No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2013-10-08 #7CITY OF Meeting Date: October 8, 2013 Case Numbers: ED10-072 Project Planner: Raffi Boloyan (415) 485-3095 Community Development Department — Planning Division REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 31 Gold Hill Grade — Environmental and Design Review Permit for a new 6,468 gross sq. ft. single family residence in a two level structure, over a basement, on a vacant 1.07 -acre hillside parcel with a 28% slope; APN: 015-091-04; R1a-H Zone; Stephen Charlip, Applicant; George Mann and Stephanie Morgan, owners; Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood. (Continued from July 17, 2012 DRB meeting) Note: A separate memo has been provided with instructions for accessing the site. BACKGROUND This is an application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit for the construction of a new single family hillside residence on a 1.07 -acre upsloping flag lot in the Dominican/Black Canyon neighborhood. This application was previously reviewed on three occasions by the Design Review Board (DRB). First, on March 22, 2011 the DRB reviewed and continued the application to a future date to allow the applicant to address their recommendations and comments. The applicant revised their project and returned to the DRB on November 8th, 2011. At the conclusion of the November 8th meeting, the Board found that the project was moving in the right direction, but again continued the project with additional recommended modifications. There are no written meeting minutes, however, the video recording of the November meeting can be viewed at www.citvofsanrafael.orq/meetings and clicking on the video link for the 11/8/11 DRB meeting date. The applicant then returned to the Board on July 17, 2012, for review of revisions made since the November 8, 2011 meeting. In summary, the changes proposed to the design at that time were as follows: 1) two chimneys were eliminated, 2) a small shed roof was added between the Vt and 2 I floors, and 3) a dormer was reintroduced on the roof of the front elevation. At the conclusion of the July 17th meeting, the Board found that some minor improvements had been made, but that the project design still did not address the prior comments about reducing mass of structure by stepping back the upper floor or pushing the entire structure back on the site. There are no written meeting minutes from this meeting, however, the video recording can be viewed at www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings and clicking on the video link for the 07/17/12 DRB meeting date. Staff has summarized the Board's consensus recommendations and those are included in the Analysis section below. The applicant has resubmitted plans with very minor modifications made in response to the Board comments. The Board is asked to review and provide a final recommendation on the project to the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator of Planning Commission will take appropriate action based on referral recommendations of the Board and analysis of the project's compliance with City policies and criteria. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Revisions: The following revisions have been made to the project since the July 17, 2012 DRB meeting: 0 Revisions to the design of the structure, including o Adding a standing seam metal roof shed over the wrap-around deck at the main floor level. This new roof would integrate with the proposed gable roof that was previously added just over the main entry. The proposed new metal roof would be a "brownstone" color (Sheet A-5 - Front Elevation) o Adding a standing seam metal shed roof between the main floor and upper floor level along the rear elevation (Sheet A-6 Rear Elevation) o Increasing the size of two upper story windows on the rear elevation (Sheet A-6 — Rear elevation) o Changing two small windows on side elevation of the main level to one large window. (Sheet A-5 Right Elevation) o Raising the grade under the front entry deck by three feet to reduce the perceived height of the front deck (Sheet A-8 Section A -A) o Extend a 24" inch drainage pipe from under the driveway to 12 inches past the corner of the foundation of the existing house at 27 Gold Gill Grade and provide a dissipation bed at the outfall (Sheet SP -3) o Addition of six new Pittasporum trees next to the existing bamboo, in the landscape and scenic easement along the front of the site Please note, all revisions have been shown on the plans by a cloud and the clouded area of the change has been highlighted. Revised Project Description: With the proposed revisions, the project proposes a new three-level, single-family residence with three bedrooms, den, kitchen, study, living room, dining room, loft and storage. In addition, the attached structure would provide a 3 car garage, as follows: Lower Level: 831 sq. ft. Main Level: 2,862 sq. ft. Upper level: 1,763 sq. ft TOTAL 5,456 sq. ft. The