HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2013-07-16 #3 CITY OF
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date: July 16, 2013
Case Numbers: CDR13-001, PA13-004
Project Planner: Kraig Tambornini (415) 485-3092
Agenda Item:
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 10 E Crescent Drive (Silva Apartments) – Conceptual Design Review of a five unit
apartment complex proposed within three buildings on a vacant, 10,398 square foot parcel
(65.3’ wide by 159.9’ average depth), and with an approximate 37-percent upslope from the
street; APN: 010-291-67; HR1.8 Zone; Daniel Silva, Applicant/Owner; West End
Neighborhood.
PROPERTY FACTS
Site General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: High Density Residential HR1.8 Vacant
North: Medium Density Residential MR3 Multi-Family
South: Fourth Street NA Public Street
East: Retail Office C/O Multi-tenant commercial
West: Medium Density MR3 Two-unit building
Lot Size Lot Coverage (Max.) OR Natural State (Min.)
Required: 6,000
Proposed: 10,398 (existing)
Standard: 60% Lot Coverage
Proposed: <60%
Height * Residential Density OR Gross Building/Floor Area
Allowed: 30’ (Hillside measurement)
Proposed: 39’
Allowed: 4-10 units
Proposed: 5 units
Parking Upper Floor Area (Non-hillside residential)
Required: 9 (5 covered, 3 uncovered, 1 guest)
Proposed: 8 covered
Allowed: NA
Proposed: NA
Min. Lot Width (New lots) Setbacks
Required: NA
Proposed:
Required Existing Proposed
Front:
Side(s):
Ext. side:
Ped.
side:
Bldg.
sep:
Rear:
15’
5’
n/a
20’
8’
5’
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15’
2’/15’
NA
>20’
4’
>20’
Outdoor Area OR Landscape Area
Required: 100sf yard area per unit/50%fy and full
side yard landscaping
Proposed: 98sf Units 1 through 3/ >50%fy and side
yard landscaping
Grading Tree Removal
Total: Not provided Total(No./Species): None
* Hillside building height is measured from natural grade to top of roof at any given point. Non-hillside building height
is measured from finished grade pursuant to the “UBC” method.
2
SUMMARY
The subject project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for conceptual-level review of
site and design improvements of a small, in-fill multi-family apartment project on a hillside lot. The
Board’s comments will assist the applicant prepare a formal submittal. The applicable design criteria
are identified and discussed in detail below.
The conceptual design appears to respond to site constraints and development intensity that
implements the zoning district. In general, the roof and building forms, decks, landscaping, building
locations, access and parking appear to respond to site conditions and constraints; with the exception
of building heights and step backs exceeded with gable ends facing the down slope side, substandard
parking backup dimensions and deficient private yard area requirements. Unit sizes and configuration
appear to provide livable dimensions that do not result in long, narrow rooms. Ceiling plate heights also
appear to provide fairly typical volume of eight-feet. The proposed varied color palettes also would add
interest and distinguish the individual units (the Colors and Materials board will be provided at the
meeting).
Staff recommends that the formal design could be improved with further architectural detailing provided,
building wall and roof plane articulation, architecturally compatible decking details and construction
design (i.e., consider cantilever decks, if possible, to eliminate posts), revised side yard landscape
setback to meet code minimum 5-feet, reduction of height to meet the hillside height limit of 30-feet and
20-foot wall plane heights for the downhill facing elevations, entry paving details, and common yard
areas meeting minimum requirements. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on
compliance with all pertinent design criteria, specifically considering the following points:
• Provide recommendations on solutions for meeting the minimum 100sf recreational area
requirement for each of the five dwelling units.
• That the building should be revised to meet the 30-foot height restriction (measured from natural
grade) and the building step back requirements, or
• Whether the City Council should consider grant of an Exception based on a Board recommendation
that the hillside exception findings required per San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC)
14.25.050.C.1&2/13.12.040A&B would be met; e.g., the project design alternatives would result in
greater protection of the hillside setting and compatibility with the hillside design guidelines.
• Whether reduced vehicle backup space should be supported (in order to provide larger landscaped
side yard setbacks), if recommended by the City Engineer.
• That the site plan must be modified to relocate parking maneuvering areas outside of the required
5-foot side yard setback
• Provide one guest parking space or obtain a parking modification.
