HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2013-09-04 #2CITY OF
Meeting Date: September 4, 2013
Case Numbers: AP13-002
Project Planner: Caron Parker (415) 485-3094
Community Development Department — Planning Division
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 118 Linden Lane — Appeal of the Zoning Administrator approval of an Environmental Design
Review Permit (ED13-024) and an Exception (EX13-002) to allow a 1,241 square foot lower
floor addition and a 1,462 square foot upper floor addition to the existing one-story single
family home. The existing carport structure would be re -designed as a two -car garage. An
Exception is requested to allow a portion of the new addition toward the rear of the house to
encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot side yard setback; APN: 015-061-15; Single Family
Residential (R10) District; Alfred and Michelle Partridge, owner/applicant; File No.: AP13-002.
PROPERTY FACTS
SUMMARY
On April 13, 2013, pursuant to Section 14.25.040.B.1.h of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC),
Alfred Partridge, property owner, submitted a Design Review Permit application for a 1,462 square foot
upper story addition to the single family residence, and an Exception request for a 2 foot encroachment
of the upper story addition into the required 10 foot side yard setback. The project also entailed a
Site Characteristics
Site Development Summar
General Plan Designation
Zoning Designation
Existing Land -Use
Lot Size
Lot Coverage
Required:
Proposed:
Project
Site:
Low Density Residential
(LDR)
Single Family
Residential (R10)
Single Family Residence
North:
Large Lot Residential
R10/R1a
Single
Family Residence
South:
LDR
R10
Single
Family Residence
East:
LDR
R10
Single
Family Residence
West:
LDR
R10
Single
Family Residence
SUMMARY
On April 13, 2013, pursuant to Section 14.25.040.B.1.h of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC),
Alfred Partridge, property owner, submitted a Design Review Permit application for a 1,462 square foot
upper story addition to the single family residence, and an Exception request for a 2 foot encroachment
of the upper story addition into the required 10 foot side yard setback. The project also entailed a
Site Development Summar
Lot Size
Lot Coverage
Required:
Proposed:
10,000 sf
12,057 sf(existing)
Allow/Req: 40%
Proposed: 31%
(4,822 sf)
3,729 sf
Height
Upper Floor Area
Allowed:
Proposed:
30'
20' 6 3/4" to 22' 1"
Allowed: 75% of maximum lot coverage (3,617 sf)
Proposed: 1,411 sf
Parking
Setbacks
Required:
Proposed:
2 covered spaces
2 covered spaces
Required
Front: 20 feet
Side: 10 feet
Rear: 10 feet
Proposed
Front: 20 feet
Side: 8 feet (east side)
Rear: 10 feet
SUMMARY
On April 13, 2013, pursuant to Section 14.25.040.B.1.h of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC),
Alfred Partridge, property owner, submitted a Design Review Permit application for a 1,462 square foot
upper story addition to the single family residence, and an Exception request for a 2 foot encroachment
of the upper story addition into the required 10 foot side yard setback. The project also entailed a
1,241 square foot ground floor addition, and converting the carport into a 2 -car garage. After a site
visit, staff met with the applicant and recommended design changes to the front elevation. The
applicant revised the plans and on June 26, 2013, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) held a hearing for the
proposed project. Present at the meeting were Michelle and Alfred Partridge, property owners and
project applicants. Neighborhood residents at the meeting included, Don Sugrue (123 Mountain View,
support), Dennis and Pam Joyce (120 Linden Lane, opposed), and Joan Emerson (125 Linden Lane,
opposed). Staff had received one letter of support for the proposed project from the adjacent property
owner at 110 Linden Lane. Staff had also received three e-mail's in opposition to the proposed project
from the property owner's at 120 Linden Lane, 121 Linden Lane, and 5 Lindview. In summary, the e-
mails expressed concerns that: 1) the project was too large for the lot size; 2) the project was out of
character with the neighborhood; 3) the project would impact on -street parking availability; and 4) lack
of information about possible tree removal. The ZA responded to all comments, closed the public
hearing and took action to conditionally approve the Design Review Permit and the Exception (see
Exhibit 3: Zoning Administrator approval minutes).
On June 29, 2013 (within the required 5 -day appeal period deadline), The City received a letter of
appeal, paid for by the adjacent property owners to the east (Nunzio Alioto, 110 Linden Lane) and west
(Pam and Dennis Joyce, 120 Linden Lane), and also signed by 21 other residents in the neighborhood
(see Exhibit 2: Appeal letter with attachments, including the list of all signatories). The main points of
the appeal were as follows:
➢ Appeal Point #1: The design of the project is incompatible and out of character with the
surrounding neighborhood
➢ Appeal Point #2: The resulting home, if approved, will result in a 5,200 square foot home on a
lot size of 12,057 square feet, creating a scale and mass that is inconsistent with every other
home in this historic neighborhood.
➢ Appeal Point #3: Also of concern is the 2 foot encroachment on the east side setback. While
we recognize that this encroachment already exists on the first floor, we question whether that
should carry through to the upper story
Staff has presented an analysis and response to all appeal points on Pages 5-7 of this staff report. In
summary, the Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed project met the findings required for
the Design Review Permit approval and the Exception request.
Please note that after the project was approved, the project architect, Tim Casey, informed staff that
there was an error in the site plan. The original project plans showed the proposed upper story
addition encroaching into the required 10 side yard setback. However, the plans have been revised
and there is no longer a setback encroachment. The upper story setback from the east side property
line will vary from 11 feet at the front of the house to 15 feet toward the rear of the house. As a result,
the proposed square footage for the upper story addition has been reduced from 1,462 square feet to
1,411 square feet (total = 51 square feet). The only part of the structure that encroaches into the side
yard setback area is the existing ground floor along the east side building wall. The proposed project
would increase the height of the wall by 4 feet. As such, an Exception request is still required for
proposed changes to the existing ground level portion of the structure because it increases the extent
of the non -conformity. Staff would still support the Exception request for the revised plan, as it is even
less of an impact to the adjacent property to the east. The project description that follows on Page 3 of
this report has been revised to reflect the changes in the plans.
Staff requests that the Board provide a recommendation on the appeal points, as they relate to the
project design with respect to:
1. Overall design of the upper story in terms of articulation and massing;
2
2. Compatibility of the proposed 2 -story home with other homes on Linden Lane;
3. Impact of the proposed 1-2 foot encroachment of the proposed ground floor.
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The subject property is a rectangular shaped parcel with a total lot area of 12,057 square feet located
on the north side of Linden Lane (see Exhibit 1: Project Vicinity Map). The subject property is not
considered a hillside parcel. The project site is currently improved with a 2,517 square foot single story,
single family residence with an attached carport, and a 222 square foot shed. Surrounding land uses
include residential development to the north, south, east, and west. A new 5,142 square foot (upper
and lower floors, including garage) two-story single family home is under construction across the street
(southeast corner) at 19 Mountain View. Also, the property at 120 Linden Lane (adjacent property to
the west of 118 Linden Lane and one of the project appellants) just received design review approval on
May 29, 2013 for a 123 square foot upper story addition to the front portion of their 2 -story home.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed Addition
The project proposes the construction of a 1,241 square foot ground floor addition to the existing 2,517
square foot one story home, a 1,411 square foot upper -story addition, and replacing the carport with a
2 -car garage (see Exhibit 4: Project Site Plan). The existing one-story home (2,517 square feet) would
increase to a footprint of 3,507 with the addition of the lower floor area (includes demolition of 251
square feet). The total square footage for the new house (upper and lower floor, including garage)
would be 4,918 square feet. The existing 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom house would be remodeled into a 5
bedroom, 51/2 bathroom house. The existing ground floor building wall on the east side of the property
would be increased by 4 feet in height. The finished height of the house would be approximately 21
feet to the roof midpoint. The existing 222 square foot storage shed at the rear of the lot would remain.
Architecture
The proposed project would be designed similar to an English country style home, with a stucco finish,
colored aluminum clad windows, copper gutters and downspouts and composite shingle roofing. The
main color of the house will be repainted to a dark tan color, Benjamin Moore "Farm Fresh" (AF360),
with Martha Stewart "Molasses" (MSL245) trim, and windows trimmed in "Linen White." The front door
would be painted a deep red color (Martha Stewart "Ceiling Wax" MSL 022). A Color and Material
Board sheet will be included for presentation at the hearing
Landscaping
No landscape plan has been submitted. The existing lawn, Redwood Tree and Maple tree are
proposed to remain.
Lighting: The proposed wall mounted fixtures are shown on the front elevation plan (Sheet A-3.1).
