HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2011-11-08 #4CITY OF
n � a-t�
Community Development Department— Planning Division
Meeting Date: November 8, 2011
Case Numbers: ED10-072
Project Planner: Raffi Boloyan (415) 485-3095
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 31 Gold Hill Grade — Environmental and Design Review Permit for a new 6,468 gross sq. ft.
single family residence in a two level structure, over a basement, on a vacant 1.07 -acre hillside
parcel with a 28% slope; APN: 015-091-04; R1a-H Zone; Stephen Charlip, Applicant; George
Mann and Stephanie Morgan, owners; Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood.
Note: A separate memo has been provided with instructions for accessing the site.
BACKGROUND
This is an application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit for the construction of a new
single family hillside residence on a 1.07 -acre upsloping flag lot in the Dominican/Black Canyon
neighborhood. On March 22, 2011, the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project and
continued the application to a future date to allow the applicant to address their recommendations and
comments. The Board's consensus items are identified in the meeting minutes (Exhibit 2) as well as in
the Analysis section below. An 11" x 17" copy of the original project plans presented at this March 22nd
meeting have been included in the Board's packets to show the plans that were reviewed at that time.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Revisions:
The following revisions have been made to the project since the March 22, 2011 DRB meeting:
• Revisions to the design of the structure, including
o Pushing the western one-third of the building back by 4 feet to create an off -set in the
front elevation.
o Eliminating the 8 -foot deep deck in front of the western one-third of the building
o Lowering the overall height of the building by nearly 3 feet, from 148.5 feet to 145.66
feet.
o Reducing the size of windows in the upper floor (master bedroom window) on the front
elevation.
o The basement level is proposed to be created by digging rather than grading, thus
reducing the grade height of the under story by upto 5 feet.
o Trim color has changed from a white to cream/khaki or an alternate color (burnt red).
o Reduced the storage area above the garage, reducing the height of the garage by just
over 5 feet (from 141.3' to 136' overall height).
o Gross building square footage (as defined by the hillside guidelines)has been reduced by
206 sq ft.
• Guest parking has been moved to the east by three few feet to now be located outside the
scenic easement.
• Additional drainage details have been added to the plans, including the location and details of
the dissipation beds, storage from roof drains and connection points from roof drains to drainage
system. The 24" underground detention pipe has been moved to the east, outside the landscape
easement.
• Further drainage from the project engineer was submitted to evaluate the potential for increase
in run-off.
• New landscaping proposed within the landscape easement at the front of the property has been
removed from the plan.
• Driveway slope has been reduced from 18% to 15.9%.
Revised Project Description:
With the proposed revisions, the project proposes a new three-level, single-family residence with three
bedrooms, den, kitchen, study, living room, dining room, loft and storage. In addition, the attached
structure would provide a 3 car garage, as follows:
Lower Level: 831 sq. ft.
Main Level: 2,862 sq. ft.
Upper level: 1,763 sq. ft
TOTAL 5,456 sq. ft.
The basement area of the main structure is included in the gross building square footage calculations
given that it is habitable and has a ceiling height in excess of 7 feet. Other covered areas around the
structure such as the covered rear patio and area under decks and porches would total an additional
806 sq. ft, and are also included as gross building square footage (as defined by the hillside guidelines).
The proposed structure would therefore, have a total of 6,262 sq. ft of gross building floor area.
The main structure would be setback approximately 39 ft. from the front property line, 47 ft. from the
west (side) property line, 23 ft. from the east (side) property line, and 188 ft. from the rear. An elevated
porch is proposed along the eastern two third of the front elevation and wraps around the side (east)
elevation. A majority of the proposed understory area of the porch would be enclosed by hog wire
fencing, planted with vines for screening.
A new 12 -ft to 20 ft wide concrete driveway would be constructed from the street to the main parking
area and garage. The driveway would have a slope of 15.9% at its steepest point: A driveway profile is
provided on Sheet SP -5. Two off-street parking spaces are provided to the side of the driveway,
composed of decomposed granite. Another space is proposed off the street adjacent to the driveway to
replace an existing space.
The finish floor elevation of the lower floor is 112.5 ft. with overall building height of 25.16 ft above
natural grade at the highest point. Retaining walls are proposed around the upper portions of the
driveway and parking area ranging from 2 ft to 6 ft in height. A geotechnical investigation has been
prepared for this property. The project would qualify for an environmental exemption under California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303a (New Construction of a Single -Family Residence),
provided that it does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern designated
on an official map pursuant to the Section 15300.2 (Exceptions). Proposed architecture, landscaping,
grading and tree removal are further described below.
Architecture
The building is a contemporary craftsman design with three -levels facing the downhill elevation. The
building steps up to two levels at the rear with a three -car garage attached to the main structure at an
angle. The garage includes vaulted ceiling. An uncovered porch wraps around the eastern two thirds of
the front elevation and a portion of the side (right) elevation. A roofed entry is the only covering on the
porch. An elevated deck is also proposed at the west side of the building, off the master bedroom on the
upper level. This deck would connect to the backyard area via a staircase. The roof form consists of off-
setting gable roofs, with the gable ends on the side (east and west) elevations. Story poles have been
installed on-site and the story pole plan is provided on Sheet SP -6.