• That the project must be revised to provide the 8-foot separation between buildings.
• Recommend project revisions to address the above Site Design, Architecture and/or Landscape
Design criteria, including the staff recommendations contained in this report; i.e., further information
on architectural detailing and lighting, further wall and roof articulation to meet step back and height
requirements, deck modifications to propose details that would screen decking and tie in with the
building architecture and eliminate posts and cables, provide entry paving and wall details, increase
the west side yard setback to 5-feet, partially bunker parking or lowered building height to meet 30-
foot height and step back requirements, and satisfy yard area and guest parking requirements.
• Any further revisions deemed appropriate to address the pertinent multi-family and hillside criteria.
3
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The site is a vacant, rectangular, hillside parcel that slopes upward from the street to the north and
west. The front of the property slopes more gradually, at approximately 13- to 18-percent, and rises
more steeply in the rear. Overall slope has been estimated to be 37-percent. The front boundary falls
about 20 feet from the edge of road pavement.
The properties uphill to the north and west are residentially developed. The parcel to the east is
developed as a multistory commercial office building. Setbacks to adjacent structures are over 40 feet
from the sides and 100 feet to the rear from the project building site. The site frontage faces south and
runs 72 feet along East Crescent Drive. East Crescent Drive intersects Fourth Street approximately 40
feet south of the nearest property line.
History:
In 1992, the City approved a five-unit residential development project for the site, which was not
pursued. In April 1994, the City approved a three-unit condominium proposal, which also expired in
1999. The most recent approval was granted in April 2001 for a three-unit apartment complex, which
was recommended by the Design Review Board and expired in April 2003. The three unit project
proposed a building in generally the same location as Units 1 through 3 of this project. During its prior
reviews of the project the Board required additional articulation and detailing along the east (rear)
building elevation, which is visible from Fourth Street, along with conditions to protect the existing
redwood tree on the adjacent property west of the site.
Traffic and density issues have historically been raised as neighborhood concerns. The originally
approved units were proposed along the west side property line. The subsequent approvals shifted the
building to the east side of the property, which provides better vehicular access. The location of the
site driveway was previously recommended by the City Engineer to provide adequate site visibility and
distance from the intersection of Fourth Street (“Miracle Mile”) and along East Crescent Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Dwelling Units and Building Details
The conceptual design proposes a three unit building containing two bedroom units in two levels over
individual garages, with two studio units in a detached building (including an accessible unit) and a
separate detached garage placed to the rear of the site. The design includes rear decks for the front
units, 10:12 roof pitch with roof dormers, horizontal belly-band separating the first and second story
levels, detailed rollup garage and front doors, window trim details, slate composition roof, stucco walls,
wood and box-wire deck railings, and four distinct color palettes consisting of medium body colors and
two distinct accents for each individual Units 1 through 3 and Unit 4/5 & Garage buildings. The project
also proposes four-feet between the separate residential buildings, and does not comply with an eight-
foot building separation requirement (though this appears to be intended for larger complexes). The
Colors and Materials samples will be provided at the hearing.
Site Improvements
The project includes a three to eight foot tall retaining wall along the west boundary and nine-feet
behind the carport, primarily retaining cuts made into the hillside slope. The wall along the west
boundary line would be within two-feet of the property line, with a five-foot bulb out provided for the
existing redwood tree. A 15-foot required front setback is proposed which would be in addition to the 20
feet of extra right of way (thus, 35 feet from pavement), with 10 and 15 foot side setbacks from the east
property line and in excess of 20 feet to the rear property line.
4
Parking Access and Design Deviations
The project appears to provide a driveway access with slope under 15-percent. A substandard vehicle
backup space of 24 feet is proposed, where 26 feet is standard pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code
Chapter 14.18. Alternative dimensions require approval of the City Engineer with acceptable
modifications made to allow for safe ingress and egress from required parking. In addition, the project
proposes maneuvering areas within the required setbacks which is prohibited by SRMC 14.18.200;
thus requires adjustment of the site plan to shift the building east by at least three feet (five feet if the
standard 26-foot backup space is to be provided).
ANALYSIS
Conceptual Design Review provides an opportunity for applicants to obtain informal advice and
guidance from the Design Review Board on project design issues, before submitting a formal
application. Formal review of a multifamily development would require major Environmental and Design
Review Permit review and approval by the Planning Commission with the Board’s recommendation.