basement area of the main structure is included in the gross building square footage calculations given that it is habitable and has a ceiling height in excess of 7 feet. Other covered areas around the structure such as the covered rear patio and area of the new wrapped veranda and under elevated decks would total an additional 972 sq. ft. and are also included as gross building square footage (as defined by the hillside guidelines). The proposed structure would therefore, have a total of 6,428 sq. ft of gross building floor area. The main structure would be setback approximately 39 ft. from the front property line, 47 ft. from the west (side) property line, 23 ft. from the east (side) property line, and 188 ft. from the rear. An elevated porch is proposed along the eastern two third of the front elevation and wraps around the side (east) elevation. A majority of the proposed understory area of the porch would be enclosed by hog wire fencing, planted with vines for screening. A new 12 -ft to 20 ft wide concrete driveway would be constructed from the street to the main parking area and garage. The driveway would have a slope of 15.9% at its steepest point. A driveway profile is provided on Sheet SP -5. Two off-street parking spaces are provided to the side of the driveway, composed of decomposed granite. Another space is proposed off the street adjacent to the driveway to replace an existing space. The finish floor elevation of the lower floor is 112.5 ft. with overall building height of 25.16 ft above natural grade at the highest point. Retaining walls are proposed around the upper portions of the driveway and parking area ranging from 2 ft to 6 ft in height. A geotechnical investigation has been prepared for this property. The project would qualify for an environmental exemption under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303a (New Construction of a Single -Family Residence), provided that it does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern designated on an official map pursuant to the Section 15300.2 (Exceptions). Proposed architecture, landscaping, grading and tree removal are further described below. Architecture The building is a contemporary craftsman design with three -levels facing the downhill elevation. The building steps up to two levels at the rear with a three -car garage attached to the main structure at an angle. The garage includes vaulted ceiling. An uncovered porch wraps around the eastern two thirds of the front elevation and a portion of the side (right) elevation. A standing seam metal roof covers the entire front wrap around porch, with a gable feature over the main entry and a shed roof over the remaining. An elevated deck is also proposed at the west side of the building, off the master bedroom on the upper level. This deck would connect to the backyard area via a staircase. The understory of the deck would be enclosed with hog wire lattice. The hog wire lattice is also proposed too enclose the understory around the front deck. The roof form consists of off -setting gable roofs, with the gable ends on the side (east and west) elevations. A former is proposed on the western part of the front elevation, would incorporate with the second story windows from the master bedroom on the upper level. Story poles have been installed on-site and the story pole plan is provided on Sheet SP -6. The colors and materials consist of painted hardiplank siding and trim, painted wood trim around windows, doors and railings, brown composite decking, wood pilasters and railings, cultured stone veneer and asphalt shingle roofing. Most of the building's exterior colors mimic the natural wood and earth tones, with cream/khaki used for trim and detailing. Flat hardscape includes a brushed finish concrete driveway and parking area, concrete retaining walls and decomposed granite for guest parking and entry paths at the front of the site. The colors and materials board will be presented at the hearing. The building lighting would be wall mounted sconces. Site lighting is also proposed, composed of landscape walkway lights and stair lights. Landscape up -lights are proposed to illuminate a few of the larger native trees. Cut sheets of the fixtures are attached (Exhibit 3) and locations of the proposed lights are shown on the plans (Sheet SP -2). Landscaping The landscape plan proposes to generally maintain natural conditions around the rear of the site in the hillside portions of the site to the north, with ornamental landscaping in pockets around the house and the parking area. There are numerous large Eucalyptus trees and Oaks and Bay trees on-site, primarily around the upper rear portion of the site. Nearly all of these existing trees would be would be retained, however, there are 6 trees that have already been removed, including 3 Eucalyptus at the upper portion of the site and 3 dead trees (one 18" Eucalyptus, one 12" Pine and one 16" Oak.) around the development area (See Sheet SP -1.1) A new cluster of 12, 15 -gallon Redwood trees would be planted at the rear of the site in the hillside area. In addition, the area around the structure and the lower portion of the site would be heavily planted with fruit trees and ornamental landscaping. In addition, six new Pittasporum trees are proposed to be added next to the existing bamboo, in the landscape and scenic easement along the front of the site. The remainder of the palette proposes palms in these areas, including Canary Island Date Palms. Two new Arbutus Marina trees are proposed to be planted along the driveway/turnaround area along the eastern side of the property. Low level wall and path lighting is indicated. The landscape plan is illustrated on Sheets SP1.1 and SP -2). Images of the proposed species are provided as Exhibit 4. Grading and Drainage Site grading consists primarily of cut (655 cubic yards) to prepare the site for placement of house. Some minor fill (30 cubic yards) would be added in the lower portion of the driveway. Net off -haul of 655 cubic yards is anticipated (equivalent to 65 truckloads). Proposed drainage would generally follow the existing drainage patterns on the site. A new concrete v - ditch and debris collector would be installed part way up the hill to the rear of the house to collect water from the upper portions of the site. The drainage would then enter a closed underground system (8" PVC pipe) that would go downhill along the eastern side of the property until it meets the exiting drainage swale. A 6ft by 6ft dissipation bed at the top and bottom of the closed system with rip rap would be installed. A closed drainage consisting of a 6" PVC pipe would collect water around the rear and side of the building and would transverse along the front of the building. A new 24" detention basin consisting of an underground pipe is proposed to be installed near the driveway to collect water and provide controlled discharge. This water would be conveyed to the east side of the site and would enter a 36 sq. ft. dissipation bed and then enter into an 8" PVC storm drain. This run-off would then be conveyed to the natural drainage swale at the east side of the lower driveway. In addition, an earthen swale would collect run off at the rear of the structure and convey it to a 6 -inch storm drain pipe that would wrap around the west and front sides of the structure and would connect to the new 8 -inch pipe along the eastern end. Two 36 sq ft dissipation beds would be created on both sides of the natural culvert that bisects the driveway before the run-off is conveyed to the existing culvert system. The drainage plan the proposes to extend the 24" pipe past the driveway and extend 12 inches onto the adjacent property 27 Gold Hill Grade, with a dissipation bed at the outfall. (Sheet SP -3) Geotechnical peer review has been required and conducted for this site, and a drainage plan has been reviewed by Public Works. No unique soils constraints or drainage issues have been identified as a result of this review. Zoning Entitlements As proposed, the project would require an Environmental and Design Review permit for a new hillside home on a flag lot. Other Approvals The project must meet Wildland-urban interface planting requirements, green building regulations, and landscape efficiency requirements. Fire and Building have reviewed the project for conformance with these provisions, and the applicant has revised plans in response to their comments, including provision of Fire Information on Sheet F-1. In addition, an encroachment permit would be required to allow the installation of concrete and other minor site improvements in the public right of way at the base of the driveway. The Fire Department has determined that there is no requirement to remove any live Eucalyptus trees from the site. Removal of live Eucalyptus trees is allowed and desired, but not required. However, any trees within 100 feet of a structure must be limbed up (or skinned up in the case of a Eucalyptus tree) a minimum of 10 feet above the ground. ANALYSIS On July 17, 2012, the Board reviewed the revised project for the third time, including the changes that were made in response to the first two reviews on March 25, 2011 and November 8, 2011. At its July 17, 2012 meeting, the majority of the Board found that the project had improved some since the initial review with the addition of the dormer and elimination of chimeny's, but reiterated their prior comments and concerns with the mass and need for stepping back of the upper floor of the structure or moving the entire building back, moving the deck and hot tub on the side of the building back, and concern with the drainage. The Board voted 5-0) to continue the matter with recommendations to date uncertain. The applicant has only slightly revised the plans since the last meeting. The applicant contends that the design complies with the Hillside Design Guidelines, including the massing and stepback requirements. The apFlicant has provided the attached letter (Exhibit 2) responding to the Board's comments from the July 17 h meeting. The applicant has revised the plans to provide a new shed roof over the entire front wrap around porch on the front elevation as well as some other minor changes to windows and rear elevation. A full size and 11" x 17" reduced set of the revised plans are included in the Board's packet. The Board's consensus items from the July 17, 2012 meeting are identified below bold and followed by staff response and analysis. 