HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2018-12-04 #3REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 1200 Irwin St. (`Dominican Towrnhomes') — Request for an Environmental and Design
Review Permit to legalize various design modifications already incorporated into an existing
approved, constructed and occupied, 15 -unit, multifamily residential development.; APN: 014-
013-05; Medium -Density Residential (MR2.5) District Zone; Casey Clement for Thompson
Development, Inc., Applicant; 524 Mission Street, LLC, Owners; Montecito Neighborhood.
***Continued from the October 17, 2017 Design Review Board Meeting***
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
In 2007, the City Council, with the recommendation of both the Design Review Board (Board) and the
Planning Commission, conditionally approved a project to demolish a cluster of five (5) duplex
residences and garage buildings on the site, which had been determined to be historic resources under
CEQA, and to construct 15, attached townhome condominium units (13 `market -rate' units and 2
`affordable' units at low-income housing levels) within three (3) buildings and associated parking and
landscape improvements. In 2015, the site and these entitlements came under new ownership, who is
the current owner of the site. In 2015 and 2016, Planning staff, with the recommendation of the Board,
approved design changes requested by the new owner in order to make the project easier to construct
and more cost-effective. The project has been constructed and is occupied. While the project has
recorded the approved condominium map, all the units are being leased to, and occupied as, student
apartments for Dominican University of California (Dominican University). Changes were incorporated
in the approved project design during construction, even though staff notified the applicant/owner these
changes required prior approval from both the Planning and Building Divisions. These unapproved
changes included:
• Install fiberglass windows, white in color framed in 2" x 4" wood trim painted dark green where
aluminum windows, dark green in color, was approved;
• Window dimensions increased slightly, both vertically and horizontally, approximately six inches
(6");
• Paint the HardieShingle woodgrain fiber cement shingle siding a dark brown where natural
cedar wood color was approved;
• Paint the board -and -batten' sided gable ends and roof eaves an off-white or creme color where
dark brown color was approved;
• Paint the exterior doors an off-white or creme color where dark brown color was approved to
match the gable ends and roof eaves;
• Reduce the approved wood trellis features at the staircase entry to each unit;
• Install HardiePanel stucco grain fiber cement siding panels, framed by 2" x 2" wood trim in a grid
pattern where stucco cement plaster finish with control joints was approved;
• Construction of two (2), trellis -framed pedestrian access stairways between an open rail, poured
concrete retaining wall along Mission Avenue where a single, trellis -framed gate centering a
stucco courtyard wall was approved; and
• Install black asphalt along the driveway entrance and the motor court where stamped or scored
colored concrete was approved.
On October 17, 2017, staff referred these retroactive design changes to Board for review and
recommendations. At the meeting, the Board (Kent motioned with Lentini 2nd; 5-0 vote) continued their
review to a date uncertain to allow staff to work with the applicant to help meet the original design
quality of the project. Specifically, the Board provided the following recommendations:
• The project should incorporate the approved colors and materials;
• The design quality of the wainscot needs to be improved, including building -up the thickness so
that it projects further out from the shingle fagade, greater texturing and elimination of the trim
boarding;
• The asphalt driveway entry and motor court should be stamped and colored as approved;
• The entry trellises to individual units need to be constructed as approved;
• The project shall include a new trash enclosure which should match the approved colors and
materials; and
• The site lighting needs follow-up from staff to either reduce the lighting levels and/or shield the
light fixtures
After the Board meeting, both staff and the applicant agreed that mock-ups would be helpful to help in
the review of any proposed design changes to the wainscot base. On October 1, 2018, the applicant
resubmitted the project (see Exhibit 2). Staff finds the resubmitted project predominantly does not
adequately respond to the Board's prior recommendations. Due to the lack of timely effort by the
applicant to respond to the Board's recommendations and the adequacy of their responses, staff further
requests the Board provide a recommendation of denial to staff on the proposed design changes. To
assist the Board in their review of the proposed design changes, staff is providing plans of prior design
changes approved by staff with the Board's recommendation on July 7, 2015 and the proposed design
changes reviewed and continued by the Board on October 17, 2017.
PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
The Board's recommendations are provided below in bold, followed by staff's comments for the
applicant's proposed response:
• The project should incorporate the approved colors and materials.