Development on this site also requires review for compliance with the hillside design guidelines as the
site exceeds twenty-five percent slope. The following analysis is provided to assist the Board conduct a
preliminary review of the design.
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan 2020 high density residential land use
designation, and compatible with the surrounding medium density land use designation. The density
range for the site is 4 to 10 units (without grant of a density increase per the State Density Bonus law).
Analysis of conceptual review is limited to applicable design criteria, which are addressed through
review of the project conformance with the zoning standards and design criteria discussed below.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 14.04 – HR1.8 District Development Standards
The project is consistent with the density, height, lot coverage and setback standards of the district.
The front yard 50% landscape requirement would be satisfied. However, approximately 206 square feet
of additional outdoor area meeting the minimum six-foot dimensional standard would be required to
satisfy the district requirements; with three 98 square foot decks provided for Units 1 through 3 and 100
square feet of private or common indoor/outdoor yard area required per unit. Pursuant to the hillside
design guidelines, outdoor common areas should be consolidated and provide 12 foot minimum
dimensions. Staff asks the Board to provide its recommendations on this topic, as follows:
• Suggestions for satisfying recreational area requirements for each of the five residential units.
Chapter 14.12 – Hillside Overlay District
The multi-family project is subject to the Hillside Step back (SRMC 14.12.030.A) and maximum 30-foot
height limit measured from existing (natural) grade to top of building measured vertical from grade at
any point. The intent of the step back and height limit is to minimize unnecessary grading outside of the
building footprint and bunker development within hillside grade and follow site contours. It appears that
the concept would exceed the height limitation by as much as 9 feet. Thus, the building height and roof
forms would need to be adjusted to respect the height limit; or request approval of a Major Exception
from the Hillside Standards by the City Council (SRMC14.12.040). Further, the south and east facing
walls (i.e., down slope/east side setback) are subject to the building step back requirement and exceed
the 20-foot height limit established to avoiding creating excessive building bulk. Staff asks the Board to
provide comment on these design issues as follows:
• That the building should be revised to meet the 30-foot height restriction (measured from natural
grade) and the building step back requirements, or
5
• Whether the City Council should consider grant of an Exception based on a Board recommendation
that the hillside exception findings required per SRMC 14.25.050.C.1&2/13.12.040A&B would be
met; e.g., the project design alternatives would result in greater protection of the hillside setting and
compatibility with the hillside design guidelines.
Chapter 14.16 – Affordable Housing
Rental projects that fall within the allowable density range (i.e. not requesting a density bonus increase
or incentive) cannot be made subject to the municipal code affordable housing requirements (due to
legal protections afforded to rental housing projects).
Chapter 14.18 – Parking Standards
The project complies with the parking supply for three two-bed and two studio units, and parking space
dimension requirements are satisfied (Chart 14.18.040 and SRMC). As noted above, however, the
design concept does not comply with the minimum 26-foot backup space requirement and the
prohibition against locating maneuvering areas within setbacks (SRMC 14.18.130 & 14.18.200).
Further, SRMC 14.18.040 requires one guest parking space to be provided for multi-family projects for
each five dwelling units. Staff requests the Boards recommendation as follows:
• Whether reduced vehicle backup space should be supported (in order to provide larger landscaped
side yard setbacks), if recommended by the City Engineer.
• That the site plan must be modified to relocate parking maneuvering areas outside of the required
5-foot side yard setback.
• That the required one guest parking space be provided or a parking modification be pursued, if
recommended by the City Engineer.
Chapter 25 – Environmental and Design Review Permit
The following review criteria are pertinent to this project (partial, abridged criteria of Section 14.25.050),
and are applicable at the sole discretion of the recommending and reviewing bodies:
Site Design
¾ There should be a harmonious relationship between structures within the development and
between the structures and the site; and accordant to existing development in the vicinity.
¾ There must be a consistent organization of materials and balanced relationship of major elements.
¾ Respect site features and constraints by minimizing grading, erosion and removal of natural
vegetation. Sensitive areas should be respected.
¾ Provide good vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian circulation and access.
¾ Parking facilities should detract as little as possible from the design.
¾ Site design shall give due consideration to orientation to streets and climatic conditions.
¾ Give attention to proper and adequate site drainage.