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency and Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
The General Plan Land Use designation is Low Density Residential (LDR) and the Zoning designation
for the project site is R10 (Single Family Residential). The Zoning Administrator (ZA) approved the
Design Review Permit and the Exception, based on Findings of consistency with both the General Plan
2020 and the Zoning Ordinance. Detailed Findings per Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.090 are
discussed in the Zoning Administrator minutes attached as Exhibit 3, Pages 5-10). In summary, the ZA
found the proposed project to be consistent with following General Plan policies: Land Use Policy LU -
3
12 (Building Heights), Housing Policy H-3 (Designs That Fit Into The Neighborhood), Neighborhoods
Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods), and Community Design Policy CD -13
(Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines). Further, the ZA determined that the proposed project
was consistent with the property development standards for the Single Family Residential (R10) Zoning
District regarding setbacks (except for the side yard setback encroachment requiring approval of an
Exception), maximum allowable building heights, maximum allowable upper story additions, and lot
coverage as detailed in Table 1.1 below:
Table 1.1 - R10 — Single Family Residential District Development Standards
In terms of the Exception request, the ZA determined that the findings to grant the Exception had been
met (see Exhibit 3, pages 9-10), considering the Exception request was small (between 1-2 feet into
the 10 foot setback) and the project had the support of the adjacent property owner at 110 Linden
Lane.
During the Zoning Administrator (ZA) review process, planning staff received several comments on the
proposed project. There was one letter of support for the proposed project (110 Mountain View,
adjacent property to the east), and one person in attendance at the ZA hearing in support of the project
(123 Mountain View, adjacent neighbor to the rear). There were a total of 4 neighbors in opposition to
the project - 120 Linden Lane (2 -story and adjacent property owners to the west), 121 Linden Lane (2 -
story), 125 Linden Lane (2 -story), and 5 Lindview (2 -story). The ZA responded to concerns expressed
during public testimony at the hearing (see Exhibit 3, Pages 3-4). Staff also responded directly via e-
mail to several residents after the project was approved, reiterating that the project was consistent with
the R10 development standards with respect to lot coverage, required parking, building height,
required 20 foot front setback and 10 foot rear yard setback. Staff also explained via e-mail that the
project met the findings to grant the 2 foot Exception into the required 10 foot side yard on the east
side of the property. This was based on the fact that the encroachment was considered to be minor,
as it ranged from 1-2 feet along approximately 19 -feet of the side yard, and was following the existing
ground floor encroachment.
""Lot coverage" means that portion of the lot covered by buildings, including stairways; covered walkways; covered patios; covered parking
structures; covered decks or tuncovered decks over thirty inches (30") in height; recreational and storage structures; and excluding grotund
level landscaped areas, walkways, uncovered patios and decks thirty inches (30") or less in height, uncovered recreational areas, and
tulcovered parking and driveway areas
Q
R10
EXISTING/PROPOSED
ITEM
REQUIREMENTS
CONDITION
Lot Area
10,000 sq. ft.
12,057 sq. ft
Lot Width
75 feet
no change
Front Setback
20 feet
no change
10 feet (west side)
Side Setback
10 feet
8-10 feet east side
Rear Setback
10 feet
10 feet/no change
Maximum Height of
30 feet
Maximum 22 feet, 1 inch (to
Structure
roof mid oint
Maximum Lot Coverage
40% 4,822 sq. ft.
31% 3,729 sq. ft.
Maximum Upper Story Floor
75% of maximum
lot coverage (3,617
1,411 sq. ft.
Size
sq. ft.
In terms of the Exception request, the ZA determined that the findings to grant the Exception had been
met (see Exhibit 3, pages 9-10), considering the Exception request was small (between 1-2 feet into
the 10 foot setback) and the project had the support of the adjacent property owner at 110 Linden
Lane.
During the Zoning Administrator (ZA) review process, planning staff received several comments on the
proposed project. There was one letter of support for the proposed project (110 Mountain View,
adjacent property to the east), and one person in attendance at the ZA hearing in support of the project
(123 Mountain View, adjacent neighbor to the rear). There were a total of 4 neighbors in opposition to
the project - 120 Linden Lane (2 -story and adjacent property owners to the west), 121 Linden Lane (2 -
story), 125 Linden Lane (2 -story), and 5 Lindview (2 -story). The ZA responded to concerns expressed
during public testimony at the hearing (see Exhibit 3, Pages 3-4). Staff also responded directly via e-
mail to several residents after the project was approved, reiterating that the project was consistent with
the R10 development standards with respect to lot coverage, required parking, building height,
required 20 foot front setback and 10 foot rear yard setback. Staff also explained via e-mail that the
project met the findings to grant the 2 foot Exception into the required 10 foot side yard on the east
side of the property. This was based on the fact that the encroachment was considered to be minor,
as it ranged from 1-2 feet along approximately 19 -feet of the side yard, and was following the existing
ground floor encroachment.
""Lot coverage" means that portion of the lot covered by buildings, including stairways; covered walkways; covered patios; covered parking
structures; covered decks or tuncovered decks over thirty inches (30") in height; recreational and storage structures; and excluding grotund
level landscaped areas, walkways, uncovered patios and decks thirty inches (30") or less in height, uncovered recreational areas, and
tulcovered parking and driveway areas
Q
Appeal of Zoning Administrator Use Permit approval on June 26, 2013
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator action was filed by Pam and Dennis Joyce and Nunzio Alioto
and also signed by 21 other residents in the neighborhood. The appeal letter (Exhibit 2) cites three (3)
appeal points. The appeal points are quoted directly (or paraphrased as best as possible by staff)
below. Each appeal point is followed by staff's response:
Appeal Point #1: The design of the project is incompatible and out of character with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Response: The proposed development and it's compatibility with the neighborhood is
addressed in the Zoning Administrator Findings (see Exhibit 3, Pages 6 and 7). Specifically, the
Zoning Administrator determined that the project would not be incompatible or out of character with
the existing homes along Linden Lane in that: 1) a majority of the homes along Linden Lane (8 out
of 11 homes) are 2 -story homes, and only 3 homes are 1 -story homes; 2) the proposed 2 -story
home at 118 Linden Lane is located between two existing 2 -story homes, 3) the proposed project is
located on a portion of the block that is predominantly 2 -story homes (see Exhibit 5); and 4) the
proposed house would be set back approximately 31 feet from the paved right-of-way and therefore
would not create new bulk and mass close to the street. It is clear that the predominant character
of the block along Linden Lane is not one-story, but a mix of two-story homes with a variety of
architectural styles and materials. In addition, while there are one-story homes on the block, the
project site is located between two homes that are both two-story, and closest to the end of the
block with larger homes. As such, the proposed project would not be out of character with the
existing neighborhood character. Further, 2 -story development is allowed and anticipated in the
R10 District Development Standards.
Appeal Point #2: The resulting home, if approved, will result in a 5,200 square foot home on
a lot size of 12,057 square feet, creating a scale and mass that is inconsistent with every
other home in this historic neighborhood.
Staff Response: The project as approved by the Zoning Administrator proposed a total of 5,191
square feet of gross building square footage on the project site. This included the residence
(including garage) and an existing 222 square foot accessory structure. However, development
standards for building size on non -hillside lots is based on lot coverage and building height, not
gross building square footage (combined square footage of upper and lower stories). Pursuant to
the R10 development standards in Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.030, the maximum lot
coverage allowed would be 40% of the lot size (see definition of "lot coverage" in footnote on page
4 of this report). The lot size at 118 Linden Lane is 12,057 square feet, with a maximum allowable
lot coverage of 4,822 square feet. The proposed lot coverage for the project site would be 3,729
square feet or 31%. This "lot coverage" area includes the building footprint of the new remodeled
residence (including garage) and the existing 222 square foot accessory structure at the rear of the
property, and is well below the maximum 40% allowed. By definition, lot coverage does not include
the proposed 1,411 square foot upper story addition, but only includes the lower story building
footprint. The proposed building height, as measured to the roof midpoint would be a maximum of
21 feet. Well below the 30 foot maximum allowed. Further, the 2nd story is proposed at 1,411
square feet, where up to 3,617 square feet would be allowed per the R10 development standard for
maximum allowable upper story addition based on the lot size for the subject property.
As part of the appeal letter, Exhibit 1 presented a list of the gross building square footages for
homes along Linden Lane. However, gross building square footage is only evaluated when
reviewing hillside development. The project site is a non -hillside lot and therefore the Zoning
Administrator review and analysis is focused on lot coverage, building heights and building
setbacks, and architectural design and compatibility. Gross building square footage is not part of
the required analysis for the proposed project.
5
The Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed project was in keeping with all application
design criteria for upper story additions, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.050.6, in that:
1) the proposed addition and remodel would create a completely new front fagade and that the
proposed fagade does have design consistency in the elevations proposed; 2) the design is
compatible with the "prevailing design" on both sides of the street for the length of the block
(pursuant to Section 14.25.050.6.f), in that there is a mix of architectural styles and materials on the
street, including shingle, siding, stucco and brick; and 3) the proposed three new upper story
windows on the north, south, and west sides of the house would not create any privacy impacts in
that: a) the location of the new second -story window (a bathroom window) on the west elevation
would not look directly into any windows at 120 Linden Lane; and b) west side property line is
heavily screened with vegetation, creating a visual barrier to minimize privacy impacts. There are
no new windows proposed along the east side of the property. No privacy issues were raised by
the adjacent property owner to the east (110 Linden Lane) at the time of the ZA hearing.