1. Upper floor level of structure still needs to be stepped back as previously recommended No changes are proposed to push back the upper level of the front of the structure. Instead, the applicant has added a standing seam metal roof over the entire porch that wraps around the front and side elevation. Previously, there was only a small gable roof over the porch, located at the entryway to the house, but the latest revision now adds a shed roof over the entire front porch. (See Sheets A-4 & 5 upper floor plan and front and right side elevations). The applicant has submitted a letter (Exhibit 2), explaining their rational for how they believe that the building as designed is adequately stepped. Anal The applicant has not made any changes to the structure to step back the upper floor. Instead, they have proposed to add a more significant roof form between the main floor and upper floor to provide visual relief between the two levels. The applicant has explained their rational for this design in their attached resubmittal letter. Staff notes that prior to the November 8th meeting, the project had been revised to reduce overall building height and in the understory space and provide additional stepping of the front of elevation through the creation of the deck. At that time, staff indicated that we no longer had a concern with the design of the front elevation of the structure and that we believed the structure complied with the setback requirements of the hillside guidelines. This recommendation continues to hold on this resubmittal. This is primarily based on the location of the property and its distance from the street (over 150 feet), the setback of the structure from the front of the flat lot (nearly 40 feet, where 20 feet is required) and the dense vegetation that exists between the properties. The front downhill elevation does comply with the stepback requirements that limit wall heights (in a single plane) on downhill elevation to 20 feet. Staff's recommendation is that although we were supportive of the design previously, this new roof over the front deck is a further improvement from the prior and provides more visual relief in the front elevation. Therefore, staff continues to support project design in terms of massing and articulation. 2. Deck and hot tub on upper level need to be stepped back significantly as previously recommended No changes have been made to the upper deck or hot tub. (See Sheets A-4 and 5 Upper Floor Plan and Front Elevation) Analysis The applicant has not addressed this comment and has not provided any justification or rational in their response letter. 3. Board maintains concern with the drainage plan, and would strongly recommend that all water be collected and conveyed to drainage across the street, rather than use the existing drainage way in front of neighbors property This latest revision proposes to add a 24" pipe extension to extend the closed drainage system from under the driveway all the way onto the adjacent property (12 inches onto the adjacent property at 27 Gold Hill Grade). The closed system would terminate just past the foundation corner for of building at 27 Gold Hill Grade and drainage would dissipate through a new dissipation bed at the outfall. See Sheet SP -3. Analysis As previously reported, the drainage plan has been prepared by a licensed engineer and been review by the city's Department of Public Works staff and found to be acceptable and in conformance with City standards. Based on the fact that the drainage plan has been prepared by licensed professionals, and reviewed by licensed professionals in charge of reviewing drainage, staff recommends that this issue is addressed. Staff does not that the Department of Public Works has not indicated that this is the only drainage solution that would be acceptable on the site, but that as proposed and designed, meets city standards. They have indicated that if the applicant proposes an alternative drainage plan, which takes all water off this site, across Gold Hill Grade and into the drainage channel there, that could also be an acceptable solution, however, it would require a study of the entire watershed, since it changes the current drainage patterns in the area. One important note about the proposed drainage plan is that the applicant's current plan shows that they would extend a closed drainage system onto the neighboring property and construct a rip rap dissipation bed as