No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2011-10-04 #2 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: October 4, 2011 Case Numbers: CDR11-004 Project Planner: Caron Parker (415) 485-3094 REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 21 G Street [West End Townhomes] – Conceptual Design Review for construction of a three-story, 9-unit townhome development on flat lot running between G Street and Ida Street. Two of the townhome units would be located on G Street and seven units would be located on Ida Street; APN: 011-232-10; High Density Multifamily Residential (HR1) Zone; Stan Camiccia; Applicant; David and Christina Rasonsky, Owners; West End Village Neighborhood. PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: High Density Residential (HDR) High Density Multi- Family (HR1) Single Family Residence, garage North: West End Village (WEV) WEV Commercial South: Second/Third Mixed Use HR1 and 2/3MUW Residential and Commercial East: HDR HR1, WEV Residential and Commercial West: WEV WEV Commercial Site Development Summary Lot Size Lot Coverage Required: 6,000 sf Proposed: 10,836 sf (existing) Allow/Req: 60% (6,501 sf) Proposed: 56% (6,075 sf) Height1 Density or Floor Area1 Allowed: 36’ Proposed: 34’ 11” Allowed: 1,000 sf/dwelling unit (10 units) Proposed: 9 units Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 18 independent covered spaces Proposed: 18 tandem covered spaces Allowed: N/A Proposed: N/A Yard or Landscape Area Setbacks Required: 100 sf usable open space/du Proposed: Roof patio (G St. 902 sf/Ida St. 533 sf) Required: 50% of front and side yard landscaped Proposed: 50% for both frontages Required Existing Proposed2 Front: Side(s): Rear: Ext. side: Ped. side: 15 10% lot width 5’ 10’ 12’ 8’ on G Street 0 N/A N/A N/A 18’ 6” 5’ N/A 5’ - Grading Tree Removal Total: N/A Total(No./Species): no information Requirement: N/A Proposed: 26 trees 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 subject project is being referred to the Board for conceptual review of site and design improvements for a 9-unit townhome development on G Street and Ida Street (see Exhibit 1-Vicinity Map). The proposed project is defined as a major physical improvement pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 14.25.040A, and as such, is required to undergo conceptual design review pursuant to 14.25.030B. The proposed project would also require an Exception to parking requirements in Section 14.18.120 for the proposed tandem parking. Staff has not had the opportunity to refer the project to other City Departments because the applicant elected to proceed with conceptual design review only, without submitting the project for a pre-application review. As such, information from other City Departments was not available for this staff report. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, staff has identified issues with the project, as discussed below. Staff requests that the Board provide a recommendation on the design concept’s ability to comply with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: Site Plan • Whether the three-story design should provide a “step back” on the upper stories to increase light to the adjacent single family homes; • Whether the project should be designed with more ground level usable open space; • Whether there should be a more creative design for the “rear yard” area between the townhome buildings; possibly to create more amenities for residents; and • Whether the proposed side yard setback of 5’ should be increased to 12’, which is the required setback for a pedestrian walkway in the HR1 zone. Architecture • Whether the project design has incorporated adequate transitions in height and setbacks to be more compatible with the existing single-family homes on G Street, which are primarily single-story with gable roof elements; • Whether the proposed project should be re-designed as two distinct building designs (i.e., one on the G Street frontage and one on the Ida Street frontage) to accommodate the existing design differences on G Street and Ida Street; • Whether the site should be designed with more defined entrances on both G Street and Ida Street, as opposed to the conceptual design, in which the garage is the primary focus; and • Whether demolition of the residence at 21 G Street (constructed in 1910) should consider a historical evaluation to determine the property’s value as a historic property, and whether the proposed new project design is compatible with existing historic resources on G Street. The property at 6 G Street is listed on the City’s 1986 Historical/Architectural Survey Parking • Whether the proposed 18’ 6” garage setback should be revised to comply with the 20 foot setback standard or consider allowance for a variance; • Whether the proposed tandem parking design should be supported; and • Whether the project should be re-designed to reduce/combine curb cuts and retain on-street parking opportunities. Landscaping • Whether the proposed tree species and plant palette is appropriate and/or adequate; and • Whether the proposed roof patio is an adequate substitute for ground level usable open space 3 BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting: The proposed project site is a 10,836 square foot through lot located on the west side of G Street, between