Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2018-04-17 #3SAN RAFAEL THE CITY WITH A MISSION Community Development Department — Planning Division Meeting Date: April 17, 2018 Case Numbers: ED16-082 Project Planner: Alan Montes 415.485.3397 Agenda Item: :5 REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 2 Capri Court (Tentative Address) — New Two -Story Single -Family Residence on a Vacant Lot; APN: 017-191-36; Single -Family Residential and Water (R5 -C, W) Zoning Districts with a Canal Overlay District; Bill Guan, Applicant; Connie and Queenie Zhang, Owners; Canal Neighborhood. PROPERTY FACTS Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Project Site: LDR R5 -C, W North: W W South: HDR HR1.5 East: LDR R5 -C, W West: LDR R5 -C, W Lot Size Lot Coverage (Max.) Required: 5,000 sf Standard: Proposed 8,956 sf (Existing) Proposed: Height Upper Floor Area Allowed: 30' Allowed: Proposed: 28'10" Proposed: Setbacks Required Proposed Parking Front: 15' 15' Required: Side: 5' 5.5' Proposed: Rear: 10' 50' SUMMARY Existing Land -Use Vacant Canal High Density Condos Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 40% or 3,582 sf 27% or 2,375 sf 2,687 sf 1,279 sf 2 Covered Parking Spaces 2 Covered Parking Spaces The subject project is being referred to the Design Review Board for review of site and design improvements for a new two-story single-family residence with an upper story over 500 sq. ft. on a vacant lot. The project has been controversial within the neighborhood and staff is seeking the Board's feedback and recommendation on the project. The Board's recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project adequately addresses the applicable criteria. However, based on public feedback staff requests that the Board review this report and provide a recommendation on compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Architecture • Whether the eclectic Spanish style design is appropriate in the neighborhood. • Whether the rear staircase is appropriate. Size • Whether the size of the structure is appropriate for the neighborhood. BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting: The site is a vacant lot with canal access. The site is located at the south-east corner of Capri Ct. and Canal St., in the Canal Neighborhood. The subject site is a relatively flat lot with an average cross slope of 4.12% and approximately 8,956 sq. ft. in size. The site is located along the canal waterfront. The waterfront, in this neighborhood, is composed of single-family residences, varying between one and two stories,.and generally have wood cladding. Across Canal Street, there are high density residential developments, generally ranging between two and three stories and are primarily stucco siding. History: The subject site is a vacant lot with no existing entitlements or structures. Zoninq Administrator Hearing The project was initially taken in and processed as a Zoning Administrator action. During the noticing period for the Zoning Administrator hearing, staff had received seven (7) comments from the public notice. In summary, the concerns regarding the project are as follows; 1) the loss of private views, 2) potential impact on solar array, 3) the size of the home is out of character with the neighborhood, and 4) reduce down property values. There have also been several comments supporting the project and recognizing an attempt in the design to minimize impacts. Lastly, there was also a suggestion that the public right of way between the subject property and the sidewalk be landscaped by the applicant. A Zoning Administrator hearing was held on May 24, 2017, where seven (7) members of the public were present, including the applicant. During the public comment period, the first speaker, Mr. Abrahamsen, presented his concern regarding the scale of the project and the impacts it may have on his solar array and requested that the design consider their solar array. The applicant was very receptive to this request and stated that he will work with Mr. Abrahamsen to modify the design to be more sensitive to the solar array. The next public comment was from Mr. Traeger, who had stated that he was present to express support for the project and is looking forward to the vacant lot being developed. The final member of the public to speak was Ms. Nosti. Ms. Nosti made the following