HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2018-06-05 #2SAN R AI AEL
THE CITY WITH A MISSION
Community Development Department — Planning Division
Meeting Date: June 5, 2018
Case Numbers: FD16-053
Project Planner: Raffi Boloyan — ( 1.5) 485-3095
Agenda Item:
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT; 397-400 Smith Ranch Rd (San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility - Final Review of
Building Details) - Final review of materials and colors for a new 85,700 sq. ft. recreational
building for a previously approved project. APN's 155-230-10 thru 16). San Rafael Airport
LLC; Robert Herbst, Owner/Applicant; PD1909-VIVO District; File No.: ED16-053.
SUMMARY
The San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility project is 85,700 sq. ft. recreational building, with outdoor
fieilds and associated site and landscaping that was approved by the City in 2012. Conditions of
approval require a follow-up review by the Design Review Board (DRB) for final design details of
materials and colors for the new bridge, building, site and building lighting, landscaping and site
improvements.
The DRS previously conducted final review of the final materials, colors and design of the new bridge in
2015. The applicant is now ready to apply for a building permit for the building shell, and therefore, the
review of colors and materials for the building shell must be completed before issuance of the permit
Subsequent DRB review will be required for site landscaping, building and site lighting and windows for
the building at a future date.
The scope of this meeting is to review the final design details, materials and colors of the building shell.
The DRB should focus on the material palette and color scheme proposed for the building shell.
There have been no changes to the height, bulk, siting or general design of the building that was
previously approved. The materials and colors are consistent with those on the approved plans and
include the additional specific information on the materials and colors. There have been a few minor
changes to the interior floor plan that were previously approved that changed window and door
locations, In addition, the previously approved pop -out entries at the three building corners along the
south elevation were removed, and replaced with one primary entry to be located in the middle of the
building (southern elevation),
Overall, staff find that the final design is consistent with the approved project and the colors and
materials continue to be earthone in nature, consistent with the setting and backdrop of the site as
viewed from off-site locations.
BACKGROUND
The San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility project consists of the construction of a new 85,700 -sq, ft.
recreational building, two outdoor recreational fields, and associated site improvements, landscaping and
parking on a vacant portion of the 11 9, 5 -acre San Rafael Airport property located at 397-400 Smith Ranch
Road. The proposed building would be located at the eastern end of the Airport property, north of the
runway and south of the McInnis Park and NF Gallinas Creek. This project was initially submitted in 2005
and ultimately approved in December 2012 by the City Council. A complete background on the history of
this project is attached (Exhibit 2)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Design Review Permit Condition of Approval #55 requires the DRB's review of the final building
materials, colors and lighting as well as site lighting and landscaping for the entire project.
As noted above, the fins# review for the bridge was conducted by the DRB in 2015, prior to issuance of
the building permit for the bridge. The applicant has now submitted a building permit application to
construct the shell of the new recreational building, therefore they are requesting the final review of
colors and materials for the new building.
In the near future, the applicant intends to submit a building permit application for interior tenant
improvements and the remaining site improvements, including windows, doors, landscaping and
building/site lighting and a follow up review by the DRB of those features will be conducted at that time.
The proposed building would be a prefabricated metal building that would be erected on site and then
clad with the proposed material palette. The wall materials include "Nucor" metal panels, painted metal
finishes coated in green, white and grey colors. The base of the structure would be a flood wall, to
comply with FEMA regulations and would be "Structorok" material that is textured in a grey color.
CONDITONS OF APPROVAL
The pertinent conditions of approval are noted below in italics. The applicable conditions pertaining to
the building design are noted in bold/italics. Therefore, the scope of this evening's review is solely on
the materials and colors of the proposed building to confirm that they are compliance with the prior
approved design and applicable conditions of approval.
14. Approved colors are as shown on the approved color and material board that is on file
with the Community Development Department, Planning Division, except as modified by
the follow-up review by the Design Review Board. Generally, the approved color palette
consists of a dark green, light green, beige and brown.
55. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the proposed final building materials,
color scheme, lighting and landscape plans for the entire project to ensure that the Design
Review Permit criteria established in the San Rafael Municipal Code Title 14 (zoning), Chapter
25 (Design Review) are satisfied, including provision of appropriate materials and nolr-reflective
acrd/or tinted glass to minimize potential daytime glare impacts; pursuant to Mitigation Measure
MM Aesth-1b.
a. Construction plans shall be submitted for review and approval showing building
architectural details and final construction details to confirm the quality of the
building finishes, heights, and appearance of the project as indicated in the
approved plans.
b. Final landscaping, irrigation and site plan details shall be submitted as approved by the
City Council with the following modificationsladditional details:
i. Actual location of all perimeter -screening trees shall be shown on the landscape
plan.
ii. Replacement trees to fill in any gaps in perimeter screening with a native or
compatible species suitable for site conditions and exhibiting fast growing
screening characteristics This requiremont only applies for new trees proposed
to fill in the gaps of the existing Eucalyptus trees along the inside of the northern
and southern levees on the perimeter of the Airport site.
iii. Show the area where gaps in the Eucalyptus row shall be filled in to screen views
of the building with native or compatible species. Replacement species shall be
consistent with City tree guidelines.
iv. Provide details on all new fencing.
c. The landscape plan submitted for issuance of building permit shall include the
MCSTOPPP measures required for treating storm water quality. Plans shall incorporate
details and specifications for storm water collection design and filtration features, and
shall be subject to final approval by the City of San Rafael Public Works Department.
Storm water filtration features shall include:
i. Stormwater inlets shall be placed in landscape areas rather than at the edge or
low point in paved parking lot areas.
ii. Landscape areas surrounding inlets shall be graded in a swale and landscaped
to promote filtration.
tri. Direct parking lot runoff into landscape swales and inlets. Raised concrete curbs
shall be designed with frequent cuts to allow free-flow from paced areas to
swales.
d_ Final design, details, colors and materials of the clear -span bridge shall be provided.
Mesh, or another appropriate material, shall be included on the bridge railing along the
western side of the bridge to minimize headlights from shining on adjacent properties to
the west. - COMPLETED
e. Design Review Board Lighting Approval shall be required Pursuant to Mitigation
Measure MM Aesth-9a. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Proponent shall
prepare an exterior lighting plan for all areas of the Project site subject to compliance
with the photometric analysis prepared for the site, for the review and approval of the
Design Review Board. The plan shall meet the following performance standards and
include the following information:
i. Sufficient exterior lighting to establish a sense of well-being to the pedestrian and
one that is sufficient to facilitate recognition of persons at a reasonable distance.
Type (lighting standard) and placement of lighting shall be to the satisfaction of
the Police Department and Department of Public Works;
ii. A minimum of one foot-candle at ground level overlap provided in all exterior
doorways and vehicle parking areas, and on outdoor pedestrian walkways
presented on a photometric plan;
iii. A maximum of one (1) foot-candle intensity at the property line and edge of
designated "conservation area";
iv. Vandal -resistant garden and exterior lighting;
v. A lighting standard that is shielded to direct illumination downward and to limit
casting light and glare an adjacent properties;
vi. Exterior lighting on a master photoelectric cell, which is set to operate during
hours of darkness;
vii. The plan shall include a note requiring a site inspection 90 days following
installation and operation of the lighting. The post construction inspection by the
City shall allow adjustments in the direction andlor intensity of the lighting, if
necessary;
3
viii. Outdoor field lighting shall be set to turn off 15 minutes after the last scheduled
game, and by 10 P.M. at the latest,
ix_ Security level lighting shall be set to turn off in parking areas and pedestrian
walkways one-half hour after close of the facility, e.g. by 12:30 A_ M.
Final exterior lighting for the facility shall meet the following or equivalent specifications,
as determined by the Design Review Board and Community Development Department.,
i. Access road and parking lot perimeter
Guardoo BR -6 Round Bollards @ 40'0. C., 42" height with 70 watt metal halide
lamps. Qty: 31
Main building:
Guardco BE -14 wall -mounted luminaires @ 50' Q.C., 14' above finished floor
with 150 watt metal halide lamps. Qty: 23
iii. Building entrances:
Guardco Designer Canopy Luminaires g 20'0. C., with 42 watt compact
fluorescent lamps. Qty' 8
iv. Paved parking lot and unpaved overflow lot.
Guardco Square Form 10, A14, 2 -way side pole mounted @ 40'0, C.. 14'
average finished floor with 150 watt metal halide lamps. Qty: 19
v. Outdoor Soccer Field:
Musca Green Generation 1500 WMZ Luminaires, YPole, 40' high, @ 30' Q.C„
with 1500 watt metal halide lamps. Qty. 4 AND
Musco Green Generation 1500 WMZ Luminaires, 2/Pole, 23' high, a@ 30'0. C.,
with 1540 watt metal halide lamps, Qty.
ANALYSIS
Overall, the building design is generally consistent and in conformance with the approved project, The
project plans for this follow-up review includes a site plan, floor plans, and the final colored elevations.
In addition, the last sheet of the project plan provides a copy of the originally approved elevations. A
color and material board will be presented at the meeting.