G Street and Ida Street in the West End Village (WEV) Neighborhood (see Exhibit 2- project plans). The WEV is a neighborhood comprised of a mix of residential and commercial uses in the Downtown District. An existing single family house at 21 G Street and a garage structure on Ida Street are proposed to be demolished as part of the project. On the G Street frontage, the project site is adjacent to a surface parking lot to the north, and residential homes to the south and across the street. Businesses in the vicinity include Malabar Indian Store at the corner of 4th and G Street and Arrivederci Restaurant on the corner of G Street and Second Street. On the Ida Street frontage, the proposed site would be on the east side of Ida Street and would abut 4th Street retail businesses to the north, one residential use to the south and commercial buildings on the west side of Ida Street. The setting on the G Street frontage is more oriented toward residential uses (a total of 6 houses on both sides of the street), whereas Ida Street is dominated by commercial uses on the corners and along the west side of the street. The only residential property on Ida Street is one house at 20 Ida Street, adjacent to the project site on the east side. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use: The project proposes construction of a three-story (two-story over garage level) 9-unit townhome development (see Exhibit 3- applicant project description). Two of the townhome units would front on G Street and seven of the townhome units would front on Ida Street. Two tandem parking spaces would be provided for each unit. Proposed building height would be approximately 35 feet (from existing grade to top of parapet). A roof patio is proposed for each townhome unit, with a built-in gas barbeque and seating. One affordable Below Market Rate (BMR) unit would be provided in compliance with the affordable housing requirement. The applicant has indicated that the layout and materials used for the BMR unit will be identical to the market rate units. The 9 townhome units are designed as follows: G Street townhomes (2 buildings): • Ground Floor: An entry leading to upstairs stairs and also to the garage with two tandem spaces (approximately 11’ wide by 41’ deep, with additional space for storage) • First Floor: Living room, dining room, kitchen and office/den • Second Floor: Three bedrooms (two bedrooms, bathroom, and a master bedroom/bath), laundry. Bedroom sizes are 10’ wide x 16’ long, 12’ wide x 21’ long and the master bedroom is 16’ long x 14’ wide. • Unit size: 1,808 square feet, excluding 942 sf garage floor level • Roof patio: 902 sf Ida Street townhomes (7 buildings): • Ground Floor: An entry leading to upstairs and also to the garage with two tandem spaces (approximately 11’ wide by 40’ deep) • First Floor: Living room, dining room, kitchen, half bath • Second Floor: Two master bedrooms (14’ x 14’), each with a bath, laundry • Unit size: 1,076 square feet, excluding 587 sf garage floor level • Roof patio: 533 sf Site Plan: The proposed buildings would be setback 18’6” from the front property line and 5’ from the side property line. This side yard is identified as a “pathway” (see Site Plan DD1). There would be 10’ of space separating the rear of the buildings. Tandem parking is proposed for all garages. A roof patio is proposed for each townhome unit. Trash containers would be stored under the stairwell in the garage. Landscaping would be planted in the front yard area as well as at the rear between the two 4 buildings (see additional landscape information below). The property would be surrounded with a decorative metal fence. Architecture: The proposed townhomes are designed in a rowhouse style. There is a mixture of building materials proposed, including brick veneer (lower level street frontage only), wood siding, lapped siding and wood shingles (see Plan Sheet DD4 through DD6). The top portion of the building would include a cornice element. Accent bands are shown on all elevations. The side building elevations would include a plaster wall at the ground level (approximately 9’ in height), wood siding at the second level and wood shingles at the third level. Rectangular windows are framed with wooden trim, similar to the roof cornice. The predominant material is wood siding, with the wood shingles used for accent around the upper story windows and brick veneer used to frame the ground floor doorway entrances. Also, copper metal awnings would be introduced on building entrances and on the rear elevations. The garage doors would be designed to look like carriage doors but would operate as roll- up doors. A Color and Material Board has been included for presentation at the hearing, and a color rendering is included as Exhibit 5. Landscaping: Some existing trees are proposed to be removed from the site (an exact number was not included). However, the project would retain one Elm tree and one Sycamore tree along the G Street frontage (see Landscape Plan sheet). An additional 26 trees (including Maple trees, Japanese Maples, Crape Myrtles, and Redbud Trees) would be planted on the site. Boston Ivy would be planted along the plaster sides of the building to provide screening for adjacent residences. There are also a variety of shrubs, grasses and vines proposed to be added to the site, as well as the use of decomposed granite along the walkways and pervious pavers for the driveways. Actual square footage of landscaping is not provided on the landscape plan. Lighting: No lighting information was provided. Two wall mounted fixtures are shown fixtures at the building entrances on G Street (Plan Sheet DD4). ANALYSIS General Plan 2020 Consistency: The Zoning designation for the project site is HR1 (High Density Multifamily Residential) and the General Plan Land Use designation is High Density Residential (15-32 units per acre). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan policies with regard to allowable height (Policy LU-12), density requirements (Policy LU-23), neighborhood improvement (H-2), new development (Policy NH- 2), inclusionary housing (Policy H-19), and landscaping (Policy CD-18). However, staff is concerned about the project’s consistency with the following General Plan policies: ¾ Housing Policy H-3 (Designs That Fit Into The Neighborhood Context): Design new housing, remodels and additions to be compatible in form to the surrounding neighborhood. Incorporate transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect adjacent development character and privacy. ¾ Neighborhoods Policy NH-43 (West End Village Design Considerations): Blend new multi-family development on second and Third Streets into the character and appearance on the Latham Street neighborhood. New development should have elements similar to existing structures. ¾ Community Design Element CD-3 (Neighborhoods): Recognize, preserve and enhance the positive qualities that give neighborhoods their unique identities, while allowing flexibility for innovative design ¾ Community Design Element CD-4 (Historic Resources): Recognize, preserve and enhance the City’s historic resource ¾ Community Design Policy CD-13 (Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines): Recognize, preserve and enhance the design elements that contribute to the livability of neighborhoods and 5 their visual appearance. Specific issues with the project’s compatibility with the San Rafael’s Residential Guidelines will be discussed in the section below (page 7) ¾ Conservation Policy CON-16 (Landscape with Native Plant Species) The fact that the project is a through-lot presents a challenge in reviewing the project as a whole. Staff has evaluated the project based on two very distinct street frontages and neighborhood character. The Ida Street frontage is dominated by one and two-story commercial structures. The G Street frontage is dominated by single family homes, with commercial structures anchoring the corners of the block. The proposed project design should take both frontages into account in order to achieve design compatibility. Since the building frontage is on different streets, it may be determined that the project should reflect two separate and distinct neighborhood identities in the building design. The proposed design introduces a three-story element into a predominantly single story residential character on G Street. The bulk and mass of the proposed townhome buildings are more compatible with the existing structures on Ida Street (only one single-family home) than on G Street (5 single-family homes). The proposed design is bulkier and taller than the existing character of smaller homes on G Street, but would blend in with the predominantly commercial character on Ida Street. The addition of seven townhomes and new trees on Ida Street would add interest to an otherwise non-descript streetscape. The applicant has presented staff with background information on their design process and this has been included as Exhibit 4. Staff requests that the Board comment on the following: • Whether the proposed project should reduce the bulk of the buildings to provide more consistency with the existing neighborhood character on G Street; • Whether the project design has incorporated adequate transitions in height and setbacks to be more compatible with the existing homes on G Street; • Whether the proposed project should be re-designed as two distinct building designs (i.e., one on the G Street frontage and one on the Ida Street frontage) to accommodate the existing design differences on G Street and Ida Street; • Whether the proposed design is compatible with the City of San Rafael’s Residential Design Guidelines (see page 7 for discussion); • Whether the proposed tree species and plant palette is appropriate and/or adequate; and • Whether demolition of the residence at 21 G Street (constructed in 1910) should consider historical evaluation to determine the property’s value as a historic property, and whether the proposed new project design is compatible with existing historic resources on G Street. The property at 6 G Street is listed on the City’s 1986 Historical/Architectural Survey. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: Chapter 14.04 Base District Regulations The proposed 9-unit townhome development is subject to development standards pursuant to Section 14.04.040 - the HR1 (High Density Multifamily Residential) Zoning District. The project is in substantial compliance with the HR1 zoning regulations (as summarized in Property Facts chart on page 1 of this staff report). However, the following regulations need further examination: 1. Driveway Setback: Pursuant to Table 14.04.040, the development standards for the driveway setback have not been met. The Zoning Ordinance requires that “where there is a driveway perpendicular to the street, any garage built after January 1, 1991 shall be setback twenty feet (20’). The project is proposing only an 18’ 6” setback on both G Street and Ida Street. 