comments: 1) the project is out of scale for the neighborhood and that the project shouldn't exceed 3,600 sq. ft. in size, as that's the largest home size in the neighborhood, 2) the project will block the view of Mt. Tamalpais from her residence, 3) the project will block all the natural light from entering her residence, 4) the building is too close to her residence, 6) the ground floor windows will create privacy issues, 7) the bathroom is too close to her window and that it's possible that she may hear toilets flushing. The Zoning Administrator explained that the project meets all . the City's requirements; in that, it is providing the required setbacks and is within the size limits. The Zoning Administrator also stated that the City does not protect private views, or shading of the primary residence unless the structure will be shading active recreation areas or solar arrays, between the hours of 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. on December 21. The Zoning Administrator had also informed the public that there are five (5) homes out of the 33 single family residences in the neighborhood over 3,900 gross building square feet, of which one is a two-story corner lot. The Architect, Mr. Guan, had also added that even a one-story home would remove the view of Mt. Tamalpais and that he will consider potentially offsetting the upper -story a little more in hopes of reducing any potential shading that may occur. The meeting concluded with the architect stating that he is going to modify the proposal and resubmit to the City. The Zoning Administrator had encouraged the Architect to work with the neighbors to attempt to find a design solution and that the project will be re -noticed for a hearing at a date uncertain. PROJECT DESCRIPTION On November 2, 2017, the applicant submitted revised plans reducing the size of the structure by 627 sq. ft. The revised project proposes a new two-level, single-family residence with five (5) bedrooms, four (4) bathrooms, kitchen, dining room, living room, family room, and a garage. The gross building square footage is as follows: Lower Level: 1,811 sq. ft. Garage: 499 sq. ft. Upper Level: 1,279 sq. ft. Total: 3,589 sq. ft. Architecture: The proposed structure is in an eclectic Spanish style design. The upper -story is stepped back approximately ten (10) feet along the frontages to minimize the bulk and mass of the structure. The stepback is also provided to mitigate shading of the solar panels on 6 Capri Ct. and to allow more light to enter the adjacent residence located at 134 Canal St. The exterior of the structure is proposed to be primarily stucco, ("Sunset Beige"), and the roof is proposed to be concrete tile ("Mesa Gold"). A materials and color board will be presented at the board meeting. Height: The project proposes a maximum height of 2810". The structure is required, by FEMA, to be located a minimum of 11' above sea -level, which requires the ground floor to be located approximately 3' above the immediate grade. Residential Design Guidelines: Staff finds that the project substantially complies with the guidelines in that it provides a clear point of entry, has a stepped fapade, the design has intricate front and canal facades, and that the frontage is proposed to be landscaped. ANALYSIS General Plan 2020 Consistency: The project complies with General Plan Policy LU -12, Building Heights. This General Plan Policy identifies the maximum building height for this district as being 30'. The proposed project is currently proposed at a maximum height of 28'10" The project substantially complies with General Plan Policy NH -78, Waterfront Design. This policy requires the city to review design factors such as pedestrian access, building setbacks from the water, height, landscaping, canal view protection and enhancement from public right-of-ways, wildlife habitat protection and high quality architectural design. This project provides a clear pedestrian access point for the residence, a fifty (50) foot setback from the canal and is within the height limit. Staff finds that any development on this lot will eliminate the public view of the canal, from the right-of-way, and is seeking the Boards feedback on the quality of the architectural design. 