The colors and materials consist of stained red cedar siding and trim, painted wood trim around
windows, doors and railings, brown composite decking, wood pilasters and railings, cultured stone
veneer and asphalt shingle roofing. Most of the building's exterior colors mimic the natural wood and
earth tones, with cream/khaki used for trim and detailing. Flat hardscape includes a brushed finish
concrete driveway and parking area, concrete retaining walls and decomposed granite for guest parking
and entry paths at the front of the site. The colors and materials board will be presented at the hearing.
The building lighting would be wall mounted sconces. Site lighting is also proposed, composed of
landscape walkway lights and stair lights. Landscape up -lights are proposed to illuminate a few of the
larger native trees. Cut sheets of the fixtures are attached (Exhibit 5) and locations of the proposed
lights are shown on the plans (Sheet SP -2).
Landscaping
The landscape plan proposes to generally maintain natural conditions around the rear of the site in the
hillside portions of the site to the north, with ornamental landscaping in pockets around the house and
the parking area. There are numerous large Eucalyptus trees and Oaks and Bay trees on-site, primarily
around the upper rear portion of the site. Nearly all of these existing trees would be would be retained,
however, there are 6 trees that have already been removed, including 3 Eucalyptus at the upper portion
of the site and 3 dead trees (one 18" Eucalyptus, one 12" Pine and one 16" Oak.) around the
development area (See Sheet SP -1.1)
A new cluster of 12, 15 -gallon Redwood trees would be planted at the rear of the site in the hillside
area. In addition, the area around the structure and the lower portion of the site would be heavily
planted with fruit trees and ornamental landscaping. The palette proposes palms in these areas,
including Canary Island Date Palms. Two new privet trees are proposed to be planted along the
driveway/turnaround area along the eastern side of the property. Low level wall and path lighting is
indicated. Photographs of the plant materials are attached (Exhibit 6) and the landscape plan is illustrate
on Sheets SP1.1 and SP -2).
Grading and Drainage
Site grading consists primarily of cut (655 cubic yards) to prepare the site for placement of house. Some
minor fill (30 cubic yards) would be added in the lower portion of the driveway. Net off -haul of 655 cubic
yards is anticipated (equivalent to 65 truckloads). Proposed drainage would generally follow the existing
drainage patterns on the site. A new concrete v -ditch and debris collector would be installed part way
up the hill to the rear of the house to collect water from the upper portions of the site, The drainage
would then enter a closed underground system (8" PVC pipe) that would go downhill along the eastern
side of the property until it meets the exiting drainage swale. A 6ft by 6ft dissipation bed at the top and
bottom of the closed system with rip rap would be installed. A closed drainage consisting of a 6" PVC
pipe would collect water around the rear and side of the building and would transverse along the front of
the building. A new 24" detention basin consisting of an underground pipe is proposed to be installed
near the driveway to collect water and provide controlled discharge. This water would be conveyed to
the east side of the site and would enter a 36 sq. ft. dissipation bed and then enter into an 8" PVC storm
drain. This run-off would then be conveyed to the natural drainage swale at the east side of the lower
driveway. In addition, an earthen swale would collect run off at the rear of the structure and convey it to
a 6 -inch storm drain pipe that would wrap around the west and front sides of the structure and would
connect to the new 8 -inch pipe along the eastern end. Two 36 sq ft dissipation beds would be created
on both sides of the natural culvert that bisects the driveway before the run-off is conveyed to the
existing culvert system.
Geotechnical peer review has been required and conducted for this site, and a drainage plan has been
reviewed by Public Works. No unique soils constraints or drainage issues have been identified as a
result of this review.
Zoning Entitlements
As proposed, the project would require an Environmental and Design Review permit for a new hillside
home on a flag lot.
Other Approvals
The project must meet Wildland-urban interface planting requirements, green building regulations, and
landscape efficiency requirements. Fire and Building have reviewed the project for conformance with
3
these provisions, and the applicant has revised plans in response to their comments, including provision
of Fire Information on Sheet F-1. In addition, an encroachment permit would be required to allow the
installation of concrete and other minor site improvements in the public right of way at the base of the
driveway. The Fire Department has determined that there is no requirement to remove any live
Eucalyptus trees from the site. Removal of live Eucalyptus trees is allowed and desired, but not
required. However, any trees within 100 feet of a structure must be limbed up (or skinned up in the case
of a Eucalyptus tree) a minimum of 10 feet above the ground.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has provided the attached letter (Exhibit 3) responding to the Board's comments from the
last meeting. Furthermore, the applicant has revised the plans and has returned for a follow-up review.
A full size and 11" x 17" reduced set of the revised plans are included in the Board's packet. The
Board's consensus items are identified below bold and followed by staff response and analysis.
1) Design appears boxy and massive and needs to be broken up to better follow the intent of
the hillside guidelines about stepping up a hill and reducing mass and making structures
into smaller components.
Certain changes have been included in the revised plans to address this comment. The project has
been revised to:
• Push the western one-third of the building (approximately 16 feet of western part of the front
elevation) back by 4 feet, thus creating a 4 ft off -set from the rest of the front elevation
(approximately 32 feet of the eastern part of the front elevation).
• The 8 -foot deep deck that was previously proposed in front of the entire front elevation, has
been removed from the western 16 feet of the front elevation, thus creating an 12 foot
stepback between the two building planes on the front elevation
• The overall building height has been lowered by nearly 3 feet, from 148.5 feet to 145.66
• The basement level is proposed to be created by digging rather than grading, thus reducing
the grade height of the under story by upto 5 feet. This has reduced the visible amount of
understory on the front elevation by upto 5 feet in some areas.