well on that property (27 Gold Hill Grade). Staff had requested that the applicant submit evidence of the permission from the adjacent property owner of permission to build these improvements on the adjacent property. The applicant has indicated that he has been working with adjacent property owner to get this authorization, but has not at this point. According to the applicant, the adjacent property owner does not want to authorize the encroachment until the City approves the project. The applicant states if we require the authorization now, he cannot get the DRB to review his resubmittal. Therefore, staff has agreed to defer this authorization as include it as a condition of approval if the project is approved that would have to be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Ultimately, it is the applicant's choice if he wants to proceed without that assure. The City just needs to ensure that the authorization is received prior to the issuance of a building permit (if the project is approved). As noted in the last report, staff has discussed the drainage plan and the DRB's comments on multiple occasions with the Department of Public Works. The plan as designed is acceptable and consistent with City standards. Public Works has indicated that a different drainage plan, recommended by the DRB (to reroute the run off straight down the driveway then under Gold Hill Grade and into the creek), could also be acceptable. However, the current configuration of the drainage crosses onto a neighbor's property prior to approaching the road right of way. In this case redirecting the water is considered a change to the neighbor's property and would require approval from the neighbor as well as a study of the drainage patterns in the entire watershed area. Although this is a possibility, staff does not recommend that there is any nexus to require the change to the existing drainage patterns in the area since adequate drainage is currently shown to be possible with the proposed plan that was designed by a licensed engineer and reviewed by the City Public Works Department. Furthermore, the drainage plan as proposed now identifies that the net run off, both volume and flow, would be within existing levels, therefore, it is a drainage plan that is consistent with city requirements The applicant has also indicated that they have discussed the drainage plan with the adjacent neighbor, but at this point, staff has not received any confirmation of approval from the adjacent property. Staff notes that there still does not appear to be mutual agreement between the two parties, but that is not a City issue. As designed, the proposed drainage plan is designed by a licensed engineer and is designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event. The improvements proposed on the property (24" diameter underground detention pipe to control the run-off during a storm event) would reduce any increase volume from post development to pre -development levels. The proposed detention pipe/basin serves this purpose and is a standard design feature used in drainage plans to detain increases in run off. The detained water would then be discharged into the 8" storm drain pipe that then be discharged into the existing natural drainage swale after the peak of the storm event has passed. In addition, dissipation beds have been added around the site to reduce the velocity of the run off and reduce it's energy. At this point, the drainage plan is consistent with City standards to be designed to accommodate a 100 year event, with both intensity and volume of post development run-off equal pre -development levels. The Public Works Department has reviewed the drainage plan. In general, they have found that the preliminary drainage plan is feasible and have found the preliminary plan adequate for the planning phase of the project. During the building permit phase of this project, Public Works will be examining the detail calculations and requiring the applicant to address how water will be released into the creek during peak periods as well as clarifying all aspects of the final drainage plan. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice of this meeting as well as all previous meetings was posted on site and mailed to the surrounding residents and property owners within 300 feet, as well as the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood 101 and Gold Hill Grade Neighborhood Associations, 15 days prior to this and all prior Design Review Board meeting. Story poles are erected to reflect the proposed design and are visible on site. Prior to the first DRB meeting, staff had received written and oral comments from the resident/owners of the property to the front of this site (27 Gold Hill Grade) as well as written comments from the resident of the property to the east (51 Gold Hill Grade). These letters cited concern with drainage from the site, location of the structure being too close, privacy, mass of the structure, and