Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 9361 (Denying PC Appeal - 26 Wildwood Way)RESOLUTION No. 936.1 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A SETBACK EXCEPTION/DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A ONE -CAR GARAGE (ED 94-105 AND UP 94-61) AT 26 WILDWOOD WAY; John and Marie Stickle, Appellants; Albert Bianchi, Representative; George and Michele Huff, Owners; Colleen Mahoney, Representative; AP #10-121-05. WHEREAS, an application was submitted to the Planning Department for a 1,060 square foot second story addition to an existing single family residence at 26 Wildwood Way. This application also included a proposal for the construction of a one -car garage adjacent to the subject property's North property line; and WHEREAS, the subject application is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15303(a), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; and, WHEREAS, on January 4, 1995, the Zoning Administrator considered the application for the second story addition, received testimony from interested neighbors and continued the item; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 1995, the Zoning Administrator considered the application for the second story addition, received testimony from interested neighbors and continued the item; and WHEREAS, the application for the second story addition, including the construction of a new one -car garage, was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Board on January 18, 1995; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 1995, the Zoning Administrator considered the applications for the second story addition and for the construction of the new one -car garage, received testimony from interested neighbors and approved the project; and WHEREAS, Albert Bianchi, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. John Stickle, appealed the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Environmental and Design Review and Exception Permits in a letter dated January 27, 1995. This letter requested that the approval be denied based on the statements made at the Zoning Administrator meetings by Mr. and Mrs. John Stickle, Jim Ring, Hazel Barlow and Mary Ellen Irwin. The issues raised in the Zoning Administrator meetings are listed as Points 1 through 5 below: Point 1: The project will obstruct and block the pristine view of open space, the view of the valley below and will create the view of a man made structure. K IG1� Ai���' Point 2: The proposed project design is inconsistent with the City's Hillside Design Guideline requirements for a "stepped" building design, roof forms and compatibility of design with adjacent neighbors. Point 3: Privacy of adjacent neighbors. Point 4: The second story addition is too massive. Point 5: A second story addition would establish a precedent in the neighborhood. WHEREAS, on February 28, 1995, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Environmental and Design Review and Use Permit/ Exception applications, accepted public testimony and the written report of the Planning Department staff; and WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 1995, the following additional points were presented as reasons for denial of the project by neighboring property owners: Point 6: The project proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Environmental and Design Review Permit section of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 25), specifically Section 14.25.010. Point 7: The project design is inconsistent with Section 14.25.060(6c) (Windows Facing Side Yards). WHEREAS, on February 28, 1995, the San Rafael Planning Commission considered the project proposal, reviewed the issues of appeal, received public testimony and voted 6-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the applications; and WHEREAS, Albert Bianchi, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. John Stickle, appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the Environmental and Design Review and Exception Permits in a letter dated March 1, 1995. This letter requests that the approval be denied based on the statements made at the Planning Commission meeting, consistent with the 7 points listed previously in this resolution; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 1995, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Environmental and Design Review and Use Permit/ Exception applications, accepted public testimony and the written report of the Planning Department staff; and -2- WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the appeal was without merit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Rafael City Council hereby makes the following determinations and findings relating to the Points of the appeal: Point 1: The project will obstruct and block the pristine view of open space, the view of the valley below and will create the view of a man made structure. The portion of the appeal relating to Point 1 is denied. The City Council finds the project will have a negligible impact on views and is consistent with General Plan policies, Neighborhood 13/14 policies, Hillside Residential Guidelines standards, and Zoning Ordinance criteria relating to views. The setback and siting of the addition are adequate to protect views from existing structures. All feasible means of mitigating visual impact have been utilized. The addition has been located so as to minimize interference of views from the Stickle's home and adjacent residents. To substantiate compliance with view guidelines, the project architect displayed a panoramic photo board showing the addition from 3 different vantage points from the Stickle's home. Story poles and tape were utilized to outline the proposed addition. The poles are visible in the photos. The photo display shows that in the worst case scenario, which is the view from the patio outside the master bedroom, 1% of the panoramic view will be blocked by the new addition. The other two views from the patio will be blocked .25% and .4%. Photos were also presented showing that the addition will not be seen from inside the Stickle's living room. Planning staff, Design Review Board members, Planning Commissioners, and Council members were able to view the poles from the Stickle's house to determine the extent of view intrusion. In addition a cross-section between the Stickle's property and the Huff's property was prepared. The cross section shows a 30 feet vertical height difference between the Stickle's property (120 feet distance from the Huff's home) and the subject site. The addition will not exceed 24 feet in height. The Design Review Board, whose members are architects and a landscape architect, reviewed the project and recommended that the addition was well designed, would not impact the Stickle's view, and was consistent with the General Plan, Hillside