• Eliminated the attic/storage area above the garage, thus reducing the height of the garage
by just over 5 feet (from 141.3' to 136' overall height)
Analysis
The 4 ft off -set to the west side of the structure has provided a break in the single wall plane into two
smaller components as viewed from the front elevation. This, coupled with the elimination of the
deck at this portion of the front elevation, has further reduced the perceived mass of the front
elevation. In addition, the overall building height has been reduced by approximately 3 feet. The
height reduction has primarily been through decreasing the plate height of the upper level from
10.25 ft to 8 feet. This upper level uses a vaulted ceiling, therefore, the reduction will not effect the
volume of the space. The project as design and revised continues to comply with the 20 foot tall wall
height along the stepback areas. Staff does note that with the elimination of the front deck in front of
the western one-third of the front elevation of the main structure, the wall height in that area now
exceeds 20 ft. However, the hillside guidelines allow wall heights in excess of 20 feet for no more
than 25% of the entire wall length. So, in this particular case, the entire front elevation is 92.5 feet
(including the garage and main structure, and the section of wall that exceeds the 20 ft wall height is
16 feet, which is less than 25% allowed encroachment.
2) The downhill elevation needs to step back more.
As discussed above, there have been some modifications to reduce the mass of the front elevation
by lowering the building height by nearly 3 feet, stepping back the western portion of the two story
structure by 4 feet and reducing the height of the understory space. There have been .no
modifications to step back the upper level of the structure from the main level. The applicant
contends that the building is adequately stepped back with the provision of the front deck to serve
as one plane, the covered porch as a second plane and the main structure as the third plane.
4
Analysis
The perceived mass has been reduced through the reduction in overall building height and reduction
in the understory space. Staff does not have too great of a concern with the front elevation of the
structure. This is primarily based on the location of the property and its distance from the street
(over 150 feet), the setback of the structure from the front of the flat lot (nearly 40 feet, where 20
feet is required) and the dense vegetation that exists between the properties. The front downhill
elevation does comply with the stepback requirements that limit wall heights (in a single plane) on
downhill elevation to 20 feet
The applicant has also included an alternate design detail on the front elevation, a small shed roof
(See Sheet A-5 — Alternate Elevation). This small shed roof could provide an additional visual break
in the front elevation.
3) Guest parking in scenic easement need to be moved out of the easement
Guest parking has been moved back (toward the east) and is now located outside the scenic
easement.
Analysis
This comment has been addressed.
4) Need to address the existing substandard drainage conditions on the site and move the
drainage away from the neighboring property. Take it down the middle of the driveway to the
storm drain system or through the road to the creek.
The drainage plan generally continues the same drainage patterns and concept as was shown at
the last meeting. The drainage plan proposes to collect water from the hillside into a concrete ditch
that runs west to east along the rear of the property. The concrete v -ditch would convey water
through a 6 ft x 6ft dissipation bed with rip rap and then enter a underground (8" PVC) closed
system. This closed system would carry the run off to downhill along the eastern side of the property
to the existing natural drainage swale. A new 6 ft x 6 ft dissipation bed with rip rap is proposed
where the closed system empties into the natural swale near the base of the driveway. Water would
then continue through the existing culvert under the driveway, through another dissipation bed with
rip rap, and continue through natural open channel through the adjacent property to the street. A
separate perimeter closed system is also proposed to surround the structure and collect run off from
the lower portion of the hillside as well as from the structure itself. Roof drainage and area drains
would connect to this closed underground system (6" PVC) pipe that circles the structure. At the
front of the structure, the 24" pipe is proposed to serve as the detention basin and collect excess run
off and discharge it after a storm event. The discharge from this detention pipe would enter the 8"
closed system described above. In addition, two 50 gallon storage drums are proposed near the
garage to collect run off and use it for landscape irrigation purposes.
Analysis
The project engineer has provided additional details on the drainage plan and provided additional
analysis for the storm draining for a 100 year storm event (Exhibit 4). During a 100 year event,
runoff would increase from 1.48 cfs to 1.96 cfs, representing a 31 % increase. The drainage plan
proposes to utilize a 24' underground detention pipe to detain and control the run-off during a storm
event. As is common and required by all new development, any additional run off above pre -
development levels must be treated and stored on site to reduce the volume to pre -development
levels. The proposed detention pipe/basin serves this purpose and is a standard design feature
used in drainage plans to detain increases in run off. The detained water would then be discharged
into the 8" storm drain pipe that then be discharged into the existing natural drainage swale after the
peak of the storm event has passed. In addition, dissipation beds have been added around the site
to reduce the velocity of the run off and reduce it's energy.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the drainage plan once again, including the additional
details that were provided. In general, they have found that the preliminary drainage plan is feasible
and have found the preliminary plan adequate for the planning phase of the project. During the
building permit phase of this project, they have asked that the applicant address how water will be
released into the creek during off peak period and the preparation of the final drainage plan,
including addressing this analysis will be addressed as part of the building permit review.
5) Provide more details on the drainage plan, i.e. location of collection points, detail on the
dispersion tank, where to roof leaders and gutters connect to the system. Consider moving
the tank out of the easement.
The detention tank has been moved outside the easement and additional drainage details have
been provided on the grading and drainage plans (Sheet SP -3) as well as in the letter from the
project engineer (Exhibit 4).
Analysis
See discussion in #4 above
6) Trim color should be darkened to blend better with the hillside setting. Two members of the
Board were ok with the white color.