The project proposes to legalize a darker shade (brown) of exterior wall color then what was
approved. The project was approved originally with a medium shade of brown shingle siding and a
medium shade of gray stucco wainscot base trim. The darker shade of brown shingle siding and a
medium shade of taupe HardiePanel stucco sheets were installed on the exterior instead. Since the
last Board meeting on the project, the applicant retained the services of an architectural firm (Jessica
Smith of Polsky Perlstein Architects in Larkspur) to help refine the building colors. Ms. Smith
recommended a new medium shade of gray (Dryvit 454A "Stone Gray") stucco as originally approved
for the project. in lieu of the existing taupe color. The applicant has submitted a large (16" x 19")
sample of the proposed gray stucco that has been applied to Styrofoam board, which staff will present
at the Board meeting for review. In addition, the resubmittal proposes to repaint the existing light
beige color shade of the gable end walls to the same dark brown color as the exterior walls. The
project resubmittal includes a partial color elevation rendering representing these requested color
changes (see Attachment E of the applicant's resubmittal).
Staff's Comments. During their earlier review of proposed design changes to the project, the Board
was not happy with request to legalize the existing color scheme painted on the residential building
and recommended a return to the original color palette approved for the project. The applicant
appears to have made some efforts to refine the exterior color by seeking professional consulting
which resulted in the proposed new medium gray stucco color on the wainscot base. This is the
original approved color tone for the wainscot building base. Staff supports the color change back to
the original approved stucco color for the wainscot base; however, staff finds the applicant's efforts
fall short of the Board's recommendation on the color of the exterior shingle walls. At the October 17,
2017 meeting, the Board was clear that they wanted to see the exterior colors painted to match those
previous approved for the project. Staff finds the resubmitted project does not comply with the Board's
recommendation and recommends denial of the proposed project changes.
® The design duality of the wainscot needs to be improved, including building -up the thickness
so that it projects further out from the shingle fagade, greater texturing and elimination of the
trim boarding.
The project design approved textured cement plaster or "dash finish" stucco wainscot with along the
base of each building with scored into 2' x 4' sections and separated from the fiber cement shingles
by a beveled wood transition band. In lieu of the approved design, HardiePanel stucco grain fiber
cement siding in 2' x 4' panels were installed with each panel framed in wood 2" x 2" trim. The
resubmittal proposes to apply a skim coat of stucco treatment (Dryvit "Stone Gray") with a "Quarzputz"
finish and scored into 2' x 4' sections. The applicant has submitted a large (16" x 19") sample of the
proposed stucco applied to Styrofoam board, which staff will present at the Board meeting for review.
In addition, the applicant has created an even larger sample of the stucco has `leaned it against the
building" near Unit #14. The applicant has submitted a map showing the location of this large field
sample, which is enclosed as Exhibit 3.
Staff s Comments. Immediately after the October 17, 2017 Board meeting, staff and the applicant
both agreed that the applicant shall install a mock-up on the building to assist the Board in their review
of the proposed changes to the wainscot but, more importantly, as an exercise to assist the applicant
in determining the appropriate `build up' of the building base prior to stucco skim coating. In the year
since the Board's last meeting on the proposed design changes, the applicant has not created the
building mock-up. In addition, the proposed larger field sample "leaned against the building" by the
applicant was placed on-site after the printing and distribution of staff's report to the Board so staff
has not had the chance to review and provide further design analysis. Staff finds the applicant's efforts
fall short of the Board's recommendation. At the October 17, 2017 meeting, the Board was clear on
the quality of improvements they wanted to see applied to the wainscot base; they wanted to see the
stucco improvements which dimensionally extended at least equal to that of the exterior walls (fiber
cement shingles separated from the stucco base by a beveled wood transition band). Staff finds the
resubmitted project does not comply with the Board's recommendation and recommends denial of
the proposed project changes.
® The asphalt driveway entry and motor court should be stamped and colored as approved.
The project proposes to reduce the use of colored and textured paving from the entire driveway and
motor court to the driveway entry only (approx. 20' x 20' in size; see Attachments A and D of the
applicant's resubmittal). The applicant's proposed justification for the reduced paving treatments in
the motor court area is that: 1) the motor court area is not visible from the public streets (Mission Ave.
and Irwin St.); and 2) use of the site is now rental residential which does not support the additional
costs.