3 Zoning Ordinance Consistency: Chapter 4 — Residential Base District The project is subject to R5 development standards which includes height, setback, lot coverage, maximum upper story size, and parking requirement standards. The project as proposed complies with all R5 Zoning District Development Standards. The structure complies with the 30 -foot height limit (proposed: 28'10" from immediate grade), percent lot coverage is below 40% (27%), the required two covered parking will be provided in accordance with Chapter 14.18, of the San Rafael Municipal Code, the second story addition is below 75% of the maximum allowed lot coverage (55%), and the project complies with all required. minimum yards. The required minimum yards are as follows: front 15', side 5', and rear 5'. As proposed, the structure provides a 15-50' front setback, a 5.5' side setback, and 50' rear setback. The structure also provides a minimum setback of 25' from the bulkhead, as required in section 14.16.080(D). The site is also located within the Water (W) zoning district. The project is not proposing any modifications to the section of the property within the W District. Chapter 12-15 — Overlay District - The Canal Overlay District has three design criteria: Site Design, Architecture, and Colors/Materials. The Site Design section requires that consideration be paid to the site design to preserve public views, bike/pedestrian enhancement and to provide setbacks along the Canal to preserve and enhance wildlife habitat. This proposal meets the site design criteria by providing a 25' canal setback and creating a unique and elaborate rear elevation. The architecture criteria states that low -scale buildings that protect public views of the water and which do not dominate the Canal shall be required. Upon reviewing this application, staff found that any type of development will eliminate the public view of the water and that there's a precedent set for buildings to be more than one-story along Canal St. Additionally, the project has taken measures to mitigate the bulk and mass of the structure, by providing a greater front setback and stepping the upper story along the frontage. The proposed colors, "Sunset Beige", "Smokey Topaz", and "Mesa Gold", all comply with the color requirements in section 14.25.050 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, which states that colors should be earth toned and that shades of reddish -brown, brown, tan, gold, sand are all encouraged colors. The exterior wall material is proposed to be stucco, "Sunset Beige", the roof is proposed as a concrete tile "Mesa Gold", and parts of the structure will contain a coordinating stone veneer. All proposed materials are encouraged in section 14.25.040 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, which states that new structures should be high-quality materials such as stucco, stone, and tiles. Chapter 16 — Site and Use Regulations 14.16.080 - Creeks and other watercourses. The property is required to provide a minimum setback of 25' from the top of the bank or bulkhead, which this property complies with, by providing a 50' rear setback. 14.16.170 - Geotechnical review. The site is in an area comprised of artificial fill, according to General Plan 2020, and thus requires a geotechnical investigation, which the applicant had submitted with their application and was reviewed by City staff. Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit The proposed project is required to go through a Zoning Administrator level Environmental and Design Review as the project proposes an upper -story addition over 500 sq. ft. Through the review criteria 4 there's four (4) applicable criteria's that staff has reviewed, Architecture, Site Design, Materials and Color and Upper -Story additions: The Architecture criteria encourage the creation of interest in the building elevation, provision of a sense of entry, variation in building placement and height, equal attention to design of all facades in sensitive locations. Staff finds that the stepback along the front elevation provides interest in the front building elevation. The front porch creates a defined point of entry and the rear decks, porch, and stairway create a unique fagade facing the canal. The Site Design criteria encourage that public views should be maintained when feasible, drainage receive special attention, and that utilities be installed underground. Staff finds that any development