HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2012-07-24 #3 CITY OF
Community Development Department – Planning Division
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184
Meeting Date: Jul 24, 2012
Agenda Item:
Case Numbers:
AP12-003
Project Planner:
Sarjit Dhaliwal – (415) 485-3397
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 37 Perry Walk –Appeal of Zoning Administrator approval of an Environmental and
Design Review Permit to demolish an existing 892-sq. ft. 2-story single family residence
and construct a new 3,206-sq. ft. 3-story single family residence above a basement;
Exception to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway; and Variance to
encroach 20 feet into the required 20-ft. front yard setback and to encroach 10 feet into
the required 10-ft. side yard setback and to construct a retaining wall over 4-ft. high for
access steps, located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope; APN:
013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James
Bradanini, applicant; appellants, Amy Koenig and Joanne Brauman; Case File Nos.:
ED11-078; V11-003.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project proposes to replace an exiting 884 sq ft single family home with a new 3,206 sq ft, three
story single family home. Additionally, the project requests an Exception to allow the required guest
parking spaces to be located in the driveway and Variances to allow 0-foot setbacks at the front and side
property lines, where 20 feet and 10 feet are required respectively. The project is subject to an
Environmental and Design Review Permit at the Zoning Administrator level as it proposes a new multi
story single family home in a hillside area.
This project was reviewed on three occasions by the Design Review Board (DRB), once as a Conceptual
application and twice as a formal project. The DRB ultimately recommended approval of the project
design on May 8, 2012. On June 7, 2012, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing,
accepting the public testimony and DRB recommendation and ultimately conditionally approved the
Environmental and Design Review Permit, Exception and Variances for the project.
On June 13th, an appeal of the ZA’s decision was filed by an adjacent neighbor. Therefore, the appeal
and the project have been forwarded to the Commission for consideration and action. The appeal cites 8
points of appeal which primarily raise concern with the large size of the home, shading impact,
incompatibly with the surrounding homes, parking/traffic impacts, approval variances granting special
privileges.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find and determine that the points of the appeal cannot
be supported. All the issues raised by the appeal were adequately and thoroughly considered and
reviewed by the DRB and ZA. The project complies with nearly all the development standards required
for the R10 Zoning District and the Hillside Overlay District, with the exception of the guest parking
requirement and the front and side yard setback requirements. Findings to grant an Exception and
Variance have been made, based on the topography and size of the property. In order to minimize
grading, even a 2-bedroom house on the subject property would need the granted Exception and
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 2
Variance. The DRB recommended approval of the project and determined that the project adequately
complied with the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits and Hillside Design
Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying the Appeal (AP12-003)
and upholding the Zoning Administrator’s conditional approval of the project.
PROPERTY FACTS
Address/Location: 37 Perry Walk Parcel Number(s): 013-133-04
Property Size: 15,161+ sq. ft. Neighborhood: Picnic Valley
Neighborhood
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: LDR (Low Density
Residential)
R10 (Single Family
Residential)
Single Family
Residence
North: LDR R10 Single Family Residence
South: LDR R5 Single Family Residence
East: LDR R5 Single Family Residence
West: LDR R10 Single Family Residence
Site Description/Setting:
The subject parcel is located west of Perry Walk, approximately 100 feet south of the intersection of
Perry Walk and Bungalow Avenue (Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map). Perry Walk is a private access street with a
non-delineated 15-ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way
contains some utility structure improvements, such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway
is partially located on adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry Walk located south of the subject
property contains a drainage swale. The drainage swale is undergrounded north of this point in Perry
Walk. Adjoining uses are single family residential with generally two story buildings. Out of three houses
located on this side (west) of the Perry Walk, the subject house and the adjoining house have zero front
yard setbacks and substandard side yard setbacks, the third house is also developed with substandard
front and side yard setbacks.
The property is an up-sloping lot with a 55.0% slope and is currently developed with a one-car garage on
the lower level with an approximately 598 sq. ft. one-bedroom residential unit above the garage.
Approximately seven 6”-20” oak trees and three 10”-22” bay trees have been identified in the rear and
side of the property.