Staff's Comments. During their earlier review of proposed design changes to the project, the Board
approved the removal of a specimen tree which was approved to be located in the center of the motor
court. The Board was initially reluctant to allow the elimination of an approved specimen tree at the
request of the applicant to improve maneuverability within the motor court though justified the loss by
requiring the comprehensive, high-quality, paving treatments remain within the driveway entry and
3
motor court areas. Staff finds the resubmittal falls far short of the Board's recommendation. At the
October 17, 2017 meeting, the Board was clear on the extent and quality of paving treatment they
wanted to see for the driveway entry and motor court in order to support the removal of the approved
specimen tree. Staff finds the resubmitted project does not comply with the Board's recommendation
and recommends denial of the proposed project changes.
® The entry trellises to individual units need to be constructed as approved.
The project design approved a series of wood trellis coverings, approx..25 sq. ft. (approx. 5' x 5') in
size and painted a `dark green' color, along the staircases to the entrance to each residential unit.
The proposed design change from the last Board review and the resubmittal both propose a reduced
wood trellis feature, approx..20 sq. ft. (approx. 2' x 10') in size and painted a `dark green' color, that
is shared by the entrances to the residential units. No drawings have been submitted with details on
the design of the proposed reduced wood entry trellis features though Attachment C of the applicant's
resubmittal is a photo of a mock-up installed between Units #13 and #14 along the east elevation of
the site, the Green Way frontage. This photo shows 2" x 4" laterals over double, 2" x 6" stringers and
mounted to the building face with 2": x 8" extensions. The applicant has submitted a map showing
the location of this large field sample, which is enclosed as Exhibit 3.
Staffs Comments. At the time of their review, the Board did not support the applicant's request to
reduce these wood trellis features and instead directed the applicant to install the series of larger
wood trellis coverings as originally approved. The resubmittal proposes, once again, reduced wood
trellis features. Staff finds the resubmitted project continues to not comply with the Board's
recommendation and recommends denial of the proposed project changes.
® The project shall include a new trash enclosure which should match the approved colors and
materials.
The project proposes to convert one (1) of the three (3) existing `guest' parking spaces, located
parallel to the driveway/motor court entry, to a trash enclosure. While the project is mapped for
individual unit condominium ownership, it is currently operated under a rental agreement with
Dominican University and is providing common sanitary service (dumpster) although. The resubmittal
proposes a 112 sq. ft. (8'x 14'; height unknown) wood structure, that would match the design of the
existing rear fencing, with a clear, corrugated plastic roof. No Material and Color Board or drawings
have been submitted with details on the proposed trash enclosure though Attachment B of the
applicant's resubmittal is a photo of the existing rear fencing on the site. This photo shows a 6' -tall
vertical board `privacy' fence.
Staffs Comments. At the time of their review, the Board was initially reluctant to eliminate a guest
parking space though justified the loss by requiring the design of the new trash enclosure to meet the
same high-quality exterior finishes (colors and materials) as the residential buildings on the site. Staff
finds the resubmittal falls far short of the Board's recommendation. Had a trash enclosure been
proposed with the project, staff would have required it to meet the same high-quality design (materials
and colors, architecture) as the rest of the project. In addition, staff would have not allowed the trash
enclosure to negatively impact the required on-site parking or landscaping. At the October 17, 2017
meeting, the Board was clear on the quality of the trash enclosure they wanted to see in order to
support the requested reduction in the on-site parking requirement. Staff finds the resubmitted project
does not comply with the Board's recommendation and recommends denial of the proposed project
changes.
® The site lighting needs follow-up from staff to either reduce the lighting levels and/or
shield the light fixtures.
4
At the October 17, 2017 Board meeting, public comments were made that the site lighting needed
refinement to reduce off-site glare, which the Board incorporated as a recommendation. The applicant
has made incremental adjustments to the site lighting to respond to the public's and the Board's
lighting concerns.
Stafrs Comments. With a very limited timeline, the City issued a Temporary Occupancy Permit at
the applicant's request to accommodate Dominican University graduate students prior to start of the
academic year. This Temporary Occupancy Permit has expired, and original Building Permit has not
been finaled; however, the design review permit approval for the project included a lighting review
period, to commence once the Building Permit is finaled. This allows staff within 90 days of Building
Permit final to make further refinements in the site lighting levels and/or require shields on light
fixtures.
NE=]IGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of hearing for the project, including this Board meeting, has been conducted in accordance with
noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was
mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the project site, the appropriate
neighborhood group (the Montecito Area Residents Association or MARA), and all other interested
parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of this hearing.
At the time of printing staff's report, no comments have been received as a result of this noticing.