The siting, height, mass and size of the building remain unchanged from the approved project. There
are a few minor changes that were administratively approved to the building design, related to window
and door placement on the southern elevation and a consolidation of building entries, reducing the
three previously approved entries to the building (one at each building corner), to one primary entry in
the center of the southern elevation. Although solar panels were discussed during the review process,
they were not shown on the approved plants. The applicant does intent to include solar panels flush
mounted on the southern and northern sides of the roof,
The color scheme is consistent with the scheme that was approved. The material palette for wall
systems is also consistent with the approved design, as the building has always been planned to be a
prefabricated metal building.
4
Overall, staff find that the final design is consistent with the approved project and the colors and
materials continue to be earthone in nature, consistent with the setting and backdrop of the site as
viewed from off-site locations. A color and material board will be presented at the meeting.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Project Background
3, Applicant Narrative
Full size and 7 7 " x 17" Plans have ,been provided to the DRB members only. Plans also include a copy
of approved design
cc' Bob Herbst
San Rafael Airport
400 Smith Ranch Rd
San Rafael, CA 94903
6
E9
Exhibit_2 - Background
November 8, 2005, the DRB reviewed and recommended approval of the project design and site
improvements.
December 17, 2092, the project was approved by the City Council, following a lengthy public review
process which commenced in 2005. The project was approved with an initial four (4) year timetrame, with
an expiration date of December 17, 2016 This initial inauguration time period was approved based upon
the estimated three (3) years required to implement ail phases of the project given strict limitations on
construction periods that were established in response to environmental impacts identified by the project.
The City Council's action included
Resolution No. 13477, certifying the San Rafael Recreational Facility Project Final FIR which
serves as the environmental document for the project
Resolution No. 13478, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and
CEQA Findings of Fact required for project approval. The FFIR serves as the environmental
document for implementation of the project and any subsequent actions and/or permits required
for the project; pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 (Project FIR) The
• Ordinance 1909 a Planned Development Rezoning to incorporate the proposed recreational
facility into the Pt] zoning for the site.
• Resolution No. 13479, approving the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED05-015) and
Use Permit (UP05-08) Amendment with various conditions of approval and incorporating the
mitigation measures identified in the FIR as conditions of approval.
Immediately following the City's actions, a lawsuit was filed by concerned citizens, against the City and
the applicant, challenging the certification of the FIR October 4, 2013, within 10 months from date of
approval of the project, a legal challenge made to the certification of the Final EIR was dismissed, based
upon a stipulated agreement between the three parties of the lawsuit, the applicant, City and concerned
citizens This dismissal of the legal challenge allowed the project to proceed. (Marin County Superior
Court Stipulation for Dismissal (Settlement Agreement) of Case No. CIV1300259).
2014, a Grading Permit (GR14-1188) was issued to install protective fencing, conduct nesting surveys,
obtain biologist certifications and prepare conservation easement documents and to grade, fill and
surcharge the site. Work to complete final grading for the building was completed in 2016 and final
grading for the parking lot is excepted to be completed by the end of 2019.
January 21, 2015, the DRB conducted a follow up review as required by the conditions of approval of
the final bridge design. Condition of approval #55 requires the follow up review of final design details,
materials and colors for the bridge, building site improvements, lighting and landscaping
May 18, 2016, a Building Permit (81501-1 Q7) was issued for the bridge replacement work to
commence by August V per the mitigation measure timelines of the EIR. This bridge replacement
was required by the project approvals to widen the bridge and was encouraged to be completed before
additional construction on the site. Bridge replacement has been completed.
May 19, 2016 the applicant submitted a time extension request for four (4) additional years to allow
them to complete the required permits and construction. The time extension was necessary to:
• Compensate for time lost as a result of the f=inal EIR legal cha#lenge, which delayed
construction work during the first year,
Compensate for time lost due to delays in issuance of bridge replacement permit which delayed
this construction by an additional one-year,
• Account for time required for obtaining grading permits and financing for the project.
Allow for sufficient time for the construction to begin and be completed within anticipated three-
year timeframe and leading to initial occupancy of the building, based on the delayed project
initiation date
July 16, 2016, the Zoning Administrator granted a four (4) year time extension, with a new expiration
date of December 17, 2020 As part of this action, modifications were made to certain conditions of
approval, to reflect the new expiration date, as well as to incorporate the terms of the settlement
agreement that was reached on the lawsuit filed after initial project approval
April 17, 2018, a foundation permit (B1709-031) was issued for the new recreational building and the
applicant has indicated that building shell and interior tenant improvements will be submitted as
separate pert -nit applications in the near future.