With respect to historic resources, the subject property at 118 Linden Lane is not listed in the 1986
San Rafael Historic/Architectural Survey Final Inventory List of Structures and Areas. The project
site is located in the "Dominican" boundary area described in the 1986 survey as an
"historic/architectural survey area" but there has been no formal designation of the vicinity as a
"historic neighborhood." The adjacent property at 110 Linden Lane is listed on the 1986 survey and
evaluated as an "excellent" example of a shingle style house with the influence of Bernard
Maybeck. During the ZA review and hearing, no concerns were expressed about historic
resources. Further, the property owners at 110 Linden Lane submitted a letter of support for the
project and expressed no concern at the time of the ZA hearing about the impact the proposed
design of the project may have on the potential historic value of their home. Based on the proposed
project design, staff determined that their would be no significant impact on historic resources
because: 1) the existing homes on Linden Lane are a mix of building materials and architectural
styles and the proposed design would be in keeping with the existing character of the street; and 2)
the proposed multiple gable roof forms will integrate well with the existing multiple gable roof forms
used in the home at 110 Linden Lane, improving on the existing ranch style home. Please note
that 201 Linden Lane, 202 Linden Lane and 262 Linden Lane are also listed on the 1986 survey,
but these homes are not visually proximate to 118 Linden Lane and therefore the proposed
development would have no impact on the potential historic resource.
Appeal Point #3: Also of concern is the 2 foot encroachment on the east side setback.
While we recognize that this encroachment already exists on the first floor, we question
whether that should carry through to the upper story.
Staff Response: In terms of the side yard encroachment, the original plans showed a 1-2 foot
encroachment of the upper and lower story along the east side of the property into the required 10
foot side yard setback. The Zoning Administrator Findings for the Exception approval are in Exhibit
3, Pages 9-10). In summary, the ZA determined that the Exception request could be supported
because: 1) the existing house already encroaches 2 feet into the side yard and the proposed
addition would not increase this encroachment, but merely create an upper story above the existing
building footprint; 2) the side yard setback encroachment is only 2 feet, which is less than the
allowable 5 foot encroachment allowed by Zoning Ordinance Section 14.24.0208; 3) the proposed
project will allow a side yard setback encroachment that is in character with the immediate
surrounding neighborhood, as many of the existing homes are also encroaching into a portion of
the side yard setback area; 4) the area of side yard encroachments are not essential open space
or recreational amenities to the existing single-family residential property on the adjacent lot at 110
Linden Lane; and 5) the adjacent property at 110 Linden Lane submitted a letter of support for the
project.
A
After the hearing, the property owners at 110 Linden Lane indicated that they were concerned
about the 2 foot encroachment and the size of the addition, and ultimately signed on as one of the
multiple appellants to the project. No concerns about the setback issue were expressed in
response to the public notice .mailed out prior to the ZA hearing or at the ZA hearing on June 26,
2013. As a result, staff had no indication that there was a concern about the 1-2 foot encroachment
until after the project was approved.
After the project was appealed, the architect contacted staff and indicated that there was an error
on the site plan and that the upper story addition would not encroach into the required 10 foot side
yard setback. In fact, the upper story addition would be setback between 11 feet to 15 feet from
the east side property line. Even though the upper story is not in the setback, the existing home
already encroaches 1-2 feet into the setback along the east side property line. This existing
setback encroachment would be increased because the building wall would increase in height by
about 4 feet as part of the remodel. As such, the project would still require approval of an
Exception. Staff can still support findings to grant the Exception request because the scope of the
request is greatly diminished and the impact of the upper story addition is greatly minimized as it is
farther away from the adjacent property line.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
In terms of comments received at the time of the Zoning Administrator's review and hearing, staff
communicated directly with the property owners of the 2 -story home at 120 Linden Lane and also
conducted a site visit to their property. At that time, their concerns were focused on loss of view and
privacy, and whether the City could require that landscaping be planted along the east side yard. Staff
indicated that views are not protected and the projected shadow impacts were not significant given the
location of the addition, the existing trees along the property line providing screening and the overall
size of the recreational space in the rear yard. Comments from other residents were received either
the day before the ZA hearing or the afternoon/day after the hearing. All expressed the same concern
about the proposed size of the house and compatibility with the neighborhood.
Notice of this Zoning Administrator appeal to the Planning Commission (with Design Review Board
review) has been conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Notice of the public hearing for the project was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the site, the appropriate neighborhood group (Dominican/Black
Canyon NA), and all interested parties (including those in attendance at the Zoning Administrator
hearing) at least 15 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing.
Staff has received several comment letters in response to the upcoming appeal hearing (see Exhibit 6).
Out of the 10 comment letters received, 8 were from residents who were also signatories to the appeal
letter and were reiterating their concerns expressed in the appeal letter, and one was a new letter of
opposition from a resident at 1 Lindview, who expressed the same concerns about the size of the
house, incompatibility with the neighborhood and concerns about the impact of the 2 foot setback
encroachment. Staff received one letter of support for Alfred Partridge (applicant and property owner),
applauding the quality of his work and professionalism as a contractor (Exhibit 6-8). Also included is a
letter from the property owner, Michelle Partridge (Exhibit 6-3), responding to a comment letter from
Kat Crawford (Exhibit 6-2). Staff responded to all e-mails and reiterated the findings made by the
Zoning Administrator and explained that the ZA approval was subject to a 5 -day appeal period.
Staff also forwarded a copy of the Zoning Administrator approval minutes to all commenters.
Many of the comments requested that story poles be installed on site prior to the DRB hearing. Staff
responded by explaining that story poles are not required at this project site. Pursuant to Zoning
Ordinance Section 14.25.030.C.11, "story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) may
be required if needed to evaluate project impacts." The Zoning Administrator's decision was based on
7
site visits to the project site and project analysis. The project is well under the 30 foot height limit
allowed and except for the minor encroachment into the east side yard (which is essentially an existing
condition), the approved project met all R10 development standards. As such, staff determined that
story poles would not be necessary in order to evaluate the impacts of the project.
CONCLUSION
In reviewing the proposed project at 118 Linden Lane, the ZA took into account the proposed building
footprint, whether the proposed additions would encroach into any required setbacks, the proposed
height of the structure, whether the upper story addition would be within the maximum size allowed,
and general design standards. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the proposed project and found it to
be consistent with the R10 development standards, the Chapter 25 design standards, and made the
findings necessary to also approve the Exception request for the 2 foot encroachment into the required
side yard.
Staff requests that the Board provide comment on whether the points of the appeal as raised by the
appellant are valid with respect to:
1. Overall design of the upper story in terms of articulation and massing;
2. Compatibility of the proposed 2 -story home with other homes on Linden Lane;
3. Impact of the proposed 1-2 foot encroachment of the proposed ground floor.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Appeal letter
3. Zoning Administrator approval minutes, June 26, 2013
4. Project site plan
5. Aerial map depicting location of 2 -story homes on Linden Lane
6. Comment letters
Full-sized plans, 1I" x 17" plans provided to the DRB members only.
cc: Tim Casey, architect, 21115 Scottsdale Drive, Bend Oregon, 97701
Appellants:
Nunzio Alioto, 110 Linden Lane, San Rafael, CA 94901
Pam Joyce, 120 Linden Lane
Gordon Walker, 121 Linden Lane
Penn Mullin, 124 Linden Lane
Joan Emerson, 125 Linden Lane
Paul Davidson, 134 Linden Lane
Nigel Quinn, 138 Linden Lane
Carla Quint, 145 Linden Lane
Katherine Crawford, 201 Linden Lane
Ann Pardi, 202 Linden Lane
Michael Hernandez, 209 Linden Lane
Alrene Flynn, 238 Linden Lane
Violet Hughes, 240 Linden Lane
Mari Johnson, 243 Linden Lane
Paula Doubleday, 246 Linen Lane
Stanley Pasarell, 5 Lindview
Diana Bokaie, 30 Mountain View
9
Craig Wolfe, 28 Mountain View
Katie Reuhen, 20 Mountain View
Mardi Grimm, 16 Mountain View
Lindy Emrich, 14 Mountain View
Marie Marino, 7 Mountain View
Bev Schneir, 11 Meridian Lane
9
. 3t s`�'
Q'lijj's
�' mss / � �+ � �.:•� h \.�
gas},Y
' fl4 ,
r
1
107
AP l3 -0o L.
June 29, 2013
Ms. Caron Parker
Associate Planner
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Appeal of approval of proposed addition to 118 Linden Lane
Dear Caron:
The undersigned are appealing the Zoning Administrator decision to approve the proposed addition to
118 Linden Lane on the grounds that the design of the project will be incompatible and out of character
with the surrounding neighborhood. The resulting home, if approved, will result in a 5,200 square foot
home on a lot size of 12,057 square feet, creating a scale and mass that is inconsistent with every other
home in this historic neighborhood. This project as currently planned will create a new and undesirable
precedent for the development of homes in the Linden Lane neighborhood that are out of proportion to
their lot size. Please refer to the attached document (Exhibit 1) for perspective, which provides total
home square footage relative to lot size. Currently, all homes of 4,000 square feet or greater are built
on lots of 16,720 square feet or more on Linden Lane and lower Mountain View Avenue. As a
neighborhood of concerned residents, the vast majority of whom have lived here for 15 years or more,
we ask that the Planning Commission re-evaluate the project to scale it down to a sensible mass.
