Review
Board for its recommendation on compliance with any of the specific criteria that may apply in SRMC
Chapter 14.25, and the Hillside Design Guidelines. The pertinent criteria for this project are addressed
through application of the Hillside Design Guidelines as discussed below.
Hillside Design Guidelines
4
Section IV.A2. Preservation of Significant Trees
The project involves removal of several non-native pine trees that have been planted along the downhill
slope for screening, a California laurel, elevated small bay trees along the south side boundary and
Acacia trees along the north side boundary. The guidelines encourage replacement trees at a ratio of 3
trees per 6” of native or 12” non-native tree removed, with the same or compatible genus and species.
Staff has determined that replacement with 54 trees is recommended by the hillside guidelines for
removal of 4 native Ca Laurel and 10 large pine trees (i.e., two 12-inch & two 8-inch native trees at 3
trees required per 6” or fraction removed plus ten 12-inch non-native at 3 trees required per 12”
removed). A total of 31 new trees are proposed. The site is densely vegetated and replacement with 24
Madrone and 5 Ca Laurel (Strawberry) trees are proposed for removal of the identified significant trees
on the site. The existing pine trees that would be removed provide privacy screening for downslope
neighbors. These trees are crowding out existing adjacent native trees including oaks and bays.
The significant sized native and non-native trees being removed would be replaced with 5 strawberry
and 24 Madrone (native compatible) - planted in groupings of 3 trees in 8 locations along the side
boundary lines to replace screening. Staff believes a reduction in the tree replacement requirement
would result in adequate and appropriate planting for the site. This is due to the fact that the subject
development area already has been modified with improvements and non-native screen trees, which
would not be significantly increased, and the downslope area of the site would remain heavily
vegetated. Further, replacement with alternate species would appear to be compatible wit the character
of planting in the area, and meet the replacement screening objectives of the trees. Staff asks for the
Board to provide its recommendation on the proposal, specifically:
• Whether the number, placement and species of replacement trees are adequate and appropriate;
including proposed triple-planting of Madrone's.
Section IV.A3. Hillside Grading and Drainage
The guidelines discourage creation of flat pad areas for yards and pools. This site was previously
developed with level yard areas, which the application proposes to replace in order to create a more
family-friendly yard and pool that would also take advantage of the sites orientation toward the bay. The
project includes some expansion of level yard areas, into areas that have been previously disturbed.
Staff has concluded that the site modification would not create conflicts with the hillside setting, as
proposed. The plan includes materials that would blend with the site, proposes landscape walls to
break up the elevated patio wall plane, and minimal increase in runoff which would be directed to
sheetflow down the site maintaining the existing condition. Staff asks the Board to comment on the
following:
• Whether the level patio area would conflict with the hillside setting, particularly as viewed from any
public vantage points.
Section IV.A6. Reduction of Building Bulk on Hillsides
The guidelines encourage downsloping walls to be 3 feet or less in height to avoid tall or expansive wall
planes. The proposed improvements would be terraced with landscape walls that would typically be
3’6” in height. Staff has concluded that the design of the patio and walls would not result in tall walls
visible from public vantage points. The colors and materials and landscape enhancements would help
to assure the improvements would blend in with the hillside setting. Staff asks for the Board to provide
its recommendation on the following:
• Whether replacement of the existing decking, patio and pool improvements appropriately respond
to this sites hillside conditions.
• Whether the heights, placement and length of walls are appropriately designed
5
Section IV.A7. Hillside Architectural Character
The materials, texture and colors are encouraged to blend in with the hillside setting. Staff has
concluded that the proposed wood siding, tinted concrete, powder coated and steel cable railings, and
Cor-Ten steel siding should integrate well into the hillside setting and existing residential architecture.
Section IV.A8. Planting Design for Hillside Residential Development
The project proposes tree replacement for removal of significant trees to be removed, as discussed
above. Additional ornamental landscaping is proposed at the patio level and within the planters along
the site downslope, to break up the wall mass. Staff requests the Board’s comments on the planting
palette as follows:
• Whether landscaping in planters would create any conflicts with the hillside setting.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
A public hearing notice was mailed to residents within 300 feet of the property at least 15 days prior to
the hearing. No notice was posted on-site given that the property does not have public street frontage.
CONCLUSION
In general, staff has concluded that the proposed site and deck improvements would harmoniously
integrated into the existing site and be compatible with the hillside setting. Direction is requested on the
points specified in the Summary section and discussed in this report.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Hillside Design Guidelines Compliance Checklist
Full-sized plans have been provided to the DRB members only.
cc: Steve Landry, Architect
Scott Landry, Owner