The applicant has modified the trim color to a slightly darker cream/khaki. The applicant has also
illustrated a significant darker trim color, a burnt red, as an alternative. A revised color and material
board will be presented during the meeting.
Analysis
The modification to the trim color from white to a cream/khaki appears to provide a darker accent
color for this hillside property. Staff recommends that the cream/khaki color does provide a slightly
darker trim color and should integrate well with the other proposed colors. The alternate burnt red
color may be too dark.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of this meeting was posted on site and mailed to the surrounding residents and property owners
within 300 feet, as well as the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood and Gold Hill Grade
Neighborhood Associations, 15 days prior to this Design Review Board meeting. Story poles were
revised to reflect the revised design at the start of the notice period. As of the reproduction of this staff
report, staff has not received any new written comments. Any comments received after the staff report
is reproduced will be forward to the Board prior to the meeting.
Prior to the first DRB meeting, staff had received written and oral comments from the resident/owners of
the property to the front of this site (27 Gold Hill Grade) as well as written comments from the resident
of the property to the east (51 Gold Hill Grade). These letters cited concern with drainage from the site,
location of the structure being too close, privacy, mass of the structure, and windows facing their
properties. Copies of these letters were previously provided to the Board in the last hearing and oral
comments are reflected in the minutes from the March 22nd DRB meeting.
CONCLUSION
Staff finds that the project as designed for this location would substantially comply with the hillside
design criteria, zoning regulations and General Plan policies, with conditions. The applicant has made
some revisions in response to the Board previous comments. The Board is asked to provide their
recommendation on the project revisions and whether the modifications have addressed their previous
comments. Following a positive recommendation by the Board, this matter will be scheduled for a
Zoning Administrator hearing for final action.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. DRB Minutes, March 22, 2011
3. Letter from George Mann, applicant, with Project Revisions, July 21, 2011
4. Drainage Letter from Robertson Engineering, July 6, 2011
5. Proposed Lighting Fixture Cut Sheets
6. Landscape Plant Images
0
Revised Project Plans (Full-sized and 11"x 17" plans have been provided to the DRB members only).
Original Project Plans (11 x 17" plans distributed to DRB members only)
cc: Stephen Charlip
Stephen Charlip Architect
1045 Ih St
Petaluma, CA 94952
George Mann
78 Rafael Dr
San Rafael, CA 94901
Christa Quinn
51 Gold Hill grade
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dominican/Black Canyon NA
PO Box 151702
San Rafael, CA 94915-1702
Gold Hill Grade HOA
Jack Nixon, President
301 Locust Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Mary and Gary Coman
27 Gold Hill Grade,
San Rafael, CA 94901
7
Vicinity Map - Exhibit 1
M
AVE ------
P
SCALE 1 :2,087
100 0 100 200 300
FEET
1
Thursday, November 03, 2011 10:27 AM
i
i
M
AVE ------
P
SCALE 1 :2,087
100 0 100 200 300
FEET
1
Thursday, November 03, 2011 10:27 AM
MINUTES REGULAR MEETING
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MARCH 22, 2011
ROLL
Board Members Present:
Planning Commission Liaison
Board Members Absent:
Community Development:
APPROVED
Chair Garg, Vice Chair Kent,
Huntsberry, Summers, Alternate Robertson
Lang
Lentini
Raffi Boloyan, Principal Planner
Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner
Steve Stafford, Associate Planner
AGENDA
A. Staff Communications
Past City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review Board Action on Design
Review Matters
B. Board Communications
General communications from members on matters of interest to the Board
C. Approval of Minutes
3) February 23, 2011
4) March 8, 2011
D. New Business
3) ED 10-072 31 Gold Hill Grade (New Hillside Residence) — Request for an Environmental
and Design Review Permit for a new 6,468 sq. ft. single family residence in a
two level structure, over a basement, on a vacant 1.07 -acre hillside parcel with a
28& slope; APN: 015-091-04; Single Family Residential (Rla-IT) District;
Stephen Charlip, Applicant; George Mann and Stephanie Morgan, owners; File
No (s): ED 10-072. Project Planner: Raffi Boloyan
4) 805 E Street (Cats Cradle) Staff referral for Board review and comments on a
proposed signage and painting program for a new business located in
downtown. File No.: SRI 1-014. Project Planner: Kraig Tambornini
A. Staff Communications
Past City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review Board Action on Design
Review Matters
Tambornini announced that there are no communications from staff.
B. Board Communications
General communications from members on matters of interest to the Board
DRB MINUTES (Regular) 3/22/2011
Exhibit 2
2
Chair Mohit announced that there are no communications for the Board.
C. Minutes
1) February 23, 2011
Chair Garg asked for a motion.
Jeff Kent moved and Bob Huntsberry seconded to approve the minutes
AYES:
Members:
Kent, Huntsberry, Chair Garg, Alternate Robertson
NOES:
Members:
None
ABSTAIN:
Members:
Summers
ABSENT:
Members:
Lentini
2) March 8, 2011
Jeff Kent moved and Stewart Summers seconded to approve the minutes.