windows facing their properties. Prior to the second DRB meeting, staff received both written and oral comments from the resident/owners of the 27 Gold Hill grade. These letters cited concern with drainage, privacy impacts on their studio unit from the deck and west facing windows; type of planting proposed in the landscape easement area and the location of the proposed new 6' fence between the two properties. Prior to the July 17, 2012 DRB meeting, written comments and oral comments were submitted from adjacent neighbors. A letter from Mary Coman, owner of 27 Gold Hill Grade, expressing confern that the new home is too large and close to their property, supporting the addition of a 6 ft screening fence, and expressing concern with the drainage. In addition, she provided oral comments at the hearing. In addition, there was a comment letter from Gary Coman, property owner of 27 Gold Hill Grade, expressing concern with the drainage plan., Lastly, there was a letter from Christina Quinn, of 51 Gold Hill Grade, expressing concern for water supply and consideration for the neighbors. At the time of the preparation of this staff report, no new written or verbal correspondence has been received for this hearing. Any correspondence received after the report is distributed on Thursday October 3`d will be forwarded to the Board under separate cover. CONCLUSION The revised plans do not appear to address the Board's July 17, 2012 recommendations. However, Staff finds that the project as designed for this location would substantially comply with the hillside design criteria, zoning regulations and General Plan policies, with conditions. Staff also continues to find that the architecture and massing are adequate for this site and it's surroundings. This project has been before the Board for four separate occasions Therefore, staff requests that the Board provide a final recommendation on the project revisions on the quality of the design and whether the project design complies with the applicable review criteria. Following a recommendation by the Board, this matter will be scheduled for a hearing for final action. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Letter from George Mann, applicant, August 15, 2013 3. DRB Meeting Minutes — Summary action, July 17, 2012 ➢ Revised Project Plans (Full-sized and 11 "x17" plans have been provided to the DRB members only). cc: Stephen Charlip Stephen Charlip Architect 104 5th St Petaluma, CA 94952 George Mann 78 Rafael Dr San Rafael, CA 94901 Christa Quinn 51 Gold Hill grade San Rafael, CA 94901 Dominican/Black Canyon NA PO Box 151702 San Rafael, CA 94915-1702 Gold Hill Grade HOA Jack Nixon, President 301 Locust Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Mary and Gary Coman 27 Gold Hill Grade, San Rafael, CA 94901 V I] .�/ Ll j 11 Cl � 1'� � f y hvdl L )-/\/\(h �'b �'t 1 SCALE 1 :2,087 100 0 100 200 300 FEET N Thursday, November 03, 2011 10:27 AM 15 August 2013 15-C I V E 0 AUG 15 2013 Raffi Boloyan, Planning Manager PLANNING City of San Rafael, Community Development Department Planning Division P. O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-151560 Dear Raffi: You have suggested that it would be beneficial to describe in writing how our proposed house at 31 Gold Hill Grade meets each of the described Hillside Guidelines for San Rafael, as well as explaining the most recent changes to our design made in order to respond to the concerns of the Design Review Board. We made a point of meeting all of the listed guidelines before we submitted our first set of plans. We have since made numerous changes to the plans based on the comments received from the board and public comment from two neighbors. As detailed below, we meet all of the guidelines as set forth in the Hillside guidelines. Hillside Guideline Section A." Building Stepback": The proposed house has only the front staircase and a portion of the front deck entering into the 15' stepback area behind the 20' setback area between the lot at 27 Gold Hill Grade. In this area, the staircase and pertinent railing rise to approximately 8' from grade and stepout approximately 5'. We have now added a roof over the deck to provide an additional stepping effect. With this change, the elevation then changes to the covered entry area which varies in height from approximately 6' above the railing to 10' above the railing. None of this area within the stepback goes above 18', which in fact only occurs at the dormer above the front entry. All of this is well within the 20' height limit under this guideline. This area, which is all inside of the stepback area, steps back approximately 6' more to the second level of the house. In all this provides three distinct tiers to the house. On the east side of the lot the garage sits approximately 5' into the 15' stepback area behind the 15' setback area. Here, the top of the garage roof line only reaches 7' above the existing grade as it is set back into the hillside with a retaining