Guidelines, and the Neighborhood 13/14 Plan. The Zoning Administrator determined the addition was consistent with all City Plans and Ordinances and approved the addition. The Planning Commission made similar findings and denied the appeal. At the City Council hearing, the project architect testified that the addition had been located on the west side of the Huff's home so that it was in the least visible location, that the roof height had been minimized, and that the roof material would be dark to blend with the existing landscaping. Point 2: The proposed project design is inconsistent with the City's Hillside Design Guideline requirements for a "stepped" building design, roof forms and compatibility of design with adjacent neighbors. The portion of the appeal relating to Point 2 is denied. The City Council finds that the project design is consistent with all applicable site, architectural and landscaping design criteria and guidelines required by the Hillside Design Guidelines. The Hillside Guidelines contain two tiers of review. There are mandatory property development standards which are incorporated into the Hillside Overlay District and there are the Design Guidelines which are advisory and provide flexibility. The project complies with all mandatory requirements. It has a maximum square footage of 4,687 square feet where 6500 square feet -3- is allowed. The building height of 24 feet is less than the maximum height of 30 feet. It meets building stepback requirements. Where the structure encroaches into the stepback zone, it has a maximum height of 14 feet where 20 feet is allowed. The project also complies with the architectural and site Design Guidelines, which are advisory.. Site development standards require that significant trees be preserved and grading minimized. No site grading is required and an arborist report has been prepared and the project has been conditioned to require that trees are preserved. The Guidelines contains recommendations for reducing bulk. The project incorporates most recommendations. The roof forms are broken into smaller components. Overhangs and architectural details provide shadows and depth. The upper story steps back. The addition does not step down the hill. A stepped addition would be inappropriate because the home is located on a flat pad. The one story, stepped addition alternative presented by Jim Ring, architect for the Stickle's, would potentially result in the loss of mature trees and create a 11/2 story unarticulated elevation. The Ring plan for the addition would have resulted in the loss of windows and views from existing bedrooms in the Huff's home and this alternative was rejected by the Huffs. The City's Design Review Board, which provides professional architectural advice to hearing bodies, reviewed the project design for consistency with both the Hillside Design Guidelines and the Neighborhood 13/14 Neighborhood Plan and recommended approval. The Zoning Administrator determined it was consistent with the Guidelines and approved the addition. The Planning Commission made similar findings and denied the appeal. Point 3: Privacy of adjacent neighbors. The portion of the appeal dealing with Point 3 is denied. The City Council finds that this Environmental and Design Review application is consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and purposes of the Environmental and Design Review Permits chapter, specifically the criteria for approval of applications established in Section 14.25.050, including the criteria for second story additions. The design of the addition preserves the inherent characteristics of the hillside site, displays sensitivity to the natural hillside setting, is compatible with the nearby hillside neighborhood, and provides windows and a balcony on the second level of the structure which are oriented as not to have a direct line -of -sight into the windows, balconies and similar openings of adjacent structures. A cross section was prepared showing the relationship of the addition to the Stickle's home. There is a 30 feet vertical height difference and the two residences are separated by a distance of 112 feet. Based on the cross section, site photos and site visits, only the roof of the addition will be visible from the Stickle's patio and the addition will not be visible from the Stickle's living room. The Huff residence is located approximately 275 feet from the Irwin residence. Photos indicate that the addition will not be highly visible. Project conditions require that additional trees be preserved and that additional screening be provided. The City's Design Review Board reviewed the project design for consistency with the design criteria established in the zoning ordinance for approval of projects and recommended that privacy would not be impacted. The Zoning Administrator determined it was consistent with the criteria for second story additions and approved the addition. The Planning Commission made similar findings and denied the appeal. SEI'M Point 4: The second story addition is too massive. The portion of the appeal relating to Point 4 is denied. The City Council finds that the Environmental and Design Review application is consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and purposes of the Environmental and Design Review Permits chapter, specifically the criteria for approval of applications established in Section 14.25.050. The City Council also finds that the project design is consistent with all applicable site, architectural and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site is located, including project consistency with the criteria established in both the Hillside Design Guidelines and the Neighborhood 13/14 Neighborhood Plan. The design of the addition preserves the inherent characteristics of the hillside site, displays sensitivity to the natural hillside setting, provides roof slopes and building materials which are designed to be consistent with the roof slope and materials of the existing structure. The project complies with all mandatory requirements of the Hillside Overlay District. It has a maximum square footage of 4,687 square feet where 6500 square feet is allowed. The building height of 24 feet is less than the maximum height of 30 feet. It meets building stepback requirements. Where the structure encroaches into the stepback zone, it has a maximum height of 14 feet where 20 feet is allowed. The project also complies with the architectural and site Hillside Design Guidelines. The Guidelines contains recommendations for reducing bulk. The project incorporates most recommendations. The roof forms are broken into smaller components. Overhangs and architectural details provide shadows and depth. The upper story steps back. The addition gives careful consideration to views of rooftops from other hillside areas, adjacent roads and uphill