on this site will eliminate the public views of the canal, as seen with the surrounding developments. Public Works has reviewed the drainage plan and has conditionally approved it. Lastly, the utilities will be required to be undergrounded as a condition of approval. The Materials and Colors criteria establishes that earthtone/woodtone colors are preferred and that naturals materials such as stone, brick, stucco, and tile roofs are encouraged. The proposed structure is proposed to be primarily stucco, "Sunset Beige, and the roof is proposed to be concrete tile in a complementary color. The Upper -Story Additions criteria states windows along the side yard and rear yard should be minimized in order to provide privacy to adjacent neighbors. Neighborhoods with prevailing design exists on both sides of the street for the length of the block, the addition or modification shall be designed to be compatible with the design character and scale of the neighboring buildings and outside stairways to upper stories shall be designed as modest structures which do not dominate the facade of the building. Staff finds that the window placement has been done in a way to minimize privacy impacts on the adjacent neighbors, as there are minimal windows on the upper -story sides of the building and the rear deck/windows will be facing the Canal. Staff does have some concern regarding the rear staircase as it is a dominant feature along that elevation. Lastly, the neighborhood on the canal side (north) of the street has a dominant style, but the south -side doesn't have a dominant style. Thus, staff finds that the last criteria is not applicable to this property. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice of the meeting was posted on-site and mailed to residents and occupants within 300 feet of the site at least 15 days prior to the meeting date. In addition, notice was posted on the site, at least 15 days prior to the meeting. On April 4, 2018, the adjacent neighbor, at 134 Canal St., expressed concerns regarding the loss of light into her residence, loss of view of Mt. Tamalpais, the second story scale, stucco finish, and the spiral staircase facing the Canal. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Board provide the applicant with feedback in regard to the proposal, as deemed necessary. The Board should also provide a formal recommendation to be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator to consider as part of the Environmental and Design Review permit. 5 EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Original Project Plans 3. Revised Project Plans 4. Neighborhood Inventory 5. Photo from the Canal, Looking at Subject Lot (Vacant) Full-sized plans have been provided to the DRB members only. cc: Applicant: Bill Guan, 501 Crescent Way #5412, San Francisco, CA 94134 Owners: Connie and Queenie Zhang, 74 Neptune St. San Francisco, CA 94124 Exhibit 1— Vicinity Map b Y su ■ SE ivq a� itlh c H Y K Q W � LU Lu ppW.�y CL n pm rc 13 H A ,J 1 F- a$ LU Of (U z o U; O =1 wed LL C LU L rcZ 9 9� �- r: p LO LU Baa bi W�1'lz tl �n NS�°v vN LU ��io E-'. o �ns$3 Q p § b n ag s h €geeLLI � ooafml o § e a C7 S €� 91pM� LU �� e5 qm B_ n J �5 �gkp� £.Ma€ HK Amid o o o o 0 o o 0 0 0 1 4 •• Oo I / / JJJ_ .�{- } •JJJ_ JJI.1 J_ ` j JJJ. /Yfila 1� 1 ��• • L• NIYM306 I (S312ib'A M/b) 1 b n o o I a d d o 1 P \ a � r w m .i II b � I e I kh 7 LL 03 p GI � C5 Z a OiEL — U5 Z I LU a 3 a s 4 �- z 9 X= " r o v a xi?':s s1 ', s' CD zO r W Sy ¢,{' ar Tcaia< cr Sou Q I / / JJJ_ .�{- } •JJJ_ JJI.1 J_ ` j JJJ. /Yfila 1� 1 ��• • L• NIYM306 I (S312ib'A M/b) 1 b n o o I a d d o 1 P \ a � r w m .i II b � I e I kh 7 LL 03 p GI � C5 Z a OiEL — U5 Z I LU I 3 a 3 � 0 3 ww K p X z Z w ? a 3 w 3 w 3 w w w w z z z z 0 Z J z Q J CL O O J W 0 z N 0 Wq O Ob a - O IL IL N 10 Z O_ F - Q W J W O O J W Z Q J CLw O O J w F- O 0 Lu N a; � 0 < LL= � =5f d ■ Z LL zB u C+ V '�1 3 •i o k% w 3 I 3 a 3 � 0 3 ww K p X z Z w ? a 3 w 3 w 3 w w w w z z z z 0 Z J z Q J CL O O J W 0 z N 0 Wq O Ob a - O IL IL N 10 Z O_ F - Q W J W O O J W Z Q J CLw O O J w F- O 0 Lu N a; � 0 �enro roty •ix �rnmao.o-tz� k I � I I 144 Wtli ,� Z O P: W J W p z 04 LL Sz 0 O i Z O Q W J W F - Z 0 LL i (n � WA I LA I I I I I I I I �I I �I © ,;M16 e e 3 < s � 0 0 6 F YV�EV 3 VV Z O okl �' nJ i�roa�a rc F-�omzws > u � z �g s�pw �oaxLU J 3wo�aorcmvsia�� W ao4�'�P ?8m Q ILJ �� ciisarc �a� JN >rc $I , 21 F -n I., a oazs a€i o�w as zd elr o�+�o �i vm, al Oy �omo>maQwa a Ff. ol5i>$�W in aum g-oao Z�?ooa�Wasxx fWJ _�N-'3 ��>3M1$vii , ; \ § § ( { ) / ! \ ) \ CD co O � \ \ -Nox vi , ; \ § § ( { ) / ! \ ) \ CD co O � \ \ I; (S312JVA M/2i) 1?Jnoo I J d v 0 a� i Q QO a U Q J W F- a Z uJ O W a - wj azr'y, dir o LL a x LL Ow Z — -•a, p Z d Nn wo3 z•'r€a� 5rcw FHs f-€rc rc.. W a- ao 12M O 'i� li�.t' 3 r�' F- Ee 3 d ffi W F pH hiso� ��a wrcaorc.Q�i ads �`3�6€� hyo o'G o Q y * +�. .r w 2 S Bg Nva g=moo Foa'~^ oo S LWL p w9a j i�wrc�� 3a bay a iLL �wB'�xm isao w �� yw> ? 