2. Side Yard Setbacks: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, a 5’ side yard setback is required in the HR1 zone. The proposed project is providing a 5’ side yard setback, but had labeled the side yard as a “pathway.” The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 12’ for the side providing “pedestrian access.” It is unclear if the project is proposing the side yard pathway as “pedestrian access,” as it appears the residents can access the units without using this pathway. If the side yard is not used as pedestrian access, then the 5’ side yard proposed appears to meet the code requirement. 6 3. Usable Open Space: Pursuant to Section 14.04.040, 100 square feet of private usable open space per dwelling unit is required in the HR1 zone. The townhomes are designed with roof patios to address this requirement, but limited ground level open space is proposed. Staff requests that the Board comment on the following: • Whether the proposed 18’6” garage setback should be revised to comply with the 20’ setback standard, or consider allowance for a variance; • Whether the proposed side yard setback of 5 feet should be increased to the required 12’ for pedestrian access (and whether the project site design needs to incorporate a pedestrian access in the side yard); and • Adequacy of the proposed roof patios as usable open space and whether the project should be designed with more ground-level open space. Chapter 18 – Parking Standards Section 14.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires two covered off-street spaces for each residential unit. Required dimensions for a two-car garage are 20 feet by 20 feet. The proposed tandem spaces are prohibited except through an Exception process (14.24.020.G.3). In order to approve an Exception, the proposed tandem parking would be subject to review by the City’s Traffic Engineer and the Fire Department and subject to Findings pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.24.060. Access to the garages on the Ida Street frontage would require seven curb cuts. This would eliminate on-street parking on a street with limited parking access due to restricted parking (loading zones) on the west side of Ida Street. Staff requests that the Board’s comment on the following: • Whether the proposed tandem parking design should be supported; and • Whether the project should be re-designed to reduce/combine curb cuts and retain on-street parking opportunities. Chapter 25 – Environmental and Design Review Permit The project should be evaluated for conformance with the review criteria identified in Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance. This chapter states that the new structures should be harmoniously integrated in relation to both the specific site design and the architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design. Specific architectural design considerations include, but are not limited to the following: ¾ Creation of interest in the building elevation- particularly the G Street elevation ¾ Encouragement of natural materials and earth tone/wood tone color ¾ The project size/scale should be analyzed as to the appropriateness to the existing neighborhood scale ¾ Variation in building placement and height ¾ Equal attention to design of all facades ¾ Shadowing on recreational spaces on adjacent properties ¾ Landscape design The project is generally consistent with many of the design criteria of Section 14.25.050 of the Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the proposed development has been designed to be compatible with the height and architecture of some of the larger buildings in the neighborhood; 2) the proposed materials and colors are compatible with the existing home colors in the vicinity; 3) the architecture for the development is a mixture of several materials to add interest to all building elevations; 4) the front façade of the building would be articulated to provide depth; and 5) landscaping would be added to the site, including 14 trees on Ida Street and 5 trees on G Street. However, staff does have serious concerns about the design compatibility, particularly along the G Street frontage. Staff met with the applicant to discuss these concerns and informed the applicant that while the project is designed well, the design is not compatible with the existing neighborhood character on G Street. Staff expressed concerns about the proposed design to the applicant early in the review process, prior to the formal 7 submittal of the Conceptual Design Review application. However, none of the suggested design changes were incorporated in the project design submitted for conceptual review. The Ida Street frontage is dominated by commercial scale structures and therefore the proposed project design would be more compatible with the Ida Street frontage than the G Street frontage. The proposed townhomes could be designed with very independent facades given that the project