properties. The City's Design Review Board reviewed the project design for consistency with the design criteria established in the zoning ordinance , Hillside Guidelines, Neighborhood 13/14 Plan and General Plan and recommended approval of the additions. The Zoning Administrator determined it was consistent with all City policies and ordinances related to second story additions and approved the addition. The Planning Commission made similar findings and denied the appeal. Point 5: A second story addition would establish a precedent in the neighborhood. The portion of the appeal dealing with Point 5 is denied. The City Council finds that the Environmental and Design Review application is consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and purposes of Environmental and Design Review Permits chapter, specifically the criteria for approval of applications established in Section 14.25.050. Sub - Section 14.25.050.F.6 provides criteria for upper story additions. This section states Limited design review of upper story additions and lift -and fill construction is included to assure better design of such additions and modifications and not to preclude such construction.. The addition complies with the criteria listed for review of such additions. It meets the size limitation. It has a minimum of windows facing the rear yard and will not affect the privacy of adjacent residences. The project is designed to be consistent with the roof slope and materials of the existing structure. The project is compatible with the design character and scale of the neighborhood. The design of the addition preserves the inherent characteristics of the hillside site, displays sensitivity to the natural hillside setting, is compatible with the nearby hillside neighborhood, minimizes grading, retains a substantial portion of the site in a natural state, protects significant trees, provides windows and a balcony on the second level of the structure which are oriented as not to have a direct line- -5- of -sight into the windows, balconies and similar openings of adjacent structures, provides roof slopes and building materials which are designed to be consistent with the roof slope and materials of the existing structure. Staff presented a map at the hearing showing that a substantial number of homes in the neighborhood have two stories. The City's Design Review Board reviewed the project design for consistency with the design criteria established in the zoning ordinance for approval of second story additions, with the Hillside Residential Guidelines, and the Neighborhood 13/14 Plan and recommended approval. The Zoning Administrator determined it was consistent with all City policies and ordinances related to second story additions and approved the addition. The Planning Commission made similar findings and denied the appeal. The City's Zoning Ordinance, Hillside Guidelines, and the Neighborhood 13/14 Plan do not preclude such additions. Point 6: The project proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Environmental and Design Review Permit section of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 25), specifically Section 14.25.010. The portion of the appeal relating to Point 6 is denied. The City Council finds that this Environmental and Design Review application is consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and purposes of the Environmental and Design Review chapter, specifically the purposes outlined in Section 14.25.010. The project proposal is consistent with Section 14.25.010 of the zoning ordinance in that the project design maintains a proper balance between development and the natural environment in that all existing on-site trees and vegetation will be preserved and there is no grading. The location, design, materials (stucco and wood siding with composition shingle roof) and colors (gray) blend with and enhances the natural setting. The proposal maintains and improves the quality of and relationship between, development and the surrounding area to contribute to the attractiveness of the City. The proposal preserves balance and harmony within the neighborhood. The project design promotes excellence by encouraging creative design and the innovative use of materials, methods and techniques. The view loss from the project design is minimal with a very insignificant impact and the proposed building modifications and additions minimize the impact on adjacent residences in that a photo analysis presented by the project architect shows that a maximum of 1% of the panoramic view will be blocked by the new addition and the additions are designed to be compatible with the existing residence and the neighborhood, as verified by the City's Design Review Board. Issue 7: The project design is inconsistent with Section 14.25.060(6c)(Windows Facing Side Yards). The portion of the appeal relating to Point 7 is denied. The City Council finds that the Environmental and Design Review application is consistent with Section 14.25.060(6.c) The addition provides windows and a balcony on the second level of the structure which are oriented as not to have a direct line -of -sight into the windows, balconies and similar openings of adjacent structures. The Irwin residence is located approximately 275 feet from the Huff residence. There is an approximate difference in grade between the two homes of 30 to 40 feet. The City's Design Review Board reviewed the project design for consistency with the design criteria established in the zoning ordinance for approval of projects and recommended approval. The Board recommended that there would be no impact on privacy. M BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council denies the appeal and adopts the following additional findings regarding the project: 1. The project design minimizes any adverse environmental impact. As required by the Hillside Design Guidelines, the proposed addition minimizes site disturbance, maintains mature trees, and preserves significant vegetation. Furthermore, additions to single family residences are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15303 (a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 2. The project design will not result in a structure that is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project design is consistent with all zoning ordinance standards. The view loss from the project design is minimal with a very insignificant impact and the proposed building modifications and additions minimize the impact on adjacent residences in that a photo analysis presented by the project architect shows that a maximum of 1% of the panoramic view will be blocked by the new addition and the additions are designed to be compatible with the existing residence and the neighborhood, as verified by the City's Design Review Board. 