No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2011-06-21 #5 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: June 21, 2011 Case Numbers: CDR11-002 Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal – (415) 485-3397 REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 37 Perry Walk – Request for a Conceptual Design Review to add 2,933 sq. ft. to an existing 892 sq. ft. single family dwelling located on an approximately 15,161-sq. ft. lot with an a 58.7% slope (APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential (R10) District; Rafael Ruiz, owner and applicant; File No.: CDR11-002; Picnic Valley Neighborhood. PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: LDR R10 Residence North: LDR R10 Residence South: LDR R5 Residence East: LDR R5 Residence West: LDR R10 Residence Site Development Summary Lot Size Natural State1 Required: 10,000 sf Proposed: 15,161 sf (existing) Req: 12,887 sf; 83.7 of lot area Proposed: 12,139 sf, 80% of lot area Height1 Floor Area1 Allowed: 20-30’ Proposed: 20-24½’ Allowed: 4,016 sf Proposed: 3,825 sf Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 additional Proposed: 2 covered, 2 uncovered (non-compliant) Allowed: N/A Proposed: N/A Lot Width, Yard or Landscape Area Setbacks Required Existing Proposed2 Required: N/A Proposed: 400+ sf proposed landscape area Required: N/A Proposed: N/A Front: Side(s): Rear: Ext. side: Ped. side: 20’ 10’ 10’ N/A N/A 0’ 2½’ 100’ 0-14½’ 2½-10’ 70’ Grading Tree Removal Total: 107 cy Total(No./Species): One 8” oak; unknown number already removed during previous grading Cut: 107 cy Fill: 107 cy Off-Haul: None; balance on site Requirement: Minimum 3 15-gallon oaks Proposed: 3 strawberry trees, screen and accent shrubs and ground groundcovers Notes: 1For hillside parcels, development standards are based upon the parcel size and percent slope, and height is measured from the natural grade. Non-hillside building height is measured from finished grade pursuant to the UBC method. 2Proposed setbacks are indicated from new exterior walls of buildings or additions. See body of staff report for detailed discussion of project compliance and/or any issues with non-compliance. 2 SUMMARY The applicant is requesting Board’s comments on conceptual design for expansion of an existing single family dwelling located on a hillside lot. The project also requires an exception to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for exceeding the Natural State requirement, reduce front yard setback and parking requirements. The Board’s recommendation would be used by the applicant to develop a formal application. If an exception to natural state is pursued, the project would ultimately be forwarded to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has identified issues with the project as discussed below. 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: Site Plan • Whether an exception to the required natural state (80% natural state proposed, 83.7% natural state required) is appropriate; • Whether an exception to the front yard setback is appropriate for the addition; • Whether an exception to the provision of two additional parking spaces is appropriate to allow non- compliant parking. Architecture • Whether the project size and design is appropriate; • Whether the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping • Whether the proposed landscaping is appropriate for the project; • Whether additional tree replacement with native species should be required. Grading • Whether proposed grading is appropriate. BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting: The subject parcel is located west of Perry Walk, approximately 100 feet south of the intersection of Perry Walk and Bungalow Avenue (Exhibit A: Vicinity Map). Perry Walk is a private access street with a 15-ft. right-of-way. Perry Walk right of way is not delineated. The right of way contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry Walk. Adjoining uses are residential. The property is an up-sloping lot with a 58.7% slope and is currently developed with a garage on the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately a third of the garage front wall is located on the front property line. Approximately seven 6”-20” oak trees and three 10”-22” bay trees are located in the rear and side of the property. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. History: According to the County Assessor’s records, the existing residence was constructed in 1921. In an attempt to expand the existing residence, previous owners of the property excavated a significant area of the property behind and on the side of the existing residence. No grading permits were obtained for the grading. Due to the steep slope of the property, the excavated area seems to be de-stabilizing the 3 up-slope properties. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use: The applicant is proposing to extend the existing 892 sq. ft. single family dwelling to 3,825 sf area by adding 2,933 sq. ft. The proposed residence would consist of a four-level, stepped, 20-24½-ft. high structure with a two-car (451 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; 4½ bathrooms and two uncovered additional parking spaces. Site Plan: The proposed structure would provide a 14½-ft. front setback, 10-ft. side setback and approximately 70-ft. rear setback. The access would be directly off Perry Walk. On the south side of the garage, uncovered parking is proposed for two additional parking spaces. A porch proposed on the upper floor would cover these two parking spaces. The parking spaces do not provide adequate backup and turnaround space on-site. Multiple-point turns would be required within the roadway to exit the parking spaces. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Hardiplank fiber cement horizontal siding • Sandpiper and broadcloth integral color stucco • Milgard windows and exterior doors • 1x4 exterior great pre-prime trim for windows and doors • 40-year fiber glass compensation shingles • Concrete walls faced with Buckingham and Litchfield stone veneers Landscaping: Three strawberry trees, shrubby yew pine shrubs, accent shrubs and groundcovers would be planted in the southwest corner of the structure. Screening and accent shrubs and ground covers would be planted in the northeast corner of the structure. One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed. Lighting: No external lighting is proposed at this time. Grading/Drainage: This project proposes 107 cu. yds. cut and fill to be balanced on site, to construct the project and restore previously graded areas. The project would follow drainage recommendations contained in a Geotechnical Report prepared for the project as follows: • Upslope exterior foundations should be provided with backdrains penetrating one foot below interior or subfloor grades; • Retaining walls should be back-drained and provided with separate surface drainage to avoid infiltration and related backdrain overcharging; • Ground surfaces should be sloped for rapid drainage away from building areas. Upslope drainage should be channeled around the structure or into a separate system; • Roof drainage should be channeled downslope away from the structure. If discharge to the swale is unacceptable, erosion protection could be achieved by discharging through multiple outlets over six-inch, rock rip-rap. ANALYSIS For a conceptual design review, the project has been evaluated for consistency with Hillside Design Guidelines as follows: 4 Hillside Design Guidelines: The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,825 sq. ft. (3,188 sq. ft. living space and 637 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 24½ feet, 80% natural state, 2 covered and 2 uncovered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 4). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following sections. Section III - Building Stepback The project complies with the requirement to provide downhill and side stepbacks with vertical wall planes not exceeding 20 feet in height. Section A2 - Preservation of Significant Trees One 8” oak tree is proposed to be removed with the current project. Removal of this tree is necessitated by previous excavation of the site. Three strawberry trees are proposed to be planted. Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. However, replanting with native species is recommended. Staff notes that unknown number of trees may have been removed by previous illegal grading of the site. Section A3 - Hillside Grading and Drainage The project proposes a balanced cut and fill of 107 cy. As proposed, the project requires approximately 2 to 3-ft. tall retaining walls in the rear yard to support the previously graded site. An approximately 5-ft. tall retaining wall is proposed in the proposed kitchen/dining room area of the dwelling. The project would follow drainage recommendations contained in a Geotechnical Report prepared for the project as follows: • Upslope exterior foundations should be provided with backdrains penetrating one foot below interior or subfloor grades; • Retaining walls should be back-drained and provided with separate surface drainage to avoid infiltration and related backdrain overcharging; • Ground surfaces should be sloped for rapid drainage away from building areas. Upslope drainage should be channeled around the structure or into a separate system; • Roof drainage should be channeled downslope away from the structure. If discharge to the swale is unacceptable, erosion protection could be achieved by discharging through multiple outlets over six-inch, rock rip-rap. Staff believes this project would rehabilitate the site by building on the exposed, excavated site. Staff requests the Board’s input regarding the proposed drainage pattern. Section A5 - Street Layout, Driveway and Parking Design Perry Walk is a narrow street with a 15-ft. right of way. A power pole located within the right-of-way and in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed two additional parking spaces. Staff believes the 15-ft. right of way would not allow appropriate access for emergency vehicles. Since this application is for conceptual design review, the project has not been referred to Public Works, Building or Fire for formal comments. Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed directly off Perry Walk, and does not have a driveway. The two additional parking spaces would maintain a 3½-ft. driveway. Parking on streets less than twenty-six feet (26’) requires a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces. The proposed additional parking spaces would not work due to the lack of adequate backup and turnaround space onsite, 15-ft. right of way and current profile of the street with improvements located in the street. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to “back out” into substandard roadway widths are prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking is designed such that vehicles would have to back out into the street. The existing garage situation is 5 legal non-conforming and can continue as existing. However, the two proposed additional parking spaces would need to back out into the street as well. Strict enforcement of this guideline would require additional excavation to provide onsite backup or turnaround space. Typically, reduced setbacks to garages have been allowed to reduce grading, where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages. Staff requests the Board’s input on whether the project should be revised to provide adequate backup space, or onsite turnaround space, or both. Section A6 - Reduction of Building Bulk Although, the proposed design results in a low profile structure, the proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4½ bathrooms. The residence is simply detailed similar to the existing homes located on Perry Walk resulting in minimizing its mass and impact above the road level. The building lacks articulation and massing. Since most of the new building mass is either behind existing development or follows the general profile of the site and existing development, its impact on the neighborhood is minimized. Although the site has been graded/excavated extensively in the past, the proposed project would require only minimal grading of 107 cy cut and fill. Staff requests the Board’s input on whether the project size and design is appropriate including, whether reduction in natural state should be supported, if need for the project as proposed. Section A7 - Hillside Architectural Character Building materials and colors are required to blend with the setting and coordinate with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding landscape. Staff believes the project colors and materials are appropriate. The white windows proposed for the proposed project are compatible with the white windows on the northerly adjoining home. The proposed building colors would have only a minimal impact on other neighborhood homes due to their location at a higher elevation and away from the subject development. Staff requests that the Board comment on whether the building design, materials and colors result in a project that is well designed and compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. Section A8 – Planting Design for Hillside Residential Development Planting design is required to reflect the hillside character of the San Rafael landscape; plant selection should recognize the importance of water conservation, fire resistance and erosion control and should be used to effectively buffer existing residential neighborhoods from the impacts of new hillside development projects. The project as proposed would retain the existing trees except the one 8” oak tree that would need to be removed for safety reasons. Due to the existing topography, grading and location of the proposed development, the proposed landscaping is limited to approximately 400 sq. ft. area. The plant selection is not completely consistent with the Plant Selection Guide contained in Appendix B of the HRDG. However, the selected plant materials are native, drought tolerant, deer resistant, shade tolerant, low maintenance, provide erosion control, and are compatible with existing plant materials. The landscape plan would need to be consistent with the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) landscape plan requirements. Staff requests that the Board’s comment on whether the planting design and plant selection is appropriate and tree replacement is adequate. Section A9 - Site Lighting The Hillside Design Guidelines require that lighting which is visible to include full shield cut-off and not be visible from adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. The provided plans do not include external lighting details. However, staff believes a single family residence can easily comply with the requirements for external lighting (e.g. shielded/low level). 6 NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE A courtesy notice for the Design Review Board meeting was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a radius of 300 feet of the subject property within 15 days prior to the Board’s meeting. In addition, the Picnic Valley Homeowners’ Association was included in the notice distribution. A public notice sign was posted in front of the subject property. Staff has received an email correspondence from the property owner at 17 Perry Walk expressing that he does not want any part of the proposed development to be located on his property. He also would not like the removal of existing improvements in the roadway being used to access 17 Perry Walk. The project application includes letters of support from the property owners as follows: • 12 Perry Walk (adjoining to the north): No objection as long as privacy is addressed for her rear yard and she continues to maintain the currently experienced privacy; • 7 Perry Walk (across Perry Walk to the east): Acceptable plans that would improve the surroundings; • 104 Courtright (adjoining to the south and west): Very pleased with the plans that would improve the neighborhood. CONCLUSION Staff requests Board’s direction on the points specified in the Summary section. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Slope Calculations 3. Letters From Neighbors 4. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form Full-sized and reduced (11”x17”) plans provided to the DRB members only. cc: Rafael Ruiz 116 Picnic Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Design-Planning Associates, Inc. 90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Picnic Valley HOA Don Soldavini 531 Bret Harte Rd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Makoto Takashina (email: mtakashina001@gmail.com) 17 Perry Walk San Rafael, CA 94901