HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2016-08-16 #3CITY
CITY of Meeting Date: August 16, 2016
�+MM~ ✓� 4e Case Numbers: ED15-080
c�oRN1P
Project Planner: Paul Jensen, (415) 485-506
Community Development Department — Planning Division
Agenda Item:
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: San Rafael Public Safety Center- 1313 5th Avenue/1039 C Street — Request for review of
REVISED exterior building design details for a new, 44,000 -square -foot Public Safety Center
for fire, police and emergency services to replace the existing Fire Station 51 (Downtown Fire
Station). The project includes a subterranean garage, public plaza and associated site and
landscaping improvements. The Environmental and Design Review Permit for this project was
approved by the Planning Commission on July 26, 2016. The conditions of this approval
require the design revisions to the building exterior be reviewed by the Design Review Board.
APNs: 011-205-04, 011-205-01 and 011-205-17; Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) and Fifth/Mission
Residential/Office (5/MR/O) Districts; City of San Rafael, applicant and property owner; File
Nos: ED15-080.
BACKGROUND
On March 22, 2016, the Design Review Board conducted a Conceptual Review of the City of San
Rafael Public Safety Center project proposed for the 0.85 -acre City -owned property located at 1313 5th
Avenue/1039 C Street. The Board completed a formal review of the project on April 19, 2016. The City
of San Rafael no longer prepares written meeting minutes, but actual video proceedings from the DRB
meeting can be reviewed online at: http://www.cityofsanrafael.ora/meetings/. click on the Design
Review Board under archived meetings, select the March 22, 2016 and April 19, 2016 meeting dates,
and click on the video link).
As part of its deliberation during formal review on April 19, the Board considered the design criteria set
forth in SRMC Chapter 14.25 (discussed above), as well as project consistency with the interim San
Rafael Design Guidelines (adopted in 2004). Following deliberation, the Board voted (5-0) to
recommend approval of the site plan and landscaping with some design changes but continued review
of the architecture and exterior building design directing additional design study based on the following
recommendations:
1. The building exterior should appear as a contemporary structure and not a retrofit of an older
building;
2. The front and side glass building entries should be designed to be more consistent with the
design of the building;
3. The building base should be masonry or concrete rather than stucco; and
4. The landscape plan should be revised to incorporate more appropriate local species.
Following this DRB review, environmental review of the project was completed and the project moved
on to review by the Planning Commission. On April 26, 2016, the Planning Commission conditionally
approved an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-080) and Use Permit (UP15-035) for the
Public Safety Center. The planning permits are subject to numerous conditions, including the
requirement that the building elevations be revised and return to the Board for review and
recommendation. Specifically, ED15-080 conditions read as follows:
6. The final building elevations and site plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and shall
incorporate the following recommendations of the Board (April 19, 2016):
a. Plan revisions should be made to introduce more contemporary building elements.
b. The front and side glass -surfaced building entries should be designed to provide a better match
with the overall building design.
c. The material at the building base should be changed from stucco to masonry or concrete.
Note: the plans approved with this permit approval have been revised to respond to the Design
Review Board recommendations. Additional design changes to the exterior of the building may
result from this subsequent review of revised plans by the Design Review Board.
PLAN REVISIONS
As noted in Condition #6 above, a number of exterior building design of the Public Safety Center to
respond to the Board comments. The changes are summarized in the memorandum from Mary
McGrath Architects (Exhibit 1), which include the following:
1. The arched openings over the fire station apparatus bays and the second floor terrace area
have been eliminated and replaced with a horizontal lintel band of concrete. The intent of this
change is to provide more contemporary lines to the building design.
2. The design of the pedestrian building entries has been changed to provide a curtain wall of
glazing to provide a more stark contemporary design feature. This curtain wall is intended to
contrast with the traditional brick material. A metal and glass canopy has been added to the
entries and the posts at the main entrance have been simplified (tapered post design
eliminated).
3. The building wainscot material has been changed from stucco to architectural concrete, which is
intended to provide a stronger base to the building and present a more contemporary
appearance.
4. Horizontal -projecting metal awnings have been added for the upper portions of the large window
openings.
ANALYSIS
The exterior building design revisions have been made to respond to the Board comments presented at
the April 19 DRB meeting. It is requested that the Board review the revisions and determine if they
adequately address the direction that was given to the design team.
OUTREACH - NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice of this meeting was provided to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the
subject property. In addition, a notice board was posted on the subject property informing the public
about the scope of the project and the date/time of the Design Review Board meeting.
Correspondence received to date is attached. Some concerns expressed on this project are specific to
the potential loss of the public parking lot. As noted above, a study has been commissioned to assess
this issue.
EXHIBITS
1. Memorandum from Mary McGrath Architects to Paul Jensen, Community Development
Department summarizing project design changes; August 10, 2016
Full-sized plans have been provided to the DRB members only.
cc: Mary McGrath Architects
1212 Broadway, Suite 401
Oakland, CA 94612
Raaj Patel
Kitchell
2750 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95833
Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 151485
San Rafael, CA 94915
Downtown Business Improvement District
P.O. Box 151050
San Rafael, CA 94915
Boyd Court HOA
Attn: Thomas Palmatier
1115 B Street, #206
San Rafael, CA 94901
San Rafael Heritage
Attn: Cynthia and Hugo Landecker
127 San Rafael Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
3
EXHIBIT 1
TO: I Paul Jensen, AICP, Community Development Director
FROM: I Mary McGrath, AIA
DATE: I August 10, 2016
PROJECT: I City of San Rafael Public Safety Center
COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the changes to the Public Safety Center design documents in
response to the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and Community comments.