3. The project design is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the Environmental and Design Review Permits Chapter. The project is consistent with General Plan design policies, specifically LU -19, LU -34, LU -35, and RES -7. The City's Hillside Residential Design Guidelines implement General Plan design policies for hillside areas. The project has been reviewed by the City's Design Review Board to ensure excellence of design. The project recognizes site constraints and resources, is built at an appropriate scale and uses quality building materials. The project is sensitive to the natural landscape and site features. Trees will be preserved and grading minimized. The colors, materials and building and site design are appropriate for the site. 4. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture, and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the Rla-H district in which the site is located, including the criteria established in both the Hillside Design Guidelines and the Neighborhood 13/14 Plan. An exception to the setback is granted for the garage addition. As required by the Hillside Design Guidelines, the proposed addition maintains mature trees and preserves significant vegetation, is located to minimize interferences with views from adjacent residences, consists of roof forms and roof lines that are broken into a series of smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of the surrounding features, and gives careful consideration to views of rooftops from other hillside areas, adjacent roads and uphill properties. The project is consistent with the requirements of the Neighborhood 13/14 Plan in that setbacks and siting of the addition will be adequate to protect views from existing structures, all practical and feasible means of mitigating visual impacts have been utilized and existing trees will be retained. The City's Design Review Board reviewed the project design for consistency with zoning criteria, General Plan policies, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and the Neighborhood 13/14 Plan and recommended approval. 5. The 5 foot side yard setback exception required for the construction of the new one -car garage is in character with the surrounding neighborhood, is not required as an essential -7- open space or recreational amenity to the use of the site, and the decrease in the required setback will not reasonably affect abutting sites. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Rafael City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the action of the Zoning Adminstrator approving the Environmental and Design Review and Exception Applications, based on the findings stated in this resolution and the 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 Fifteenth day of May, 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmembers: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None M. LEONCIl�II Ci Clerk TE - tY IRZ Conditions of Approval: FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Due to the wildland fire interface area, fire retardant roof covering is required with a minimum Class "A" listing. 4. UL/SFM smoke detectors and openable bedroom windows shall be installed conforming to the Uniform Building Code. POLICE DEPARTMENT 5. 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. 6. Perimeter walls, fences, trash storage areas, etc., shall be built to limit if not in fact prevent access to the roof or balconies. 7. All exterior man 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. 8. Metal -framed glass doors shall be set in metal door jambs. 9. 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. 10. Exterior man doors and doors leading from a garage area into the private residence shall have a 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Front doors shall have a front door viewer that provides a minimum of 190 degrees peripheral vision. 14. Exterior doors that swing outward shall have non -removable pins 15. In -swinging exterior doors shall have rabbeted jambs. 16. 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. 17. Louvered windows shall not be installed within 8 feet of the ground level. 18. Any window in or within 40 inches of an exterior door shall be stationary and non - removable. 19. 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. 20. Any alternative materials or methods of construction shall be reviewed with the Crime Prevention Officer before installation. 21. The Crime Prevention Officer shall be allowed to inspect and approve the construction prior to occupancy or use. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 22. A soils letter shall be submitted with the application for a building permit. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 23. The building techniques, materials, elevations, site plan and appearance of this project, as presented for approval, shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit. Approved plans are dated 1/6/95, as on file at the Planning Department. Any future design modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. 24. The approved color scheme is as follows: (1) Gray (horizontal wood siding to match existing siding; (2) Light gray (stucco); (3) White (trim at doors, windows, fascia, rake, trellis and rail trim; (4) Dark gray with variation of gray hues (composition shingles roofing). Concrete slate is also approved as an alternative roofing material. This color would also be gray with variation of gray hues. The Planning Department will verify at the time of building permit issuance that the material and color of the roof are identical to the samples presented at the City Council meeting. 25. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris. 26. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the review and approval by the Planning Department. This plan shall provide adequate screening of the addition from neighboring properties, by providing at least one speciman tree adjacent to the Stickle's property, while protecting views from both the project site and adjacent properties. 27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a survey verifying the location of the North property line shall be submitted for review. This survey shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor. 28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an arborist report shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department. This report shall present a description of the current health of the tree, an assessment of whether the tree will survive with the proposed construction of the garage and recommendations to insure preservation of the tree during project construction. 29. This Environmental and Design Review permit shall be valid for two years, or until May 15, 1997, unless a building permit is issued. Prior to the expiration of a permit, a time extension may be granted by the City's Zoning Administrator.