CONCLUSION
As detailed in this report, staff supports some of the proposed design changes to the project though
staff finds the project resubmittal overall fails to meet the recommendations provided by the Board at
their October 17, 2017 meeting. Since staff finds the resubmitted project does not comply with the
Board's recommendation, staff further recommends denial of the proposed project changes. Staff will
incorporate the recommendation(s) of the Board into staff's action on the applicant's proposed design
changes to the project.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Applicant's 10/1/18 Response to Board's Recommendations with Attachments
3. Map Showing Location of Field Samples
Reduced (11"x 17') plans of the prior approved (7/7/15) design changes and the proposed (10/17/17)
additional design changes have been provided to the Design Review Board only
cc: Casey Clements — Thompson Development, Inc.; 250 Bel Marin Keys, Bldg. A; Novato, CA
94949
524 Mission Street. LLC — 448 Ignacio Blvd.; Box 504; Novato, CA 94949
00
c 3 0
•� c
CL
CL m
CC N
G
O N
Qj
i N N
u 7
L
41 L
3 on u
aa, a'
C: -0
m on
o y
u u Lp
v
a � a
os'�
co L
t L
o �
•3 � a ro
ro
aO a
A 0 u
E u
jL N
Y
O 0 i n5
aon
2 a o
ai
C u on
N
N i a
3 v v
N
�a a�
9
J�
e 1
t ^r
r
i 1
_` rtry
EXHIBIT I
cc
cc
c
m
LL
0
a
co
U
0
LI
w
m
N
LL
N
0
a
i
N
7
C7
U)
O
LLN
0
_J
.� u
EXHIBIT I
cc
cc
c
m
LL
0
a
co
U
0
LI
w
m
N
LL
N
0
a
i
N
7
C7
U)
O
LLN
0
^�N�����������
mm mm�rm�no-��r��mxm
DEVELOPMENT INC.
AN AFFILIATE OF WEST BAY BUILDERS INC.
September Z2LZOl8
Attn: Steve Stafford
City ofSan Rafael
]4OUFifth Ave
San Rafael, C2949O1
RE: 1200 Irwin Street -- Design Revision
2,9mBERL MARImKEYS BLVD. BLDG. A
mowATO, CALIrORMm9494?
415.456.9972 TFL.
4/s.nno.9e*6FAX.
Dr. Mr. Stafford,
During -the lO/17/17Design Review Hearing for the above referenced project, vVereceived
valuable feedback frorn the Board regarding the proposed design revisions. After carefully
considering their feedback, we have worked with our architects Bob Wright and Jessica Smith
(color consultant) to prepare a new proposal. We would like to propose making the following
design revisions tothe finished project:
1. Trash Enclosure -|Oaccordance with the recommendation made inyour Staff Report
for the 10/17/17 DRB Hearing, we will construct and 8' x 14' wood trash enclosure with
a clear, corrugated plastic roof. The enclosure will mimic the existing property line
fence. The proposed location is shown on the revised courtyard plan included as
ATTACHEK4NTA. Aphotograph ofexisting conditions isincluded asATTACHMENT 8.
Z. EmtrVTrellises-VVexvould|iketopnopoSoo]Dstructing a trellis element over the street -
facing entryway to each unit. We have mocked up one such trelks over units 13 & 14
and have included photograph for your reference as ATTACHMENT C. NOtethatthe
trellis has been painted Kelly Moore Greene & Greene to match existing trim.
3. Lightning - During the lO/17/l7hearing, neighbor Debbie Fuquaexpressed concern
about the brightness ofthe exterior lights. Since then ,xvehave been /nclose
communication with Debbie asvvehave made incremental adjustments tothe lightning.
The flood lights and landscape bollards on Mission Ave have been dimmed, and the
interior courtyard lights have been dimmed as well. Ms. Fuqua is pleased with the final
product.
4. Interior Cmurtyamd-Theoi ina|deSign|nc)udedco!nned,starnpedasphaltthrnughouL
the interior courtyard, which would have been appropriate for e for -sale product.
Becausethe units are occupied by renters, and the interior courtyard is not visible from
the street, vvewill provide colored and stamped asphalt entrance as illustrated in
ATTACHMENT A.Note that this revised plan includes colored starnped asphalt elements
EXHIBIT 2
at the vehicular entrance which is visible from the street. Also included as ATTACHMENT
D is an excerpt from the Integrated Paving Concepts Catalogue. We propose a standard
herringbone pattern with a stacked brick border in the color of 'Sienna'.