March 22nd, 2016 DRB Comments and MMA Response:
Site Refinements:
The site layout was strongly support by the Design Review Board. The revised submittal includes
landscape, lighting and grading and drainage designs that follow the paving design. The landscape
design features a "heritage oak" at the central planter. Also, the renderings to follow in this
package show the addition of brick pavers and wall caps which match the City Hall brick paving
elements.
Building Refinements:
There were three primary comments regarding the building exterior as follows:
1. The design should tie closely to City Hall:
a. The predominant comment was for the new building to tie closer to the existing City Hall.
The suggestion was to match the brick and some horizontal elements. In response to
these comments, we refined the finish colors of the design to tie closer to City Hall using a
lighter toned base which emphasizes the horizontal base element of the design.
b. We also moved away from a brown trim to a green/grey which is a better match to City
Hall. This color change was done at the lintels, entry canopies and the lower portion of the
cornice.
c. The entry plaza was refined to add brick pavers similar to City Hall with brick caps added
to the planters.
2. The building lacks character or excitement:
a. It was suggested that changing the roof form at the 5th Avenue entry feature would add
excitement. To elaborate, the suggestion was to provide a raise roof element at the entry
stair creating a variation of the heavy cornice line. We studied this design suggestion and
found that creating a tower element at this entry did not complement the existing design.
We did find however that lowering the roof element at this location and enhancing the
glazing approach through the use of non -point loaded glazing created a crisper dividing
element which provides a stronger contrast to the brick masses. In addition it did provide
a break to the heavy cornice line. We think the glazing approach provides an exciting
separation of the brick masses and creates a striking entry.
b. Following this approach around to the main entry we moved and refined the entry
1212 BROADWAY, SUITE 401 ■ OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 ■ 0 510.208.9400 0 WWW.MARYMCGRATHARCHITECTS.COM
I MEMO I
columns so that the columns stand away from the lobby and allow the glass box of the
lobby to stand alone.
c. Finally, the entry columns were refined from the heavier round columns to conical shapes
with pinned ends. This lightens the entry element and allows the heaviest element of the
design to remain the brick masses.
The final comment was regarding the mansard roof form. It was noted that it was not necessary
and would not be seen from the streel level.
a. As we studied alternatives to this roof form we learned that the mansard significantly
reduced the area available for solar panels. This was not only due to the extent of the
roof form but also by the tall shadow they throw on the roof. So eliminating the mansard
was desirable from a sustainable standpoint.
b. The proposed solution refines the roof edge to retain the heavy cornice line but tops the
cornice with a standing seam metal cap and parapet element that respond to the
materials used at City Hall. The mansard roofs have been eliminated.
April 19th DRB, July 26th PC Comments and Citizen Input:
1. The DRB recommends that the building should appear as a contemporary structure and not a
retrofit of an older building. To that end a further effort is encourage to try and match the
entire building design, reconsidering use of arches which do not provide a cohesive design.
2. The front and side glass building elements should be consistent in height and tie together with
similar detailing.
3. The mechanical equipment needs to be adequately screened.
4. The base should be masonry vs. stucco.
5. A Planning Commission member recommended that we study the mass of the building to see
if it would be possible to reduce the overall floor to floor heights.
6. A citizens group requested landscaping along Via Sessi.
MMA Response:
1. The base of the building was refined in a couple of ways. We changed the stucco based to
architectural concrete to create a more modern foundation to the building. The
architectural concrete is proposed to be carried to the landscape planters for a cohesive
appearance. We also lowered the height of the base to a pedestrian scale. This was
achieved by adding another horizontal brick band at the base reinforcing the horizontal
elements of the design. The concrete base was also widened to create a concrete sill which
the brick will land on.
2. The main entrance to the building was refined to a simpler column approach and the two
main entrance elements were lowered to the same height so that they are consistent. The
detailing of the fascia at each entrance was made consistent. We also added a similar canopy
with signage at the apparatus bay entrance. This added depth to the apparatus bay fagade
and tied this important element of the building to the other entries. A similar canopy is
included along Via Sessi. In addition, the detailing at the opening to the second floor terrace
was revised to use a metal column (in place of a brick column) and tie that element to the
more modern theme.
3. The window openings were refined to feature architectural concrete lintels and sills. A tinted
glazing was selected that is bluer in color and will be more reflective. Decorative and
functional louvers at each window opening were enhanced to provide more articulation to
the fagade.
4. The mechanical equipment screen was enlarged to hide the equipment from public view. In
1212 BROADWAY, SUITE 401 li OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 ■ 0 510.208.9400 a WWW. MARY MCGRATHARCHITECTS.COM
addition, a roof top planter was added to provide a landscape buffer from the equipment and
the outdoor terrace.
5. Following the Planning Commission hearing we evaluated the floor to floor height of the
building and were able to reduce the overall height by 18". We reduced the first the second
floor -to -floor by 12" and the second floor -to -roof by 6". The revised floor to floor models
are indicated in the A-6 sheets. The revised massing did allow the horizontality of the
building to be enhanced.
6. The elevation and parking areas at the Via Sessi property line were revised to allow more
planting and designated parking spaces. The building was moved north off the property line
and vine trellises were added to the south fagade. Additional fenestration was added at the
apparatus bay as well. This softened the wall at the alley. In addition, planters were added
to accommodate a row of columnar trees and a second trash location was also provided at
this street level for the firefighters. The trash containers are located within the building and
are behind doors but accessible by Via Sessi.
1212 BROADWAY, SUITE 4D1 r OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 9 0 510.20B.9400 r WWW.MARYMCGRATHARCHITECTS.COM