AYES: Members: Kent, Huntsberry, Chair Garg, Alternate Robertson,
Summers
NOES: Members: None
ABSTAIN: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: Lentini
D. New Business
3) ED10-072 31 Gold Hill Grade (New Hillside Residence) — Request for an Environmental
and Design Review Permit for a new 6,468 sq. ft. single family residence in a
two level structure, over a basement, on a vacant 1.07 -acre hillside parcel with a
28% slope; APN: 015-091-04; Single Family Residential (RIa-H) District;
Stephen Charlip, Applicant; George Mann and Stephanie Morgan, owners; File
No (s): ED10-072. Project Planner: Raffi Boloyan
Principal Planner Boloyan described the project. He requests the Board's comments on the
following aspects of the project:
• Site Planning — whether the development appropriately responds to the site conditions and
constraints
• Visual Impacts — whether the front elevation provides adequate steeping and articulation and
respects privacy impacts
• Elevated Deck — whether deck on the west side of the structure is appropriate in terms of
design and privacy impacts
• Materials and color — whether the white color for wood trim on the structure that would
coordinate with the natural setting.
• Landscape, lighting and fencing details
Board Member Kent asked if the additional parking spaces outside the entry fence would require
a Variance. Boloyan responded that since they are uncovered spaces and not structures an
encroachment permit from the Public Works Department would be required as they are in the
public right of way.
DRB MINUTES (Regular) 3/22/2011
Kent asked if the UBC method was used in determining building height. Boloyan responded that
building height is determined by the method used in the Hillside Guidelines, which establishes
the height limit vertical from existing grade to the point of the structure immediately above.
Board member Robertson asked if Public Works supports the drainage plan as the swale cuts
close to the neighboring 27 Gold Hill property. Boloyan responded that the drainage plan is
supported by Public Works and the swale is an existing condition that collects water from
neighboring properties. Also, additional details need to be address by Public Works, i.e., the
capacity of the on-site detention basin in front of the structure.
Board Member Huntsberry asked about the maximum slope of the driveway that is allowed.
Boloyan responded that is 18% and that over 18% would require further review. Huntsberry
inquired about the validity of the 30 foot height measurement of the building and Boloyan
described how the height is measured according to the plans. He also referred to the drainage and
why it cannot just extend the drain and connect it to the major drainage creek across the street,
with the intent of getting the water away from the home. He also had qubstions about the
underground basin and how it works.
Huntsberry expressed major concern with both the front and side stepback requirements.
Boloyan described the Hillside Guideline stepback requirements as they relate to both front and
side stepback requirements and indicated that given the location of the structure, stepbacks are
not required on the side elevation. However, they are required on the front (downhill elevation)
Board Member Garg requested clarification regarding hillside guidelines specification for colors.
Boloyan clarified the guidelines generally call for subdued colors that blend with the setting, but
that it is a site specific issue and staff's concern is whether the white might provide too much
contrast. Garg asked about cubic yards of cut/fill and the number of truckloads. Boloyan clarified
that the truckload approximation was determined by estimating 10 cubic yards per truck.
George Mann, applicant described the project. He noted they had reviewed several home designs
from magazines and websites and selected a design that seemed to fit with the property, which
this design is derived -from. The basement was added due to the slope and the entire building
gross square footage is below the 6,500 sq. ft. maximum. The deck was added to make the whole
first floor wheelchair accessible. The house is south facing and provides a view of Mount Tam
from the upper southwest corner. There are two houses most affected by this project. The
neighbor on the east side had questions about screening in between the houses. There are two
trees that are not in great shape between the houses. They could fill in the area with other plants
that would reach 12 to 15 feet high. The other neighboring house is in the square area cut out of
the original lot, owned by the Coleman's. An easement was put in place between the lots to
address existing encroachments into our lot, and provide a scenic easement along the upslope
separating the lots. Planting would go along the easement line, where it slopes off steeply toward
the neighbor and requires correction on the plan. Pictures in the package show views of story
poles from this lot. He is willing to cover the area as much as necessary for screening. Impacts
from the street should be negligible because of the setback. The house has been pushed back
against the steeper portion of site, with the garage and main level designed so that the garage
would achieve the 18% slope to meet code. If the house and garage are moved further upslope
they could not get an 18% driveway. Regarding the windows facing the east side and privacy
impacts, there is no second floor where the floor to ceiling windows are so there will not be
anyone looking down into the neighbors house. The drainage retention pipe is a 30" pipe that will
hold water then sump pump it out into the drain system to control the water flow. The civil
DRB MINUTES (Regular) 3/22/2011
9
engineer worked with architect to develop the plans. The white trim was selected based on other
homes with that color in the area, but they are not -tied to the white color. The pilasters around the
deck and windows are proposed to be trimmed. The parking space in front has been there for
years and is paved, and they essentially are just leaving it there. The area was a nursery before so
there was some historic demand:
Board Member Huntsberry asked about the storage area over the garage, and why it was not made
higher. Originally this area was open, and will be used solely for storage. Huntsberry inquired
about the upstairs level bedroom and what it would be used for. The applicant indicated that it
would be used as a large walk in closet, with an option for a future bedroom.
Board member Huntsberry asked about routing the drainage across the street connecting to the
drainage creek and expressed concern for the neighboring properties. The applicant explained that
the water levels in the creek are existing and there is no intention of adding to the water flow of
the creek — and that is the reason for the retention basin. There is flow through the back yard of
the downhill lot and would stop and be drained out into the basin as it exists
Kent has further questions about drainage on the site and how the water that is collected on the
roof and the driveway will be handled. The applicant referred to the collection basin just below
the house and that is where the water will be retained until the flow slows down and then sump
pump kicks in and pushes it out. It is existing on the edge of the landscape easement. Kent asked
if all of the Eucalyptus trees will be removed from the sight. The applicant indicated that is
negative. He then asked staff if removal of Eucalyptus trees from project site will be required as
part of the WUI requirement. Boloyan responded that there. will be a requirement to. remove fire.
hazardous trees through the WUI process.