In addition, regardless of outcome we would like to request the placement of story poles on site so that
we can all gain a clearer sense of the impact of the project on the neighborhood. Also of concern is the
Impact of the 2 foot encroachment on the east side setback. While we recognize that this
encroachment already exists on the first floor, we question whether that should carry through to the
upper story.
Caron, to reiterate, we are concerned that this project will set precedent for the arrival of over -scaled
homes in our traditional and historical neighborhood and is not in keeping with the character and feel
we long-term residents want to preserve. As frame of reference, this home will be 1,000 sq fl larger
than the significant home currently being built on a double lot at the corner of Mtn. View and Linden.
We believe this is an important matter for the Planning Commission to consider as we work together to
preserve the integrity of the neighborhood we love.
Kind Regards,
Residents of Linden Lane & other nearby homeowners (see signatures on following pages)
RECEIVED
JUL b 5 2013
PLANNING
Exhibit 2
0 paRmres
Addmss
30
Linden Lane
Owner
110
Nunzio & Joanne Alioto
120
Dennis 9,, Pam Joyce
121
Gordon 8c Marie Walker
124
Penn Mullin e_ George Fuller icon
125
Joan Emerson
134
Paul Ursula Davidson
138
Nigel Quinn
145
Carla & Matt Quint
201
Katherinp Crawford
202
Ann & Henry Pardi
209
Michael & Holly Hernandez
238
Alrene Flynn
240
Violet & Michael Hughes
243
Mari Johnson
246
Paula Doubleday
Lindview
5 Stanley �A Georgene Pasarell
Mountain View
30
Diana Bol<aie
20.
Craig Wolfe
20
Katie Reuhen
16
Mardi Grimm
14
Lindy P: Peter Emrich.
7
Marie & Frank Marino
Meridian Lane
11 Bev $( Harold Schneir
Exhibit 2
Address
o m e (sq R)
C! of size (SBS ffl
% HO1-tie tO L®g SizO
Linden Lane
110
6360
16720
38%
ala
5200
12370
42% proposed at 118 Linden
120
3650
10950
33%
121
1560
7800
20%
124
2915
12000
24%
125
1315
7280
18%
130
1880
12000
16
134
2540
1.2160
21%
138
1700
9280
18%
145
2890
13503
21%
202
4670
29830
16%
209
3190
18814
17%
213
3340
18660
18%
238
2750
12000
23%
239
1.423
8160
17%
240
2000
7700
26%
243
1890
7035
27%
246
1670
22860
7%
250
1300
7770
17%
260
2920
8640
34%
262
4100
27310
15%
275
3190
8800
36%
216
1650
600D
28%
280
1800
9300
19%
1-'Ivevage, Cbr
2-3%
Mountain View
19447 5 20000 22% r,ew constrL,ctio;,, at curncr
of Linden Lane & Mtn View
Exhibit 2
Addendum to June 29 Letter Opposing Planned Addition to 118 Linden Lane
To: Ms. Caron Parker
Associate Planner
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Additional Concerns:
Duration of project— please note that the retaining wall in front of 118 linden Lane as pictured below
had been cinder block and rebar for nearly 5 years. It was not until the last month that stone has
started to be placed on the facing wall. We are concerned that if a smaller project like this can't be
completed on a timely basis than that does not bode well for a larger project.
*See Zoning Administrator report for full overview of neighborhood concerns
i
3. ! .. _ � {� x�- � std•- , ., f �� k Ff
Exhibit 2
REGULAR MEETING
CITE' OF SAN RAFAEL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
June 26, 2013
1. 118 Linden Lane- Request for an Environmental and Design Review
Permit and side yard Exception to allow construction of a 1,462 square
foot upper story addition and a 1,241 square foot ground level addition to
the existing 2,517 square foot one-story home. The project also proposes
to convert the existing carport on the west side of the house to a 2 -car
garage. An Exception to the required 10 foot side yard setback is required
to allow a portion of the rear of the upper story addition to encroach 2 feet
into the side yard setback area; APN: 015-061-15; Single Family (R10)
Zoning District; Alfred and Michelle Partridge, owners/applicant; File
No.: ED13-024/EX13-002.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a rectangular shaped parcel (wider at the rear) with a total lot area
of 12,057 square feet located on the north side of Linden Lane. The subject property is
not considered a hillside parcel. The project site is currently improved with a 2,517
square foot single story, single family with attached carport, and a 228 square foot shed.
Surrounding land uses include residential development to the north, south, east, and west.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Required Entitlement
Pursuant to Section 14.25.040.B.1.h of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC),
submittal and approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit is required for
construction of a second -story addition to an existing single-family residence. The
applicant is requesting approval of ED13-024 to allow the construction of a total of 1,462
square feet of upper story space. In addition, the proposed project would require an
Exception from the side yard development standard pursuant to Section 14.24.020B to
allow a 2 foot encroachment into the required 10 foot side yard in the R10 Zoning
District.
Proposed Addition
The project proposes the construction of a 1,241 square foot addition to the ground floor
level of the existing home, a 1,462 square foot upper -story addition, and replacing the
carport with a 2 -car garage. The existing one-story home is 2,517 square feet and would
increase to a footprint of 3,758 with the addition of the lower floor area. The total square
footage for the new house (upper and lower floor) would be 5,191 square feet. The upper
floor addition would reduce the required 10 foot side yard setback to 8 feet along an
existing portion (approximately 19 feet) of the rear of the house on the east side, already
Exhibk 3
118 Linden Lane
Re: ED 13-024/EX 13-002
Date: June 26, 2013
encroaching 2 feet into the side yard setback. The proposed addition would create two
new bedrooms on the upper floor and three bedrooms on the lower floor, with a total of
51/2 bathrooms. The finished height of the house would be 29 feet, 3 inches at the
highest peak. Note that building height on no -hillside properties is measured to the roof
midpoint not the roof peak (based on exterior finished grade). This would bring the
height closer to approximately 24 feet. The existing 228 square foot storage shed at the
rear of the lot would remain.
Architecture
The proposed project would be designed with a stucco finish, colored aluminum clad
windows, copper gutters and downspouts and composite shingle roofing. The main color
of the house will be repainted to a dark tan color, Benjamin Moore "Farm Fresh"
(AF360), with Martha Stewart "Molasses" (MSL245) trim, and windows trimmed in
"Linen White." The front door would be painted a deep red color (Martha Stewart
"Ceiling Wax" MSL 022).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental review
is required to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Staff has
determined that this project is exempt per Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section
15301 Existing Facilities Class 1 whereas the proposed project: 1) would not result in an
increase of more than 10,000 sq. ft.; 2) has been reviewed by appropriate City
departments and non -City agencies who have determined that adequate utility services
exist to meet any increase in demand; and, 3) is located in a mature, fully -developed
subdivision where no listed species (threatened or endangered) have been identified (See
Exhibit 38 of the San Rafael General Plan 2020).
PUBLIC HEARING
The Zoning Administrator meeting began at 10:00 A.M. Present at the meeting were
Michelle and Alfred Partridge, property owners and project applicant. Neighborhood
residents at the meeting included, Don Sugrue (123 Mountain View), Dennis and Pam
Joyce (120 Linden Lane), and Joan Emerson (125 Linden Lane). Staff present at the
meeting was Caron Parker, Associate Planner, acting as the Zoning Administrator (ZA).
Ms. Parker explained the zoning administrator review process, and the reason why the
project required design review and an Exception. Ms. Parker also distributed the draft ZA
minutes and conditions of project approval and discussed the reason why the Zoning
Administrator was generally in support of the project, subject to exploring concerns that
may be expressed as part of the public hearing process. The ZA stated for the record that
there were several comments received in response to the public notice mailed on June 7,
2013 to property owners and occupants within a 300' radius of the subject property. The
ZA then opened the public hearing. The majority of concerns expressed were about the
size of the proposed house, compatibility with the existing neighborhood character,
2 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13
118 Linden Lane
Re: ED 13-024/EX 13-002
Date: June 26, 2013
parking issues, landscaping, and length of construction time. One resident (Marie
Coleman, 121 Linden Lane) did not attend the hearing but submitted a letter expressing
concerns about building height, an existing retaining wall, landscaping, construction
timing, and potential noise related to any mechanical outlets. Other comments in the
letter not related to Planning and were discussed through e-mail. Many of Ms.
Coleman's comments were also expressed by residents in attendance at the hearing. A
summary of the ZA responses to comments during the public hearing are listed below:
1. Size of proposed house: Neighbors were concerned that the house was too big.
The proposed two-story house meets the 40% lot coverage requirement and is
within the required height limit. While the proposed project is larger than the
existing ranch style home, it meets all property development standards (except for
the minor side yard exception) and is in keeping with the adjacent two-story
homes at 120 Linden Lane and 110 Linden Lane.
2. Existing neighborhood character: The existing neighborhood character along
Linden lane is a mixture of two-story and one-story homes, predominantly two-
story. The proposed project is in keeping with this variety. See Findings Item lb
on page 5 of this report.
3. Parking: The proposed project would replace the existing carport with a 2 -car
garage and meets the zoning ordinance requirement for two covered parking
spaces for a single family home. There is no requirement that the parking be
increased based on the number of bedrooms proposed. The size of the proposed
home or the number of bedrooms has no definitive correlation with on -street
parking impacts and the zoning ordinance does not require parking beyond the 2
spaces required. Impact to on -street parking from Dominican University is not
something that can be addressed as part of this design review process.