1 pFa om€ <oa SH, z i ZW89 'vi'r✓i i m3Ou�iK SRH b J Q� NIS b z W ��� 9 Q A 4 b g gg 3a 12R �'a Ho Ts:Va ate," 5oR � or,a a'y _was ��gods,,IS,, s s �E_ � u� o o b g '�'� 0 A 3 W W Q ;' y�= £� 3 li th _`I« I ium r ��`%14 y p `9 :,n e63 a�aa�pp93�5 �J� O$ s 11, 1 1 o o11 1e JVV\ _ i#KKiO RR&RRR.Rd g I; (S312JVA M/2i) 1?Jnoo I J d v 0 a� i Q QO a U Q J W F- a Ln J F- 2 a Imillooll N `s§ x iw �g I imilummis IMUMEMIN iBaan pa MIN � > 3 N / / 1 N `s§ x iw �g I iBaan pa MIN � > 3 N / / 1 r CL O 1�R W U W N m yl_ z z z W o I 01 ( s 3 1 a d n M/ b) 1 d n 0 3 1a d d 3 o1 I JJ_ JJJ- ,� YRi r CL O 1�R W U W N m yl_ z z z W o I 01 ( s 3 1 a d n M/ b) 1 d n 0 3 1a d d 3 o1 z b EE:' Y mo �oo SF %z ��iEc �"� yam c�z3aa z�"Nza w o !qFj y4o 3 w .,woyw a"� rcaSmw m iimz f�ii Qw �=-vo���a �rWwxU«ao eHys€mzz rmammtt o o �mmwo ^au8�wrcei �mwiwT>rc�o_Zdo€z€a rcQwaoa�s=Zis w¢_ maa w=xwF- waHgaazwJ'a r" w"'_- o £33Wu~o~�im- wFo��orcZowwa"-`w U r£ Fxma Wrc= H w3Fwtt8cwas �pUxti m Sp j —, �'- RSO, F-WoFaLL o Z.gdo wz1 g pFa6N�so �€w eva - X VLLa �i TU Fo oW8ox WF s�"azF wNzz� s"aws 30 z. zaza r 1. 8 Zlyzzo� i m &oyi og " �wtoa�u�&zwo�aw G LLR 5� '"� EF-.o� z$N.� °a fit,,, ��`° �R�w 3 o3od 3 S a� o -m FUQ �wo� w a azo s�o w- ma �Zob'x wiw4�'"�zoorz��zxo ��u gP a,mioa Us€a — sm, HF�wZoyFcz�� rzNao� ig sN tiomp E�am=F Fo4_W �Na o wa z a o U� LL�aa z K�o ao.z zx m£�'rc w x °aww .M -Na' pp I I Z a aw x 3 �F�rcz� m rcz z z3rtm3�a�>oo�rc�Zui-uUx3< Q �sz waw z� i>aOO >z o00 ¢ -w z ) k'o N� m K� K�Fp jZUZx ?4�Qg�Z msiuZO aJO���nd�a�Z60U z I I zea OM aioz o0 oz3Lli Nu m ow a`°.i mF b'�ax wz oo � oxo �$zww= lL I I ) osFmZW' F o d Srcz.Ua o C`9 o izj �a_ G �u� i ma haw-�ww��_irc b-��~ozoj��p I I QavaFi azwBH� €Qoa aw K. �a�`d'i o�r o NN �aowoa �a�3°so"oz�°���".� azoae J I I dz n 3ff s& utuww w you nxa�oa ad S' m _ �a&r"marcsd�3�aad�""iarcaama�� 0 2 o W J� ff� ozzE3€ wr5"�zu€o �x »VmF§Fj �O =w§� Sdt IYS ❑ a QI co } z � U P Lu v• g J 3 Il 2 / O w lh O u� � 4 s LL¢�� O o z � NVN Z Q J IL K O O J LL0 z N 0 Wa Om O" � a N Z O_ I— Q W J W O O J LL Z Q CL J O O J W H in W U) q Os O� o or W K z IL Q } LU Y cc co c c LU /Or) �� E 1 �G W ` S• � s Z p yp W K z IL Q } LU Y c c � 4 � € �G ~ O ` S• � s Z Z O M j ~ > W J r aQrc W aa',o'�a$gmvxiu 4 WLLO} NN�w iia oWrcxa iS:f F-1. x^ ZY30=!CC W1N06 Z to aNFa�mwzsn. 'sm Wrg` B ( } § § � � / \ Exhibit 4 - Neighborhood Inventory Inventory Includes All Single -Family Residences Located Along Canal St. Between Portofino Rd and Sorrento Way. Address Building Sq. Ft.* Lot Sq. Ft. Upper Story? Corner Unit? 9 Portofino 2,622 5,760 13 Portofino 2,384 7,000 17 Portofino 2,800 11,900 21 Portofino 3,966 11,700 Upper 18 Portofino 3,397 16,200 8 Portofino 2,396 8,500 4 Portofino 1,652 8,500 Corner 154 Canal 2,971 6,500 Upper 150 Canal 2,162 6,300 3 Capri 2,820 9,000 Corner 7 Capri 3,166 14,000 10 Capri 2,650 9,100 Upper 6 Capri 2,610 12,000 Upper SUBJECT SITE 3,589 9,900 Upper Corner 134 Canal 2,930 7,200 5 Amalfi 2,512 9,900 Corner 9 Amalfi 3,318 12,800 13 Amalfi 2,388 8,400 12 Amalfi 2,416. 15,400 8 Amalfi 3,008 8,400 4 Amalfi 3,911 8,250 Upper Corner 120 Canal 3,320 6,600 Upper 5 Lido 2,282 7,800 Corner 9 Lido 2,916 15,000 12 Lido 4,872 20,000 Upper 108 Canal 2,809 6,650 Corner 104 Canal 2,537 6,000 5 Sorrento 2,698 6,825 Corner 9 Sorrento 2,769 8,050 Upper 15 Sorrento 2,982 10,400 Upper 17 Sorrento 4,269 9,940 Upper 27 Sorrento 3,250 10,500 29 Sorrento 3,906 8,820 Upper 33 Sorrento 2,780 13,200 Upper *The square footage information is pulled from the County Assessor and includes Living Space and Garages. ** The gray rows indicate residences over 3,000 sq. ft. Exhibit 4 —Neighborhood Inventory Control Map of Residences Included in the Survey Above. pp� Exhibit 5 - View from Canal, Looking at Subject Lot (Vacant)