Huntsberry asked further questions about drainage down the driveway — will intermediate drains
exist? Applicant mentioned that a turn around will be added and intermediate drainage would be
added. Boloyan noted that any new project must have a net increase of zero runoff.
Garg asked about the scenic easement. The applicant described the easement plan and the
bamboo and existing trees there.
Huntsberry expressed concerns about the easement and the parking spaces being located within it.
The applicant explained the changes to the new plans that indicate where the parking spaces will
be.
Planner Boloyan recited the legal description clarifying the purpose for the easement. A private
easement benefitting neighbors, Coleman's, for landscaping and drainage protection for the
beneficiaries of the easement.
Summers asked the extent the applicant got the neighbors involved or notified. He responded that
they were notified about six months ago and plans were sent out to neighbors.
Robertson asks about the north part of the easement and if new screening and landscaping will
exist there — the applicant says grass will go there. He also asks about the backyard of the
neighbor — do they present screening by themselves? The applicant responds that partial
screening is provided but that he would be willing to add more screening if the neighbors would
like it.
Chair Garg opened the public hearing.
DRB MINUTES (Regular) 3/22/2011
Mary Coleman, of 27 Gold Hill Grade expressed concerns about drainage and suggested that the
31 % increase in water flow as outlined is the staff report is very conservative. She also expressed
concern as to the closeness of the property to her property and the height of the building (seems
very tall) and would like verification that the building height follows the Hillside Design
Guidelines. Also, the west facing deck looks into the studio of her property and there are other
privacy issues and design issues that are of concern.
Chair Garg closed the public hearing and referred discussion back to board.
Summers began by expressing several issues relating to the bulk and mass of the structure and is
skeptical if the design is appropriate for a Hillside. He suggested breaking the mass up and
changing the boxy design. He also questioned whether or not the basement area is really needed.
The deck off the upstairs master bedroom seemed a bit excessive and unnecessary. He foresaw
the potential light pollution from this house having an impact on the neighbor. He recommended
reconfiguring the design of this house and decreasing the mass and bulk.
Huntsberry recommended sliding the main house to the north by eight feet and putting the deck
over the basement — this scenario would give the stepback that is desirable. He also recommended
a 15% slope for the driveway instead of 18%. In term of drainage, Huntsberry suggested sliding
the existing retention pipe over to the right of the property, so that the water would not spill into
the neighbor's yard. Lastly, white trim on windows needs to be changed to a more natural earth
tone like taupe.
Kent agreed with Huntsberry on drainage issues. He stated that the mitigation plan for the
Eucalyptus trees needs to be addressed and that the landscape screening of the scenic easement
should be addressed carefully.
Robertson's commented that generally the location of the footprint of the house is sensible,
spaced well between two homes and does not see privacy concerns. The building is boxy; he
liked the suggestion about using basement as deck and stepping other floors back behind that. He
has concerns about the drainage and the need to get it away from the neighbor's house below. He
is ok with that the white trim and garage location.
Garg added that he is troubled by the bulk and mass as well and suggested breaking up the mass.
He agreed with drainage suggestions from Huntsberry. The white trim is ok with him. He cited
the Hillside guidelines regarding breaking up bulk and mass on a hillside.
Kraig summarized the Board's comments:
o Design appears boxy and massive and needs to be broken up to better follow the intent of.
the hillside guidelines about stepping up a hill and reducing mass and making structures
into smaller components.
o The downhill elevation need to step back more.
o Guest parking in scenic easement needs to be moved out of the easement.
o Need to address the existing substandard drainage conditions on the site and move the
drainage away from the neighboring property. Take it down the middle of the driveway
to the storm drain system or through the road to the creek.
o Provide more details on the drainage plan, i.e. location of collection points, detail on the
dispersion tank, where to roof leaders and gutters connect to the system. Consider
moving the tank out of easement.
o Trim color should be darkened to blend better with the hillside setting. 2 members were
ok with the white color.
DRB MINUTES (Regular) 3/22/2011
r
o Screening trees needed in addition to bushes at the front of the structure. The currently
proposed bushes not large enough to provide adequate screening,
o Replace the existing dead deciduous trees at the side property line with 51 Gold Hill with
evergreen trees to provide better screening and consider pulling driveway away from this
area.
o Plan to remove additional Eucalyptus trees in the natural area at the rear (Please note, I
will be checking with the Fire Department if this is necessary as part of the WUI
ordinance).
o Try to reduce driveway grade to no more than 15%.
Huntsberry moved and Summers seconded to continue the project subject to the items
outlined by staff.
AYES: Huntsberry, Kent, Robertson, Summers and Chair Garg
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Lentini
805 E Street (Cats Cradle) Staff referral for Board review and com/ile
oposed
signage and painting program for a new business located in downtowSRI 1-014.
roject Planner: Kraig Tambornini
Senior Plann Kraig Tambornini, noted the project has been referred t the Board for their
guidance and di ction on signage and proposed painting schemVIsfrom
Kent asks for clarifica 'on regarding how staff distinguishes mu signage.