Construction traffic is temporary and also not addressed, though typical parking
violations would be handled by calling the San Rafael Police Department. The
ZA suggested that neighbors present information to the City's Traffic
Coordinating Committee (via Department of Public Works) to discuss on -street
parking concerns.
4. Landscaping: No new landscaping is proposed for the site. The existing front
lawn will remain, along with the existing Redwood tree and Maple tree. The
existing Plum tree would be removed. The existing tall hedge along the driveway
on the west side of the property will have to be reduced in height in order to
ensure safe vehicular back-up distance. The Zoning Ordinance limits both fence
height and vegetation height to no more than 3 feet within the front setback area,
which is a 20 foot setback for the project site.
5. Construction timing: The design review permit process does not dictate
construction timing. This would be handled through the Building Department as
part of the building permit process.
3 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13
118 Linden Lane
Re: ED13-024/EX13-002
Date: June 26, 2013
6. Mechanical equipment: The roof plans shows typical venting for a single family
home. There is no noise associated with this type of venting. There is a condition
of approval (Condition #8) added to cover review of any mechanical equipment
that was not shown on the design review plans. The Zoning Ordinance (Section
14.16.320) has a stipulation that any pumps or filtration systems (this includes air
conditioning equipment) must be set back 5 feet from the property line, and any
equipment within 15 feet of a bedroom window on an adjacent lot must be
designed with a 3 -sided enclosure with baffles to screen the equipment and reduce
noise.
7. Retaining wall: The existing retaining wall was approved by the Building
Department. Due to the grade of the property, the Building Department will most
likely require some kind of safety railing. As a condition of project approval, the
applicant will be required to submit plans (elevation) for the railing design and
dimensions to the Planning Department for administrative review and approval,
prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing at 11:30 PM.
The Zoning Administrator has reviewed the application and found it (as conditioned) to
be in substantial conformance with the City of San Rafael's Municipal Code property
development standards for the R10 Zoning District, all applicable policies of the San
Rafael General Plan 2020, and the design review criteria for Environmental and Design
Review Permits based on Staff's project review, site inspections, and on the review and
recommendation for approval by appropriate City departments and non -City agencies.
The Zoning Administrator stated that a copy of the meeting minutes, which incorporate
the findings and the conditions of approval, would be mailed to the applicant/property
owner, all parties in attendance at the ZA hearing, and all parties who submitted
comments. In addition, the ZA minutes will be available to the public for review at the
Planning Division counter upon request. In addition, the Zoning Administrator stated
that a project of this nature has an appeal period of five (5) working days upon the
approval or denial of the project.
ACTION TAKEN
The Zoning Administrator, at the meeting of June 26, 2013, granted approval of
Environmental and Design Review Permit ED13-024 and Exception EX13-002 subject to
conditions of approval. The decision shall be final at 5:00 P.M. on Friday, July 5, 2013
provided no appeals are filed with the City of San Rafael Planning Division by that date.
4 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13
118 Linden Lane
Re: ED 13 -024/EX 13 -002
Date: June 26, 2013
FINDINGS
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED13-024):
1. The design of the proposed project, as conditioned below, is in accordance with the
San Rafael General Plan 2020, and is consistent with specific policies of the San
Rafael General Plan 2020, including, but not limited to, Land Use Policy LU -12
(Building Heights), Housing Policy H-3 (Designs That Fit Into The
Neighborhood), Neighborhoods Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential
Neighborhoods), and Community Design Policy CD -13 (Single -Family
Residential Design Guidelines); in that:
a) The project, as proposed, will be consistent with the property development
standards of the Single Family Residential (R10) Zoning District regarding
front and rear yard setbacks, maximum allowable building height as
determined by the methods in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code
adopted by the City, 40% maximum allowable lot coverage, 75% maximum
allowable upper story floor size for parcels larger than 5,000 sq. ft., gross
building square footage. See Table 1.1 below:
Table 1.1 - R10 — Single Family Residential District Development Standards
The 30 foot height limit is based on exterior finished grade and on non -hillside properties is allowed to be measured to the roof
midpoint (not the roof peak).
z"Lot coverage" means that portion of the lot covered by buildings, including stairways; covered walkways; covered patios; covered
parking structures; covered decks or uncovered decks over thirty inches (30") in height; recreational and storage structures; and
excluding ground level landscaped areas, walkways, uncovered patios and decks thirty inches (30") or less in height, uncovered
recreational areas, and uncovered packing and driveway areas
SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13
R10
EXISTING/PROPOSED
ITEM
REQUIREMENTS
CONDITION
Lot Area
10,000 sq. ft.
12,057 sq. ft
Lot Width
75 feet
no change
Front Setback
20 feet
no change
Side Setback
10 feet
10 feet (west side)
8-10 feet (east side)
Rear Setback
10 feet
10 feet/no change
Maximum Height of
30 feet
29' 3" feet to roof peak'
Structure
Maximum Lot Coverage
40% (4,822 sq. ft.)
31% (3,737 sq. ft.)
Maximum Upper Story Floor
75% of maximum
Size
lot coverage (3,617
1,462 sq. ft.
sq. ft.)
The 30 foot height limit is based on exterior finished grade and on non -hillside properties is allowed to be measured to the roof
midpoint (not the roof peak).
z"Lot coverage" means that portion of the lot covered by buildings, including stairways; covered walkways; covered patios; covered
parking structures; covered decks or uncovered decks over thirty inches (30") in height; recreational and storage structures; and
excluding ground level landscaped areas, walkways, uncovered patios and decks thirty inches (30") or less in height, uncovered
recreational areas, and uncovered packing and driveway areas
SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13
118 Linden Lane
Re: ED13-024/EX13-002
Date: June 26, 2013
b) The design of the project will be compatible in form with the surrounding
neighborhood by maintaining a scale that is consistent with the mixed
architectural character of the area. In terms of "surrounding neighborhood",
the primary focus is on the length of the block along Linden Lane. The goal is
to create a blend of architectural styles reflecting the variety of existing homes
on the block. The proposed project would add a two-story element to the
Linden Lane street frontage. However, the proposed addition would be
setback approximately 31 feet from the paved Linden Lane right-of-way (24
feet from the property line), and as such, would not create excessive bulk
close to the Linden Lane frontage. Of the 11 homes along Linden Lane, 8
homes are two-story and 3 homes are one-story. The two-story homes are a
mixture of smaller two-story homes and larger two-story homes. The adjacent
property to the west of the project site (120 Linden Lane) is a two-story home
and setback 36 feet from the Linden Lane right-of-way. The adjacent
property to the east (I 10 Linden Lane, at the corner of Linden Lane and
Mountain View Avenue) is a two-story home setback 26 feet from the Linden
Lane right-of-way. Both homes are similarly scaled to the proposed project at
118 Linden Lane. The house under construction at the southeast corner of
Linden Lane and Mountain View Avenue is also a two-story home. In
addition, in terms of the surrounding neighborhood closest to Linden Lane,
the homes at the east end Linden Lane (102 Mountain View and 110
Mountain View) and the west end of Linden lane (5 Lindview and 201 Linden
Lane) are also two-story homes. The 3 one-story homes on Linden Lane (118
Linden Lane, 130 Linden Lane, and 138 Linden Lane) are similar ranch style
homes. However, it is clear that the predominant character of the block along
Linden Lane is not one-story, but a mix of two-story architectural styles and
levels. In addition, while there are one-story homes on the block, the project
site is located between two homes that are both two-story, and closest to the
end of the block with larger homes. As such, the proposed project will reflect
the predominant style of homes and preserve the existing neighborhood
character;
c) The existing lot coverage on the property is 23% (2,773 square feet). This
includes the house plus carport structure, plus shed (based on building
footprints only). The proposed addition would increase the existing overall lot
coverage to 31% (3,737 square feet). This is within the 40% maximum
allowable lot coverage of 4,822 square feet. The total addition proposed for
the upper story (1,462 square feet) is below the 75% maximum upper story
addition (3,617 square feet) allowed by Code. The proposed addition is for the
exclusive use of single-family living space, a permitted use within the R10
single-family residential zone. The proposed addition would introduce a
second story element to the structure; however, the addition is designed with a
gable roof structure and setback approximately 24 feet from the front of the
front property line (31 feet from the Linden Lane right-of-way), which would
6 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13
118 Linden Lane
Re: ED 13-024/EX 13-002
Date: June 26, 2013
help minimize the appearance of bulk along Linden Lane. In addition, the
existing Redwood Tree and Maple tree will remain and help screen the house.
d) Staff site visits revealed that the neighborhood is a mix of architectural styles
and colors, as well as landscaping. As such, the proposed addition would not
have a substantial negative affect on the adjacent properties.
e) The proposed design of the house is in conformance with the site design
elements as set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.050.E (Site Design)
and 14.25.050.F (Architecture) in that:
■ The project has been designed to build upon the existing structure and
extend the house along the existing building footprint;
■ Removal of natural vegetation has been minimized. The existing front
lawn, Redwood tree and Maple tree will be preserved;
■ The carport has been replaced with a 2 -car garage, thereby enhancing the
visual component of the parking area on site;
■ Vehicular access to the site will be improved by reducing the height of the
hedge growing along the west property line;
■ The proposed house is designed with a strong sense of entry, variation in
roof height and articulation through the use of gable roof forms and
dormer style windows;
■ Materials and colors are natural earth tones, and materials such as stucco
and shingle roofs;
■ The upper story addition is designed such that impacts to adjacent
properties has been minimized by limiting the size and number of upper
story windows and choosing to extend the house to the front of the lot,
helping to reduce the impact on the rear yard recreation area.