May 4, 2018, a building permit was applied for the building shell for the recreational building This is
currently under review and cannot be issued until this final review of building colors and materials is
completed and plan checked for conformance with building codes.
Based on the mitigation measures of the EIR, construction of the facility is limited to occur between July
1 and February 1, subject to conduct of nesting surveys prior to construction and limitations on specific
elements of the project, as outlined in the project Mitigation Measures. The general construction
timeframe limitations established for the project are summarized as follows:
o Bridge Deck Demolition and Replacement - August 1 to October 15 — Completed
o Pile Driving for Bridge - September 1 to October 15 - Completed
o Grading and Exterior Building Work - July 1 to February 1
a Pile Driving for Building - September 1 to February 1
o Interior work No restrictions
Additional permits will be required for the construction of the building shell, interior tenant improvements
and site improvement, parking lot, site lighting, and landscaping
8
Exhibit 3
Purpose of Design Review Board Review
The Design Review Board originally approved the project design on November 8, 2015. The
approval included a condition (condition 55 of the final project approval ED05-15) stating that:
"The Design Review Board shall review and approve the proposed final building materials, color
scheme, lighting and landscape plants for the entire project".
This application is for final approval of building materials and colors, which is necessary for us to
order the metal building shell for fabrication, which takes 2.5 months. We intend to submit a
building permit application for the building shell upon receipt of DRB approval, with the goal of
completing shell erection by the end of 2018. Exterior project construction is limited to July 1 —
Feb. 1, so site improvements and tenant improvements will follow under a separate building
permit application, and we will return to DRB at that time for approval of lighting and landscape
plans, with the goal to complete the entire project in summer 2019.
No significant building design changes have been made to the project that was originally
approved by the DRIB in 2005. It was intended then to be a two part metal structure in primarily
green tones to blend into the surrounding landscape and hills, and that remains the current
design. Building height, location, and size remain unchanged.
On ,lune 22, 2015, we received Planning Staff zoning approval for a revised interior floor plan
(see attached). This included minor changes to exterior window and door locations needed to
match the revised interior configuration. The primary change was elimination of pop -out entries
at the three building corners, and replacement with one primary entry in the middle of the south
elevation.
e �
oe �
p..
1
�Ir�rc�aa'a4-Lai-aoa'ao-4si�aooNaa
coaea+d�'IIVAYb las'ovoaIIONVW"llwsooe
y
$ �
9
r
N411335314$
f
'
9 MVIPI3449
B.f
d
LsO.Wht IEIV VW' Nb'6 J111 !tl
tll50dQbd
INJ 1.1
1
tll44
A�r� �
14
a
1
f
'
B.f
mq, mill
INJ 1.1
1
tll44
A�r� �
14
1
i w
1
r
li
m
013[I ZADOOS
'JOOC] no
kACC
11J
C
NVI 31:11
e6
y 1
!
so-�arQoo'ov-LOE-600'LQ-IYi-UQQ NdY
E0916Y�'IJVJYw NVS'OVDN I NVB lilihlg 000
NY)dbODIA
1 3A714131J
q�gpdpyd
!?
y
Q
�I
1Ntrdwiv 13VAyb NYS 8N11V
li
m
013[I ZADOOS
'JOOC] no
kACC
11J
C
NVI 31:11
(Dl"
s
LL
L
0
c
Q W
°o
❑ N
ZW
cla
fIg
4 p
.•�"- 74OR.=.1:1,"4 B M
(DIN
garb
CL
0
a
1
I
W
W
J
W
� :•
muv� Yom' iiY�aa NYs'oaoa HaNYa Hams our
a
_
7 d«h
Atl4dHIY �3Y{il1 NY93H11Y
a +'
73nB'1ONmalh
p3SOdONd
.•�"- 74OR.=.1:1,"4 B M
(DIN
garb
CL
0
a
1
I
W
W
J
W
(ONI�J30N�IH Ha -103)
SNOUVATIA ❑3SOdMJd
7!!
a
W
J
w
H
U)
w
z
0
w
J
w
2
E
Z
a
LU
J
LU
U]
W
E
«,
a °tae
d
E
Z
a
LU
J
LU
U]
W
E
M
4
fI
i
C9-t8d-899'94•[BZ1899 '9 ;P C'940='N 'd'V
r§
4
a$
YINy4�ElY9'l3Y�Ya NY8
6YCYHHaNYtlH18NS
(JNI63CIN3d80100
3co
d S
iaodNEY13YdbdNO9H110
$NOIJYh3l3
tl�Bdd4kld
M
4
fI
i
�
r§
4
a$
M
4
fI
i