Tambornini responds that t project is considered signage ut that the applicant has really
"pushed the envelope" in this r and with the size of the igns. And if in fact, there the signs
would be considered murals, then e project would hXve to go to the Planning Commission.
Robertson stated he does not like the mur
prefers cut-out dimensional letters to pain
the E street front of the building, whether
the south elevations feels like too much �
first and second floors /
does support signs on the North side. He
He further recommends providing signage on
i on the door or a building sign. Signage on
finds trim on cornice and bellyband between
Kent likes the mural idea but agreds that individual letters aruch better than painted letters.
He agreed that 2 signs on the s, th side are not needed. The mu Ion the north side is fun, and
might be appropriate on tha ide. Trim and belly bands are good\Draina
d to the building, and
the sign on the E Street el, ation needs to be done. The colors wuld like to see the
landscape plan and world like to address the following issues: 1)rom neighboring
property runs into their property in the back parking area, that shed; 2) there is
puddling at the fr9 dt door that need to be addressed, and; 3) the box planters r front of the door,
given the gradi�,that exists there, they are not possible to execute.
Huntsber v agrees with member Kent regarding including the logo on the North side an uppor
a playfu ogo. He supports signage on E street, and would like to see the planter develope r
this reaeentry, He supports a nail on fascia or cornice to emulate the brown elements below an
supports a bellyband idea. He would like to see a monument sign included off the Second street
DRB MMINUTES (Regular) 3/22/2011
'RFI:ufi
21 July 2011 r��/JUA
Raffi Boloyan, Principal Planner
City of San Rafael, Community Development Department Planning Division
P. O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-151560
Re: Resubmittal for DRB consideration
Dear Raffi,
Accompanying this letter are the revised plans for 31 Gold Hill Grade. At the initial DRB meeting a series
of consensus items were determined. We have attempted to address the concerns from those
consensus items by revising the plans accordingly. Comments on each of the consensus items are listed
below.
A) Mass. The front elevation of the house has been changed to alter the appearance of the front of
the house. (It should be noted that the front will not be visible to anyone from the street, and
will have limited visibility from the down slope neighbor. Additionally, the downhill slope
neighbor has the right to use a large swath of ground to plant appropriate screening should they
so desire.) The changes to the front elevation include: digging down for the basement level
instead of grading; stepping back the left third of the house; removing the deck from the portion
stepped back; revising the windows in the master bedroom area to reduce the feel of size, and
lowering the overall structure from the originally proposed elevation of 148.5' to 145.66'.
B) Stepping. Depending on perspective, there are three or four "steps" in the reduced front
elevation. The first step is the center front steps which rise from the current base elevation
(approximately 115') to the railing height of the deck (approximately 125). The line at this
height then steps back approximately 8' and encompasses the right 2/3 of the front. The
entryway roof provides an additional stepping feature at varying height (from approximately
130' to 134') to a width of 18'. The roof line sits back at an elevation near 138'. The best
rendition of the various steps can be seen on the right elevation of the A-5 drawing.
C) Guest Parking. The guest parking has been moved back out of the easement area.
D) Drainage. The drainage forthe new house will reduce the overall flow of water during peak
periods of rain from what currently exists. The system is designed based on data from Marin
County for this area on precipitation amounts for 10 year, 25 year, and 100 year storms. A
significant amount of rain water is collected during heavy rains and stored to be released when
the overall flow of water decreases. Additionally the down slope neighbor has chosen to take
an easement so they may make changes to the area where water flows down the natural grade
through their property.
E) Drainage Details. Details have been added to the plans including dissipation beds, areas of
storage from the roof drains, and connection from the roof drains to the system. The
underground pipe used for water storage during peak periods has been moved to the right so it
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 3
Resubmittal for DRB consideration _
21 July 2011
is not above the down slope neighbor. The underground pipe collects water while monitoring
the flow of water through the drain system. At peak flow levels the pipe stores water. When
the flow rate decreases, water is then placed back into the drain system for outflow.
F) Trim Color. While we would prefer to trim the house in white, we have muted this down to a
cream/khaki color.
G) Screening (down slope). Currently there is a significant bamboo growth which screens over half
of the area between the down slope house and the new structure. (This area is not visible from
— the street and only affects the down slope house.) At the request of the down slope property
owner we have removed the plantings we proposed on this border (see their letter submitted at
original DRB meeting). The down slope property has taken an easement over this border area to
add landscaping to this area as they deem necessary to screen their home.
H) Screening (right side). We have shown the removal of the two trees requested by the neighbor
at 51 Gold Hill Grade. While we would prefer to plant redwood or other native trees in this
area, we have chosen to replace these trees with two privets. The privets will grow faster and
provide a better screen in less time.
i) Eucalyptus trees in natural area. We have spoken with the fire department and determined that
there is no requirement to remove eucalyptus trees from the site. We will however work with
the fire department regarding a long range plan to slowly reduce the growth of eucalyptus and
allow native trees to develop.
J) Driveway grade. We were able to reduce the steepest part of the driveway grade to 15.9% from
the originally proposed 18%. This is well within the guidelines, and any further reduction would
cause greater changes to the natural slope of the property.
Additionally, we have reduced the height of the garage including the removal of the proposed storage
area. Once you have had a chance to review the revised plans, please let us know if you have any
questions. We have made attempts to answer the concerns of the DRB and the neighbors with the
proposed alterations.