site is a through-lot. The Ida Street frontage is facing a blank commercial wall and the street design is primarily larger commercial structures. As such the proposed design would be a better fit for the Ida Street frontage. Staff requests the Boards comments on the following: • Whether the three-story design should provide a “step back” on the upper stories to increase light to the adjacent single family homes. One consideration would be to increase the side yard setback and/or provide a “step back” on the upper stories; • Whether the project should be designed with more ground level usable open space; • Whether a revised floor plan may allow more flexibility in building design; • Whether the proposed project should be re-designed as two distinct building designs (i.e., one on the G Street frontage and one on the Ida Street frontage) to accommodate the existing design differences on G Street and Ida Street; and • Whether the proposed flat roof should be revised to introduce gable roof elements to help transition between the existing residences (with predominantly gable roof elements) and the new townhomes. San Rafael Design Guidelines: The San Rafael Design Guidelines are discretionary and intended to assist projects in achieving high quality design. Staff has determined the following Design Guidelines need to be discussed as part of the proposed project design: ¾ Building Design: Where there is an existing pattern, particular attention should be given to maintaining consistent streetscape. ¾ Scale: Where necessary to replicate existing patterns or character of development, design techniques should be used to break up the volume of larger buildings into smaller units. Transitional elements, such as stepped facades, roof decks and architectural details that help merge larger buildings into an existing neighborhood should be used. ¾ Building Height: Adjacent buildings should be considered and transitional elements included to minimize apparent height differences. ¾ Roof Shapes: Where possible, relate new roof form to those found in the area. ¾ Building Entrances: Usable front porches, verandas or an overhead trellis can be used to define the primary entrance and to further define street the façade. ¾ Parking: Driveway curb cuts and widths should be minimized. Staff requests that the Board’s comment on the following: • Whether the proposed design is too bulky for the smaller gable roof buildings on the G street frontage and whether a gable roof element should be part of the G Street townhome design; • Whether the upper floors of the townhomes should be “stepped” away from the property lines in order to reduce bulk and increase light to adjacent smaller residences; • Whether the bulk and mass of the building design on the G Street frontage should be reduced to reflect the character of the single family residential structures on G Street, which are no more than 2 stories and the majority have a gable roof element; • Whether more ground level open space amenities or front porches should be incorporated into the design as an alternative and/or supplement to the proposed roof patios; • Whether the proposed seven curb cuts on Ida Street should be re-designed to reduce/combine curb cuts and retain on-street parking opportunities; and • Whether the site should be designed with more defined entrances on both Ida Street and G Street, as opposed to the conceptual design, in which the garage is the primary focus. 8 NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Staff has received one phone call and two letters of concern from neighborhood residents (see Exhibit 6). The neighbor who called expressed concern about saving as many existing trees as possible, particularly the existing tree on Ida Street, adjacent to the property at 20 Ida Street. The letters submitted expressed concern about the following: 1) increase in noise from adding a 9-unit development to the existing quiet street; 2) the impact from the development on parking availability in a neighborhood already impacted by parking from businesses along Fourth Street; and 3) concern that the new residents would not actually use the proposed tandem parking, but choose to park one vehicle on the street instead. CONCLUSION Staff supports many elements of the proposed project design, but does recommend that the design be revised on the G Street frontage to be more compatible with the smaller scale single-family homes and gable roof elements. The three-story rowhouse design could be compatible with the Ida Street frontage because this frontage is dominated primarily by commercial development (there is only one single- family home on the Ida Street frontage). Staff requests that the Board provide comments on the points specified in the Summary section of this staff report. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced Project Plans 3. Applicants Project description 4. Applicant’s background information on the design process 5. Rendered conceptual elevations 6. Comment letters Full-sized plans, 11” x 17” plans/color renderings provided to the DRB members only. cc: Stan Camiccia, applicant, P.O. Box 2668, San Anselmo, CA 94979 David and Christina Rasonsky, owners, 54 Sequoia Road, Fairfax, CA 94930 Peter Lagarias, West End Village NA, 1629 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901