2. The proposed project, as conditioned below, is in accordance with the objectives of
Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) with respect to the
RIO Residential Zoning District, and the purposes of Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning
Ordinance (Environmental and Design Review Permits), in that:
a) The project, as proposed, will implement and promote specific goals and
policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020, as identified in Finding Item #1.
b) The project, as proposed, will ensure the adequate provision of light, air,
space, fire, safety, and privacy between buildings, in that it will be consistent
with the California Building Code (CBC) requirements;
c) The project, as proposed, will promote design quality in development, in that
the proposed addition will be setback from the street and the new exterior
building materials, windows and colors will be compatible with the character
of the surrounding neighborhood, which is developed with contemporary
homes with a variety of colors and well vegetated.
7 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13
118 Linden Lane
Re: ED13-024/EX13-002
Date: June 26, 2013
3. That the project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts in that:
a) An environmental review is required to evaluate the environmental impacts of
the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA and this project is exempt per Article
19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301 Existing Facilities Class 1 and
proposed project would not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square
feet; has been reviewed by appropriate City departments and non -City
agencies who have determined adequate utility services exist to meet any
increase in demand and is located in a mature, fully -developed subdivision
where no listed species, threatened or endangered, have been identified (See
Exhibit 38 of the San Rafael General Plan 2020).
b) The project, as proposed, has been reviewed by appropriate City Departments,
non City agencies, and the Dominican/Black Canyon HOA and no adverse
conditions were identified.
c) No substantial grading is proposed.
4. The design of the proposed project, as conditioned below, will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity of the subject site, in that:
a) The project, as proposed, would not propose a use or activity that is prohibited
but would continue the existing single-family residential use in the R10 Single
Family Residential Zoning District, which is permitted by right pursuant to
Section 14.04.030 of the Zoning Ordinance;
b) The architecture of the project reflects a similar style of houses in the
surrounding area and the newly selected color choice of Benjamin Moore
"Farm Fresh" dark tan -like color for the main body, with a "Molasses" color
for the trim, and window exterior trim and door trim in Linen White (see color
samples submitted). These colors are compatible with the earth tone colors of
the surrounding houses in the neighborhood developed in part with these same
high-quality materials and colors;
c) The original footprint of the single -story residence has been preserved and
extended to the new second story addition, creating a new structure that ties
together with respect to architectural features and colors;
d) The proposed addition will add shadowing to the adjacent property at 120
Linden Lane, Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.050.F.6.g limits new
shadowing (or increase of existing shadows) due to upper story additions to no
more than 10% on active recreational areas on adjacent parcels between the
hours of noon and 3:00 pm on December 21St. Based on the shadow study
submitted, there will be additional 372 square feet of shadowing created to the
SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13
118 Linden Lane
Re: ED 13-024/EX 13-002
Date: June 26, 2013
side yard and along approximately 18 feet of rear yard area of the adjacent
property to the west (120 Linden Lane). Based on site visits, staff has
determined that while the shadow cast will shade a portion of the patio area at
12:00 pm, the shadow study indicates that the shading is gone by about 3:00
pm. The property at 120 Linden Lane has a large backyard and the
predominant recreational space towards is towards the rear (north) of the lot.
As such, the bulk of the patio area, with the outdoor BBQ kitchen and the
terraced garden area would not be impacted by the new shadow, and therefore
the new shadowing will not substantially affect recreational areas on the
adjacent property ay 120 Linden Lane.
e) The proposed addition includes the creation of three new upper story windows
on the south, west and north side of the house. Staff has determined that the
proposed upper story windows would not create any privacy impacts in that:
1) the location of the new second -story window (a bathroom window) on the
west elevation would not look directly into any windows at 120 Linden Lane;
and 2) west side property line is heavily screened with vegetation creating a
visual barrier to minimize privacy impacts, and therefore the adjacent property
would not be significantly impacted by the new upper story windows.
f) Planning staff received several comments on the proposed project. There was
one letter of support for the proposed project (110 Mountain View, adjacent
property to the east), and one person in attendance at the ZA hearing in
support of the project (123 Mountain View, adjacent neighbor to the rear).
There were a total of 4 neighbors in opposition to the project - 120 Linden
Lane (2 -story and adjacent property owners to the west), 121 Linden Lane (2 -
story), 125 Linden Lane (2 -story), and 5 Lindview (2 -story). Some of the
neighbors were present in at the hearing and their comments are discussed on
Page 3 of this report. The neighbor at 121 Linden Lane submitted a letter with
several concerns. The concerns specifically pertaining to planning included
questions about the building height, the existing retaining wall, plans for the
front landscaping, parking (both residence and construction parking), and
location and noise from mechanical outlets. The ZA responded to these
concerns during the hearing (see Page 3) and also directly via e-mail.
FiNDINC C
Exception (EX13-002)
A. There are special circumstances applicable to the site, including topography and
location or surroundings that warrant granting a minor Exception from the strict
application of the side yard setback standards, in that: 1) the existing house
already encroaches 2 feet into the side yard and the proposed addition would not
increase this encroachment, but merely create an upper story above the existing
9 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13
118 Linden Lane
Re: ED13-024/EX13-002
Date: June 26, 2013
building footprint; and 2) the side yard setback encroachment is only 2 feet, which
is less than the allowable 5 foot encroachment allowed by Zoning Ordinance
Section 14.24.020B.
B. Granting the Exception will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements within the vicinity of the site, or to the public health, safety or
general welfare, in that: 1) the proposed project will allow a side yard setback
encroachment that is in character with the immediate surrounding neighborhood,
as many of the existing homes are also encroaching into a portion of the side yard
setback area; 2) the area of side yard encroachments are not essential open space
or recreational amenities to the existing single-family residential property on the
adjacent lot at 110 Linden Lane; 3) the adjacent property at 110 Linden Lane
supports the proposed Exception request; 4) the project would not propose a use
or activity that is prohibited, but would continue the existing single-family
residential use in the R10 District, which is permitted by right pursuant to SRMC
Section 14.04.030; and 5) the existing single-family residence on the site is
currently consistent with all the other property development standards for the R10
District, including maximum height, maximum lot coverage, and minimum
required yard setbacks and the side yard encroachment will not create any
inconsistencies with these other standards.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
1. All requirements of the San Rafael Municipal Code and of the implementing zone
classification of the R10 Zoning District for the subject property must be complied
with unless set forth in the permit and by the conditions of approval.
2. The subject property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the building
techniques, materials, elevations, and appearance of the project as presented for
approval on plans prepared by Thomas Casey, Architect, and stamped Approved
June 26, 2013, and shall be the same as required for issuance of a building permit,
subject to the listed conditions of approval.
3. The existing hedge on the west side of the property along the side yard shall be
reduce to a height of no more than 3 foot solid within the 20 foot front setback area in
order to comply with the fence height regulations and also facilitate safe vehicle
driveway back-up.
4. Existing permitted retaining wall may require a safety rail per Building Code
standards. An elevation plan sheet showing the existing retaining wall (including
dimensions and materials used) and the proposed design of any new railing shall be
10 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13
118 Linden Lane
Re: ED 13-024/EX 13-002
Date: June 26, 2013
submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of the
Building permit.
5. Construction plans submitted for building permit approval shall include a plan
sheet, which incorporates Conditions of Approval for ED13-024/EX13-002.
6. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and
approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division.
Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall
require review and approval by the original decision making body, the Zoning
Administrator, and (if necessary) the City's Design Review Board.
7. All existing landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and any dead or dying
plants, bushes, or trees shall be replaced with new healthy stock of a size compatible
with the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement. The existing redwood
tree and Maple tree shall remain on site. Any proposed removal of these trees shall
first be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. In no case shall the front
yard area be left with bare earth.
8. Any mechanical equipment shall be shown on the building permit plan set and subject
to review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of the building
permit. Additional specifications about equipment noise levels may also be required.
9. Construction hours and activity (including any and all deliveries) are limited to the
applicable requirements set forth in Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code,
which stipulates that construction may occur Monday -Friday, 7:00 am to 6:00
pm, and Saturday, 9:00 am — 6:00 pm. No construction is permitted on Sundays
or Holidays. Violation of construction hours and noise limits (90 dBA), may subject
the permitee to a suspension of work by the Chief Building Official for up to 2 days
per violation.
10. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection, prior to
the issuance of the final building permit. The request for final inspection by the
Planning Division shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice.
11. Any exterior lighting shall be shielded down to prevent glare
12. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City, County,
State, and other responsible agencies.
13. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair of all damages to public
improvements in the public right-of-way resulting from construction -related
activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery of equipment,
materials, and soils to and/or from the site.
11 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13
118 Linden Lane
Re: ED 13-024/EX 13-002
Date: June 26, 2013
14. The property owner shall pay the costs of any code enforcement activities, including
attorney's fees, resulting from the violation of any conditions of approval or any
provision of the San Rafael Municipal Code.
15. Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED13-024) and Exception (EX13-002)
shall remain valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of approval, or until
June 26, 2015, and shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued or a
time extension granted by that date.
BUILDING D8IVISION
1. Project must apply for building permits and meet Green Building Guidelines.
FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2010
California Fire Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments.
2. It appears that the project meets the requirement for "substantial remodel" as
defined in Municipal Code Chapter 4.08.120 Section 202. Therefore, a fire
sprinklers may be required throughout the building. Determination for fire
sprinklers will be conducted during the Building Permit review, so indicate which
room are to be altered, and/or added, this will include areas within the home
where sheet rock is removed to access for electrical or structural changes. A
Separate deferred application by a C-16 contractor would be required. Refer to
our web site for the definition of a substantial remodel.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
See attached comment letter dated May 9, 2013. Items listed are required to be submitted
prior to issuance of the building permit.
SAN RAFAEL SANITATION DISTRICT (SRSD)
1. If future modifications include an additional sewer lateral, submit Civil/Utility plans that
comply with the San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) Standard Design Requirements for
our review.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the existing sewer lateral shall be televised to
determine its condition. The results of this televised survey shall be submitted to the City
with the building permit application and forwarded to the San Rafael Sanitation District
(SRSD) for review. In the event the televised survey recommends improvements or repairs
12 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13
H 8 Linden Lane
Re: ED13-024/EX13-002
Date: June 26, 2013
to the sewer lateral, the project sponsor shall be responsible for completing this work in
coordination with the SRSD staff.
This approval for an Environmental and Design Review Permit [ED13-024] and Side
Yard Exception [EX13-002] shall be valid for a period of 2 years from the date of
approval, or until July 5, 2015, and shall become null and void if a building permit is not
issued or an extension granted by that date.
Any aggrieved party may appeal this decision by submitting a letter of appeal and the
appropriate fees within five (5) working days of the date of approval, or by Friday, July 5,
2013 at 5:00 p.m.
Caron Parker, Acting Zoning Administrator Dat
13 SRZA Minutes for 06.26.13
W -i
A>
1 1 8 I inc��9 nmi fI- Pan(a� - Locaflon of 2 -story fhoirnes
0
LtN°°`Ew
lcd
SCALE 1 : 1,272
100 0 100 200
FEET
m
611PN54
N
300
Page 1 of 1
Caron Parker
From: Pauldavmd@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 3:54 PM
To: Caron Parker; Paul Jensen; Raffi Boloyan
Subject: Comments on 118 Linden Lane proposed house
To: Design Review Board, San Rafael
Caron Parker
Paul Jensen
Raffi Boloyan
Re: Design appeal for proposed project at 118 Linden Lane, San Rafael, CA
To all,
My wife and I wish to state our objections to the above project for many reasons.
1. The project is a 5200 sq. ft. house on a lot that is 12,000 square ft. This very large house is
incompatible with any other house on Linden Lane, and larger than the house being built
across the street at 19 Mt. View which is on a lot of 20,000 sq. ft. It would set a precedent
that would change the character of Linden Lane in a very undesirable way.
2. We are not happy with the 2 ft. encroachment into the 10 ft. setback requirement
3. We also feel strongly that story -poles should be accurately put in place.
4. All in all, we do feel that this large house is far too massive for this area.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our comments.
Respectfully,
Paul Davidson, M.D
Ursula C. Davidson
134 Linden Lane
San Rafael, CA 94901
Exhibit 6-1
7/29/2013
Page 1 of 1
Caron Parker
From: katherine crawford [katdbcrawford@g mail. com]
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:31 AM
To: Caron Parker
Cc: Paul Jensen; Raffi Boloyan; Dennis Joyce
Subject: Home on Linden Ln
Hello Ms. Parker, Mr. Jensen and Mr. Boloyan,
We, as a neighborhood association and community, are very concerned about the recent plan to add
on to the home at 118 Linden Ln. It is too small of a lot and too much of an addition! Please
request that they place story poles so that all can see how the proposed addition will impact the
neighborhood. Apparently the owner has no concern for what the addition looks like --they are
selling and leaving the area. Case in point, the retaining wall made of cinder blocks at 118 has been
there for years and as yet is unfinished.
We live in an old historic neighborhood and the idea of putting something so unattractive and out of
proportion on Linden is really unconcionable. We need to pay more attention in San Rafael to the
way things look not just for our neighborhood but everywhere so that San Rafael has a more
beautiful and well thought out look. If this issue came before the Planning Board in Tiburon, Ross,
or Kentfield... well, it just wouldn't have made it this far!
Thank you for your attention and consciousness in this important matter,
Kat Crawford
7/29/2013 exhibit 6-2
Page 1 of 2
Caron Parker
From: AMP Construction Inc. [ampmai11@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:08 AM
To: Caron Parker
Subject: Fw: Hello from your Neighbor
From: AMP Construction Inc. [mailto:ampmaill@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:06 PM
To: Caron Parker
Subject: Fw: Hello from your Neighbor
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: AMP Construction Inc. <ampmail1 @yahoo.com>
To: "katdbcrawford@gmail.com" <katdbcrawford@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: Hello from your Neighbor
Kat - I would like to introduce myself to you. My name is Michelle M. Partridge
and I live at 118 Linden Lane. I was born in Ohio and moved to New Zealand when
working for Microsoft. I met my husband in New Zealand and we moved back to
San Francisco shortly after we were married. We have been married for almost 20
years.
My husband, Alfred D. Partridge, became a naturalized citizen, after 10 years of
processing paperwork and waiting, to become a United States citizen. He is
originally from Australia and loves Marin. It reminds him of home.
We moved into 118 Linden Lane six years ago. We waited for almost 10 years to
find our home in the Dominican area, as that we love it here. We appreciate how
special this area is. And have loved this home as many of you have loved your
homes. We now would like to modernize our home, as that it was built in 1954 and
is all original. Along with outdated bathrooms, kitchen and windows that are not
energy efficient, part of our goal is to have a home that is warm, comfortable and
works within the neighborhood. My husband has designed the home to not expose
the neighbors to windows that look into their homes, will be energy efficient and
will work with meeting green points.
There has been a lot of discussion as to its' size and proportion. The front of the
property appears to be impending in its' size and nature. However, if you truly look
at the drawings it has a character of a New England style home and slopes in the
back which is non -imposing. I would like to ask if we could show you the drawings
and walk you through our property to give you a full view and special aspects of this
home that my husband has worked so hard to incorporate.
Again, I would also like to say that we do care what the addition looks like, as that
my husband spent six months analyzing and drawing the home himself. We hired
an architect to meet the requirements of presenting the drawings to the city.
7/31/2013 EXNM 6-3
Page 2 of 2
We recognize that the wall out front took a while. He was away on a project, for
three years, soon after he started the wall. I almost lost Alf to a serious medical
situation. He came home from work and collapsed on the floor in front of me. It took
three days, of lying in a hospital bed, seven doctors and several procedures to find
that he had cyst on his back, thus causing the loss of the use of his legs and feet. He
is now on track but recovery took a year. All circumstances that would not be known,
unless told.
As to moving away, my husband does miss home from time to time. We are
planning the next phase of our lives and consider both countries home. I, of course
grew up in the States and would miss my life here. The notation that we are moving
away and do not care is the farthest thing in our minds.
I would hope we could meet you at some time in the future. I am sure that my
husband would be proud to show you his dream.
Regards,
Michelle M. Partridge
415 459 8843
7/31/2013
Caron Parker
From:
Michael Hughes [n982sp@comcast.net]
Sent:
Friday, August 02, 2013 4:27 PM
To:
Caron Parker
Subject:
118 linden In
We are objecting to the subject project because there will be too many square feet of
house for the size of the lot. Story poles should also be erected. Michael & Violet
Hughes, 240 linden ln, san rafael, ca 94901
Sent from my iPad
ExNhK 84
Page 1 of 1
Caron Parker
From: CelebriDucks [info@celebriducks.com]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 2:52 PM
To: Caron Parker
Cc: Paul Jensen
Subject: concern with 118 Linden Lane San Rafael building expansion
Dear Friends,
I live at 28 Mountain View Ave. in San Rafael. I am deeply concerned about the proposed expansion of the
property at 118 Linden Lane. A 5500 Sq. Foot house on that property seems absolutely ridiculous especially
given the size of the lot. These folks are leaving the country and just want to expand it and sell it for a lot of
money. This is not right. They have been working on a stone wall in front of their house for years and it's still
unfinished ... a total eye sore! This new construction will take forever, create a lot of traffic, noise, and parking
issues. I also feel it definitely warrants story poles to be erected on the site. I so hope that you will stop this
project and that saner minds will prevail. Please help us preserve our beautiful neighborhood. Thank you so
much.