Sincerely,
George Mann
78 Rafael Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901
415-717-3530
Page 2 of 2
ORERTSON
ENGINEERING
2300 Bethards Dr., Suite L, Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Tel (707)523-7490 Fax (707) 523-7499
July 6, 2011
Mr. Kevin McCowen, Assistant Public Works Director
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
111 Morphew Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
E-mail office@robertsonengineering.net
RE: DRAINAGE LETTER FOR COMPLETENESS OF
PLANNING APPLICATION EOIO-072
31 COLD HILL CRAKE
REi PROJECT NO. 100261
Dear Kevin,
ti o-P'f.
JUL 27 IF
PLANK,
The proposed single family residence planned for the vacant parcel increases the
storm drainage runoff for a 100 -year storm event from 1.48 cfs to 1.94 cfs. The
0.54 cfs (31 %) increased runoff from the site will be stored and detained in
approximately 200 linear feet of 48" diameter underground pipe to be located
below the proposed residence. The detained and controlled runoff will be
designed to drain into the proposed 8" pvc pipe that will be discharged into the
existing natural drainage swale after the peak of the storm has passed. In my
professional opinion, there will be no adverse upstream or downstream impacts to
private or public properties, with the construction of the proposed improvements.
Sincerely,
ROBERTSON ENGINEERING, ine.
Steve Bowser
Civil Engineer
SKB/kebr
Z:Q.etters\20I10630CityofSauRafaelMeGowen.10026.wpd Exhibit 4
MAMUFAC CURER, °MCHLER°
PKIDUC U MUMBERa 96, 52c //
VATTAGE/BULD9 400 WATT
PAWRI _-A•WiSCONCEi
MANUFACTURrMo °KICHLER°
PROMUC T HUMBERo 10924 'PARK SKY' W-FaMAN'
WATTAME/gULB' 13 WATT(C 9GIRIN BULB SME)
LANDSCAPE UP LIGHT®
MANUFACTURERS "KICHLER® Ca�1MFE�UURERo °F�'US �I�UST�'YFS°
PRODUCT NUH�ER� 1��®4AZT PRODUCTC<9UC�7BER�
COLORi BRONZE
WATTAGE/DULBi 20V MR16 WHIM BRIME
Exhibit 5
31 G®ILII➢ FFAIIL L GRADE
�- - �._-_...L___. _.. -.. -..
•E �
4ANUFACTURERi 'KICHLER'
'RODUCT NUMBEM a5:310AXT
MUM BRONZE
clA U `SAGE/BOLD, R6V WEDGE BASEM MCAL MDESCENT
- MURES HEXCHT XS 21°
1 � '
PRIM Duey NUMDER8 A5073A-/-7y
U LMNIo DRUMM
sxzr)a 41 x M,
VIOLTA(��a 122
31 GOLD HRLL GRADE
,
tea,J _ 4F(P-Fr
,aid i I-� if {_•
R'; - ,
r i!
< � 6 -.est � s •+
r 1�'. I 1 'FSr N.••�t: - e-rjll• ��r. �� .�i '� ! � � a.'!i
�
_ i 1,1: + a 3` it s 4' f� u •'-�Tj, ./ter cos' !1,F �t al,
Pyr
��• ' ` �� L j m � s� !jr's? T�� � 1
- •� � ¢I•f ,ftp !` f .o� hC �_*�
- - ' � r t{;t#r, � 3 r • 3;, i� {+y i+7� 1 'ER'^ ,,,ter ,
J•:1 i �` >. + IS• a���4w 4�e• _i �•.SS ��1•�'Ia l-Iy �`1 1�1 i� 'L $:l: �L„ _
' i=i 1 .1'` 3 y � - y1 ra _. f: '� *F S; s n •ia rt^n�l �: _ r
ii •� �? y s � �,.. F � 1 Its i•�- '�� _l .3 � to ., f5"' :`l�n� n � .. �e
- { ' t �` �r�. lata a �/ r�� '. ` _ L •h I Sob ' � r� �l�L SA _.�.i �34f
�..' , .l - 1` r f '`P Ira a f`•
'' i.Y1�S Y. -1{I Iy lrr!• {S': Y+. A. ,icea,1, fr��] rr 1i i�
jit
.4 1� 1 IT • y}}� l� a I -'.� �1';lSt E1�'�gj( ^ '1• }� .
' r 1+ f S .J1 '1• 1p�i - 1 1 � 'STT' $� _j I' •j 2.'f
�;'� L ^•�ti .i�,. fay •� i6 •�'�,. ;,�._
3 o- ..'
_-_.d31. _ YArdil.£� •ckii 'li . TT C '��y __ � •'^
.. .. - • � 3 ' 91 � 1 .R''"' ,. .yrs. � _ _
hiJ i Mile y�AiIFA
'
t 71
71
j.ip, 1�jly ' � �• � � iii 4 ' 4';' � 1 � ,:`:y i ,-.
�� e Jir`; y� _ i r y1� _ i f, 4,•,��;d � �.1 � _ �3ii�
i - - 4j a =
.y�'�i �'-` '' -!•.'. , fad. r, F'�-- ir.
pp
Zs IWO
0.
y r� 4 •��
31 GOLD HILL GRADE
�T
4,t�s
IV
3 g
f.` "�',fl �a ;5 '�i Jnr'•° 4��� '
6 C _ syn
fi 4
lei
Y. S •_
r
? 9
[
11
Sig_
t
,� is .t'' $" r •]
I-
W9qfP0QA r9-vl'T`69�
31 GOLD HILL GRADE