5. Stucco Base — In accordance with the recommendation made in your 10/17/17 Staff
Report, we would like to propose that a skim coat of stucco finish be applied to the base
and scored in 2' x 4' sections. A sample of the proposed Dryvit Stone Grey stucco with a
quartz putt finish is attached for your reference.
6. C6or— During the building permit review process, we submitted a colored elevation to
the City which depicted the dark brown siding (ATTACHMENT E). The color of the siding
matches the color reflected in this elevation. We retained the services of Jessica Smith
of Polsky Perlstein Architects to select a new color for the stucco base. The color she
chose, Dryvit 454A in Stone Gray, has more gray undertones as opposed to taupe, and is
more complimentary to the dark brown siding.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our proposal. Please let me know if you require
any additional information. We look forward to hearing from you regarding a possible hearing
date.
Sincerely,
Casey Clement
Colored stamped
concrete at vehicular
entrance that
terminates at the end
of the planter on the
NW corner of the site
Roughly 25 x 20'.
Standard Herringbone
with Stacked Brick
Border in 'Sienna'.
ATTACHMENT A
1200 Irwin Street
F roposed Revised
Motorcourt-.Pian _
9/26/18
New 8'x 14' trash enclosure with
-a
,-
1
e [W_E '
r
■
■MIA
r
ATTACHMENT C
Integra is Inc.
6
Popular
Patterns
Special
Purpose
Interlocking ' en
StreetPri nt, 1.800,688.5652
wwas treetprintcorn
StreetPri nt'' 1.8M688.5652
www.streetprint_com
botiM plates
any SA
12'[3.66m)
I I 4Ya[.12m]
N 18-100 Star -ked Brick
11'-7Yn" [3.54m]
4%" [.12m]
I I
18-106 Stacked Brick Flex
12'-2'/" [3.71 m] 1
18-1-203 'Cobble' F
a
11'-9 a" [3.59m]
18-1-204 'Cobble Flex' E
11'-9%" [3.59m] -
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIq
18-1-205 'Texas Cobble' a
I 8%" [.23m]
18-1-206 'Texas Cobble Flex' N
STANDARD PATTERN
9Yq' [.25m]
11111111
18-1-199 'Soldier Course' a
w
11'-10" [3.61 m]
18-1-207 'End -to -End'
a
I I
18-1-208'End-to-End Flex'
18-1-312 'Venice Diamond'
}.
11-9%" [3.59m]
8%" [.23m]
18-1-336 'Double Texas Cobble N
•o. a e
� w a
s ® g
In m V d` 00. vaa m
!u3
r Y
6
W
�i 11
,U-
W
ce
A
Q
rr�
0
v6i
2L
-lip
I
Z I
!_0
0
ice"!
II I
mV•
yy}} ff
4G
n
�`IJ
o
8
m..
-: m
ora � u=.
✓a ;a =_
-
R
t
A
.ais
:cn
�S9u
{4m
3
ice"!
t`i
n
o
_
1-:. x F.•
cry y{c, �J. yzt3.�`_
Xt
I�
W
O
A ^� I6blj9i9! nov v ^n LO6bG WO'l3WdWN NWS 1331115 NWliil OOZGjail�Qi6ea'`i�a°
( a�an�' S3SnON 39VIHHVD 13VdVM NVS 031WH O d N 0 O N I,- 11 ��
—111 a■ ■10311H9tltl ■ ■— MID Md ■
P
WOa x iXaNv'�d 910L/LCII /.An
ar aaHOHV'Id ONIOTOi smxl.m n olaaclz=evnx,vroae qq
aaNONVId ONlmlai siavulsZAA
n eremevl •oirnov yag3°a9&x Ntl@°�@ r
aN tllrls o.ozlexre nnEsasnOH
vooza-xv.-res.�w�NiNarvyaxsL a7u��c°-e�Fn33aa¢a�
/.�'axllha'1doiLulO NOadNONl YiNmOl9mtld N p pp Sa{ F 9g Hx p
n xniN31NQ3H111O311H�tlV92��vNse Htla&gC[y[ @y3e a �Cq �p
n3VdV8 NVSIBUIS NIMH 0021�nnn^30V"INVO 13VdVa NVS 0 31V 2.10 d a 0 0 N I pHRWO■I*3rOHdp N301 0
EXHIBIT 3