Sincerely,
Craig Wolfe
415-456-3452
28 Mountain View Ave.
San Rafael, Ca. 94901
Exhibit 6-5
8/2/2013
Page 1 of 1
Caron Parker
From: Ann Pardi [h.pardi@att.net]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 5:14 PM
To: Caron Parker; Paul Jensen; Raffi Boloyan
Cc: pamjoyce@pacbell.com
Subject: Remodel on 118 Linden Lane, San Rafael
To the Planning Dept. of San Rafael,
We are long time residents at 202 Linden Lane, San Rafael
We are concerned about the size and height of the proposed remodel at 118 Linden Lane. A house of over
5,200 square feet does seem to be excessively large for the lot it is situated on. Also, a new 2 story element
would appear to loom over Linden Lane.
It would be helpful to all the residents on Linden Lane if story poles were erected prior to further approvals so
we can visualize what the proposed structure really means to the neighborhood.
We all enjoy living in this historic neighborhood because it is not just another development with outsize
houses. It is important for the Planning Dept. to take into account the integrity, the character, and the
ambiance of a neighborhood in its approval process.
Thank you for your consideration
Sincerely,
Henry and Ann Pardi
202 Linden Lane
San Rafael, CA
Exhibit 6-6
8/5/2013
Page 1 of 1
Caron Parker
From: Paula Doubleday [paula.double@gmail.coml
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 9:31 PM
To: Caron Parker; Paul Jensen; Raffi Boloyan
Subject: Proposed Construction 118 Linden Lane
I moved to 246 Linden Lane 16 years ago in September 1997. I love this neighborhood and my neighbors,
most of whom were here when I moved in. While I live around the corner from 188 Linden, I walk by there
most every day with my dogs. I noticed 3 or 4 years ago that the owner had raised the front yard and built a
cinder block wall in front of his yard and began to face it with stone. The project remained unfinished with
bins of rocks sitting on the driveway all this time. A few months ago the project began again and is still not
finished. I understand he does not even have a viable permit to do this work. I am concerned that with this
attention to project completion, starting to build a home will meet the same delays.
Our neighborhood has a wonderful character and building a home of this size on that small lot seems out of
place, and out of character. have looked through the plans for this house and it doesn't fit with the feel of
our neighborhood. I am additionally concerned that the owner has no intention of living there. He has no
investment in the quality or character of the Dominican area. He wants to make a buck.
The home that is there now was built in the 60's and a friend of mine in the neighborhood knew the original
family and speaks of hanging out there with her friends. I don't like the idea of losing that history and
charm on Linden Lane. We need houses of all sizes, but the smaller, older homes bring charm, balance and
a small town feel that attracts others to want to live here. Additionally, smaller homes are less expensive
and brings younger families into the Dominican which is a good thing for all of us. If it is so easy to get a
McMansion approved, there will be no end to people replacing their homes, flipping them and leaving the
area. This is not a good approach for community building.
I always appreciate when neighbors keep up their yards, and improve their homes as this holds the quality
of our neighborhood and reduces crime. We are a tight group as you probably have seen by the attention to
this issue. We are a community, not just people who live on Linden Lane.
I will also say that I viewed the plans for the home on the corner of Linden and Mt. View currently under
construction. It is a beautiful design, less square footage than the 188 Linden proposal, but on a lot that is
much larger. It feels proportional. Please understand I am not against new construction on principle, but
feel as a neighborhood, we need to hold onto the beautiful place we live in, by managing our growth.
In light of this, I ask you to repeal your planning approval for this construction. Thank you for considering
my opinion. I will be present at the Sept 4 meeting.
Paula Doubleday
Paula Doubleday Design Inc.
246 Linden Lane
San Rafael 94901
415 455 5301
www.pdoubleda,
Exhibo 6-7
8/5/2013
August 16, 2013
Caron Parker
Associate Planner
City of San Rafael
Dear Caron Parker,
When asked for input about Alf Partridge from a professional perspective, and in light of a proposed
project of his, I was most eager to do so.
Having worked with Alf for several years on a major, and complex construction project, I became, and
remain, most impressed with him both personally and professionally.
The quality of his work, as a craftsman in his own right, is excellent. But it is a rarity to find such a gifted
and accomplished artisan, who also performs well above the norm, when dealing with other people and
entities around him.
I have consistently and reliably found him to be fair and balanced in his dealings with other businesses
and professionals, honest with regulatory entities, tough and demanding but considerate with
subordinates and sub jobbers, and thoughtful when dealing with neighbors.
Alf is the kind of professional who, when obstacles or problems arise, is refreshingly malleable and
circumspect in resolving them. He is a team player.
It would give me pleasure to expand on my support for Alf and his craftsmanship and leadership in any
other way, including in person. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Don Sebastiani Sr.
DON SEBASTIANI & SONS
THE NEXT GENERATION IN
Exhibit 6-8
Page 1 of 2
Caron Parker
From: Penn Fullerton [pennhome@aol.com)
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 10:07 AM
To: Caron Parker
Subject: Re: proposed construction at 118 Linden Lane
Penn Mullin rullerton
pennhome@aol.com
12+ Linden Lane
San Rafael, Ca. 94901
Tutoring in the Language Arts
Home: +15-+57-8 15+
Cell: 41 5-827-224
On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:40 PM, Penn Fullerton wrote:
Dear Caron, Paul and Raffi:
I live at 124 Linden Lane and am a neighbor of the proposed building project at 118
Linden Lane,
Since I have lived on this street since 1970, I am of course very concerned with the
possible construction of a mammoth building on a lot that is too small, a building that
would change the whole character of our historical neighborhood. If this house is
allowed to be built, a new precedent would be set for our area, with huge homes being
constructed on lots that are much too small. The whole old fashioned, country, feeling
of our street would be impacted if this were to happen. I am also extremely concerned
that the owners intend to just sell the house and move away, with no thought to what
they are leaving behind to blight our neighborhood.
I would like to request that storyboards be erected at 118 Linden Lane before the
hearing in September, so that the true extent of the project can be perfectly clear to the
neighbors and Planning Commission.
I sincerely urge you to take this proposed project under serious consideration, for it
could open the way to future construction in Dominican that would change the whole
nature of the area that we treasure.
Thank you very much.
Most sincerely,
Penn Mullin
Penn Mullin rullerton
8/19/2013 Exhibit 6-9
Page 1 of 1
Caron Parker
From:
Nunzio Alioto [nunzioalioto@yahoo.com]
Sent:
Friday, June 28, 2013 9:31 AM
To:
Caron Parker
Cc:
Alioto Nunzio; Joanne Alioto
Subject: Remodel of 118 Linden Lane
Dear Mr. Parker
My wife Joanne and I reside on 110 Linden Lane, adjacent to the property requesting planning
approval for a remodel. I have notice that in your planning document we are referenced as approving
this project. I would like to make sure that we are all clear as to what had transpired on or about
March 19, 2013, The Partridges asked to me with my wife and I regarding their remodel. My wife
and I met with the Partridges at our residence and they presented to us some plans. They came with a
document, that they wanted us to sign, that would have given them approval to go ahead with their
project without interference from us. I asked them if this was a requirement and Mrs Partridge said
yes and Mr Partridge said no. With that I said we would not sign their document but would send
them something drafted by us. I want to make clear what was said in our letter. We said that AT
THIS TIME March 21, 2013 we see no apparent problems with the Partridges moving forward with
their remodel. Some months have passed and my wife and I recently have had the opportunity to see
their project and we have very serious concerns regarding the encroachment of the two feet and the
shear size of the improvement in relation to the lot size. I do not not know if you have seen our
original letter but if you have not I would be move than willing to send you a copy via fax, upon
your request. Please understand that we are not oppose to the Partridges remodeling their residence,
but this two foot encroachment and the shear size of the remodel in relations to their lot size is
something that we have very serious concerns. Based on this new found information we would
oppose their project, as it currently stands.
Thank you for your time on this matter
Nunzio and Joanne Alioto
ExhUt 6-10
8/27/2013
Ms. Caron Parker, City of San Rafael Planner
I am sending you this letter regarding the proposed development @ 118 Linden Lane.
I am concerned about a project of this size.
I am requesting placement of story poles on the site prior to the hearing scheduled on
September 4, 2013 so we as neighbors can get a better sense of the magnitude of the project.
My concerns are the mass of this project is inconsistent w/ the neighborhood — there is not a
home on Linden Lane that approaches this size on so small a lot.
A 2' encroachment into the 10' setback requirement should not be permitted on a project this
size.
The owner has not completed projects in the past in a timely manner. i.e., a simple retaining
wall in the front of the home has stood incomplete and has been an eyesore for many years
and is just now being completed after the permit has long expired.
The owner has stated that he is going to build and sell, without concern for what he is leaving
behind.
By way of reminder, the proposed project will result in an approximately 5200 square foot
house on a 12,000 square foot lot. In comparison, the new home being built at 19 Mountain
View is approximately 4,400 square feet but on a lot size of 20,000 square feet.
The proposed addition at 118 Linden would set a new and dangerous precedent for the building
of huge homes on lots that were never designed to accommodate such massive structures
thus, the proposed project is completely out of character with the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Terry & Gloria Aquilino
1 Lindview
San Rafael
Exhibit 6-11