wall. Hillside Guideline Section B. "Setbacks": The proposed house is well inside of the required 20' front, 15' side, and 25' rear setbacks. Hillside Guidelines Section C. "Natural State": As noted on drawing SP -4, the average slope of the lot is 25.75%. Along with the minimum 25% the total requirement for being in a natural state is 50.75%. The landscape plans call for 68% of the lot to remain in a natural state. Hillside Guidelines Section D. "Gross Building Square Footage": As the lot is over 46,000 square feet the allowed gross building square footage maxes out at 6,500 square feet. The proposed house has a gross 15 August 2013 Raffi Boloyan Page 2 of 3 building area of 6,428 feet which is within the required square footage. This comes after including some 400 square feet of airspace inside the house, and almost 1,000 square feet in areas under the covered entry, under decks, and under overhangs. Hillside Guideline Section E. "Ridgeline Development": This section does not apply to this house/lot as we are at the bottom of a much higher hillside. Hillside Guidelines Section F. "Parking requirements": This section calls for a minimum of two additional parking spaces. This project is designed with three covered and three uncovered parking spaces exceeding the minimum requirement. The remaining two guidelines, sections G and H, do not actually deal with the house itself, rather they deal with the lot size and the need to go before the DRB, so no comment is necessary on them. I am unclear why the DRB members believe the proposed structure is not site specific. We originally designed the house to have a similar look and feel as the house directly to the west which is much larger than ours and directly to the east which is smaller but one of three housing units on their site. Currently the biggest difference in feel is that we have gone to lap siding using Hardiplank from our original plan to use shingles. This change was made specifically based on comments from the DRB. I do understand that one member said there is now a shingle product we could use, but we decided to not change back. With regard to bulk and massing, we have added the roof over the deck to reduce the perception of size and add a third step to the design as explained above. We chose a standing seem metal roof to both complement and contrast the other materials we are using additionally, a metal seem roof is a better long term choice for the minimally sloped areas over the deck. Further commenting on the design being site specific, due to the nature of the lot being a flag lot in a hillside environment, we chose to place the main structure in the area after the flag lot opens up. This greatly reduces the visibility of the house from the street. In fact, anyone transiting the area has to go out of their way to notice where the house is located. The drainage issues relate to the corner lot which cuts in and makes our lot a flag lot. The owners of that lot were the trustees of the trust which sold out lot to us. Just prior to our purchasing the lot they put in place an easement such that they could screen the view between our lots by placing landscaping in areas of our lot. Additionally the easement calls for them to handle drainage issues between the lots. In the view area between their house and our proposed house they have between five and fifteen feet of our property on an uphill grade in which they can landscape to screen the properties and handle any drainage issues in that area if needed. On the side of the lots which will have our driveway their house abuts the property line with no setback. Additionally, the corner of their house is on the absolute edge of the seasonal creek which runs from the two acre lot to our east, through our lot, and through their lot 15 August 2013 Raffi Boloyan Page 3 of 3 where it curves and then goes under the street. While one member of the DRB suggested keeping the water in the pipe until it reaches the far side of the street, the adjoining property owner would prefer to keep the current seasonal creek bed in place on their property. That leaves the only practical way to solve the problems of drainage is to take the outflow past the corner of their house which puts the landing point beyond their foundation. This change has been made to our plans. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Regards, George Mann 78 Rafael Drive San Rafael, CA 94901 415-717-3530 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, July 17, 2012 ltias9rm liip� Regular Meeting San Rafael Design Review Board Minutes For a complete video of this meeting, go to http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. CALL TO ORDER Present: Bob Huntsberry Cheryl Lentini Stewart Summers Mohit Garg Jeff Kent, Chair Jack Robertson, Planning Commission Liaison Absent: Serge Fedorov Also Present: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner Raffi Boloyan, Principal Planner Caron Parker, Associate Planner Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner STAFF COMMUNICATION Staff gave its communication BOARD COMMUNICATION Board gave its communication APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes, June 19, 2012 Stewart Summers moved and Mohit Garg seconded to approve minutes as follows: AYES: Bob Huntsberry, Cheryl Lentini, Stewart Summers, Mohit Garg, Jeff Kent, Chair NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Serge Fedorov CONSENT 2. Target Store (125 Shoreline Parkway - Review of final details for outdoor dining area and approved building materials and colors for the new Target Building. Project Planner: Sariit Dhaliwal Bob Huntsberry moved and Stewart Summers seconded to move item off Consent to Old Business. The vote is as follows: AYES: Bob Huntsberry, Cheryl Lentini, Stewart Summers, Mohit Garg, Jeff Kent, Chair NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Serge Fedorov Bob Huntsberry moved and Stewart Summers seconded to approve the project with the incorporation of the following consensus items: 1) The reveals of the tower (as depicted on the perspective) continue on all four sides of the tower. 2) That the Board look at the building colors at a paint -out prior to the actual painting of the building. The vote is as follows: AYES: Bob Huntsberry, Cheryl Lentini, Stewart Summers, Mohit Garg, Jeff Kent, Chair NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Serge Fedorov OLD BUSINESS 3. 195 North Redwood Drive (Marin Covenant Church) - Reauest(s) for amendments to the Previously approved Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED77-114) and Master Use Permit (UP73-82) for the existing church use. The proposed project would add 10,381 square feet of new floor area to the existing church building. The new addition would create a Youth Center Building and also enclose the existing patio area to create a new indoor lobby/entrance. Interior renovations are also proposed and well as revised landscaping. No changes to the church activities or hours of operation are proposed. The building expansion would encroach into the common lot area and therefore requires a Lot Line Adiustment; APN: 155-271-09,10,11; Office (0) Zoning District; Marin Covenant Church, owners; Brad Oldenbrook, applicant; File No(s): ED12-013/UP12-007/LLA12-001. This_prolect was continued from the June 5, 2012 meeting date). Proiect Planner: Caron Parker Stewart Summers moved and Cheryl Lentini seconded to approve project with the incorporation of the following consensus items: 1) That additional finger islands be added to the parking area. 2) That the mullions and doors are revised to line up on the storefront. The vote is as follows: AYES: Cheryl Lentini, Stewart Summers, Mohit Garg, Jeff Kent, Chair NOES: Bob Huntsberry ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Serge Fedorov 4. 31 Gold Hill Grade -Environmental and Design Review Permit for a new 6,468 qross sa. ft. Lingle family residence in a two level structure over a basement on a vacant 1.07 -acre hillside parcel with a 28% slope; APN: 015-091-04• R1a-H Zone; Stephen Charlie Applicant: George Mann and Stephanie Morgan owners; Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood. Proiect Planner: Raffi Bolovan Stewart Summers moved and Mohit Garg seconded to continue item to allow applicant to redesign elements of the project as follows: 1) Upper floor level needs to be stepped back to integrate better into the hillside and break up massing. 2) The deck/hot tub needs to be stepped back significantly. 3) Drainage should be collected and conveyed across the street and away from the neighbor. The vote is as follows: AYES: Bob Huntsberry, Cheryl Lentini, Stewart Summers, Mohit Garg, Jeff Kent, Chair NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Serge Fedorov NEW BUSINESS 5. 207 Chula Vista Drive (Pilgrim Residence) -Requests for Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the construction of a 4,144 -sq. ft. new single family residence and associated site and landscaping improvements, and a Lot Line Adjustment to consolidate two existing lots into one vacant 23,860 -sq. ft. hillside site, with 44% slope; APN: 011-022- 10 and 11; Single Family Residential (R10) District; Craig Pilgrim, owner; Don Henderson, applicant; File No.: ED12-031; LLA12-002. Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal Mohit Garg moved and Stewart Summers seconded to approve project with the incorporation of the following consensus items concerning landscaping: 1) Consider adding genetic diversity into the treescape by the adding of native oaks near the Hammerhead. 2) Break up the long row of Arbutis Marina trees with oaks to result in two smaller groves of trees. The vote is as follows: AYES: Bob Huntsberry, Cheryl Lentini, Stewart Summers, Mohit Garg, Jeff Kent, Chair NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Serge Fedorov ADJOURNMENT: ANNE DERRICK, Administrative Assistant III APPROVED THIS—DAY—OF '2012 JEFF KENT, Chair