¾ Utility connections shall be underground.
¾ Refuse collection areas shall be provided, with adequate ingress and egress for service vehicle
access and screening provided.
Architecture
¾ Architecture should harmoniously integrate in relation to architecture in the vicinity in terms of
colors, materials, scale and design.
¾ Provide sense of entry, variation in building articulation, equal attention to all facades, convenient
recreation areas, private yards oriented away from high noise sources and take advantage of view
and solar opportunities
¾ Materials and colors should be consistent with surrounding area, minimize contrast with
predominant colors and values of the surrounding environment, with high quality materials used.
¾ Use earth tone colors and materials in hillside areas.
6
¾ Materials that can be finished with or will develop an attractive natural patina are encouraged.
Bright, reflective colors or materials are discouraged.
¾ Identify site lighting which shall be appropriate in design and intensity for the project, and shielded
to prevent creating glare impacts offsite.
Landscape Design
¾ Maintain/enhance natural landscape features to the extent practicable.
¾ Outdoor areas should minimize noise impacts on neighbors.
¾ Landscaping shall be compliant with MMWD water efficiency requirements, per SRMC Chapter
14.18.
¾ Landscape the area between the front property line and right of way, and consider providing
appropriate street trees.
Staff asks the Boards input regarding the applicable design criteria, as follows:
• Any revisions deemed appropriate to address the above Site Design, Architecture and/or
Landscape Design criteria.
The Colors and Materials samples will be provided at the hearing.
San Rafael Design Guidelines:
The following criteria are deemed pertinent:
Building Design
¾ Attention should be given to maintain a consistent streetscape if an existing patter exists.
¾ Building facades should be varied and articulated, and pay attention to the street facades.
Scale
¾ Use techniques to break up the volume of large buildings into smaller components (i.e.,
architectural features, setbacks and varied rooflines), where necessary to replicate existing street
patterns.
¾ Use transitional elements such as stepped facades, etc to merge larger buildings into an existing
neighborhood.
Building Height
¾ Consider adjacent buildings as transitional elements to minimize apparent height differences.
Roof Shapes
¾ Relate roof forms to those found in the area, where possible.
¾ Screen and integrate equipment into building architecture.
¾ Minimize impact of roof vents.
Building Entrances
¾ Provide a well defined sense of entry to units.
¾ Entrances should orient to the street, where possible.
Windows
¾ Placement should be consistent with the overall design and neighborhood streetscape. Where not
possible, give greater attention to other elements to articulate the façade.
¾ Proportions should be consistent with building.
¾ Placement along rear and side elevations should consider privacy needs of neighbors.
7
Driveways and Parking Areas
¾ Minimize curb cuts and large paved areas.
¾ Recess or place parking in rear where possible.
¾ Distribute parking to provide easy access to units.
Front Landscaping and Fences
¾ Landscaping in front should contribute to the overall quality of the neighborhoods.
¾ Fences in front should be in character with the house.
¾ Landscape the areas adjacent to walkways.
Lighting
¾ Limit intensity to an amount needed for adequate security and safety.
¾ Shield light sources to prevent glare.
¾ Fixtures should complement the architecture.
Staff asks for the Boards input on the following:
• Revisions recommended responding to the above criteria.
Hillside Design Guidelines:
The following hillside design review criteria pertinent to multi-family project, at the discretion of the
recommending and reviewing bodies, are suggested for consideration:
¾ Preserve natural features to the extent feasible and minimize grading and drainage impacts.
¾ Articulate facades (through use of overhangs, step backs and projections) and rooflines to follow
slope contours, to avoid extended horizontal lines, large wall planes and to provide shadow and
articulation.
¾ Differentiate building floor elevations to achieve height variation.
¾ Group usable outdoor area and avoid large flat areas.
¾ Groups of buildings should be designed with visible differences in materials, colors, forms and
variation.
¾ Covered and “tuck under” parking are encouraged.
Staff asks for the Boards input on the following:
• Any project revisions recommended as appropriate to respond to the above criteria.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice was mailed to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the site, the West End
neighborhood association and posted on-site on July 1, 2013 (at least 15 days prior to the meeting).
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Board provide comments on the conceptual design, specifically the bulleted
items identified by staff in the Summary section above.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Full-sized plans (provided to the DRB members only)