BACKGROUND
According to the County Assessor’s records, the existing residence was constructed in 1921. Around
2006, in an attempt to expand the existing residence, previous owners of the property excavated a
significant area of the property behind and on the side of the existing residence. No grading permits were
obtained for the grading. The unpermitted grading did not come to the attention of the City until the
current owner bought the property in 2010 and started discussing his plans for expansion of the existing
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 3
residence with Planning staff. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as
part of this work.
On June 7, 2012, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing, accepted the DRB’s
recommendation, accepted public comments, and ultimately approved the project with conditions.
Minutes from this meeting outlining the proceedings, findings for approval, and conditions of approval are
attached (Exhibit 4).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use: The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 892 sq. ft. single family dwelling and build a
3,206 sq. ft. new single family residence. The proposed residence would consist of a four-level; up to
28½-ft. high structure with a 25-ft. long and 27-ft. wide driveway; a two-car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first
floor level; six bedrooms; and 4½ bathrooms.
Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10-ft. and
approximately 75-ft. side setbacks and approximately 63-ft. rear setback. A 9-ft. high retaining wall
located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading to the first floor of the
residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to
the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry Walk. A 2-car garage would be located south of the
driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and
covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have
adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway.
An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent
property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on
the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this
structure for access to their property.
Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows:
• Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding
• Milgard windows with Navajo white trim
• Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit
• Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers
• Navajo white metal guardrails
• Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps
• Forest green Class A composition shingles
• Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers
Landscaping: Three (3) 15-gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15-gallon Arbutus
Undeo ‘Marina’ (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the
north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted
with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft. disturbed site areas to their natural
state.
One 8” oak tree would be removed. The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal
grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two
additional trees of unknown size and species were removed.
Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 4
Grading/Drainage: This project proposes 107 cu. yds. cut and fill to be balanced on site, to construct the
project and restore previously graded areas.
The project would follow drainage recommendations contained in a Geotechnical Report prepared for the
project as follows:
• Upslope exterior foundations should be provided with backdrains penetrating one foot below
interior or subfloor grades;
• Retaining walls should be back-drained and provided with separate surface drainage to avoid
infiltration and related backdrain overcharging;
• Ground surfaces should be sloped for rapid drainage away from building areas. Upslope drainage
should be channeled around the structure or into a separate system;
• Roof drainage should be channeled downslope away from the structure. If discharge to the swale
is unacceptable, erosion protection could be achieved by discharging through multiple outlets
over six-inch, rock rip-rap.
ANALYSIS:
Appeal Issues:
Within the statutory appeal period, an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s action was filed along with the
required filing fee. The appellant, Amy Koenig, neighbor at the adjacent 12 Perry Walk property,
submitted a letter dated June 13, 2012, which is attached (Exhibit 3). The appeal letter cites numerous
points of appeal. Below in bold italics are all of the appeal points presented in the June 13th letter
followed by a staff response:
Appeal Point # 1. The finding that the project enhances the neighborhood image and respects
existing landforms and natural features (NH-2) is inaccurate.
Staff Response: The existing development on Perry Walk consists of generally old houses. The
existing house on the subject property and the adjoining house have zero front yard setbacks and
substandard side yard setbacks. The third house on the same side of the block also has substandard
front and side yard setbacks. Two of the houses located on Perry Walk have no onsite parking. The
other four houses (including the subject property) have only non-complaint parking in terms of
number of parking spaces and driveway length. Staff believes the demolition of the existing old
house, restoration of the illegally graded site and rebuilding of a new house would physically enhance
the neighborhood. It would provide two onsite parking spaces in the garage and three non-compliant
parking spaces in the driveway. Further, the proposed design respects the existing topography
(landform) by following it uphill as it steps back. The proposed design also strives to save a maximum
number of existing trees.
Appeal Point # 2. The finding that the proposed larger size of the house as compared to
neighboring houses is in keeping with the larger size of the lot is inaccurate. If the larger size
of the lot is to be a deciding influence there would not be a need for front and side setback
variances. The entire space of the lot would be used to conform with front and side setback
requirements. The need for variances supports the argument that the house is simply too
massive for the neighborhood and lot. The Variances are being requested to accommodate a
huge house that is out of scale with immediate surrounding development.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 5
Staff Response: A total of seven lots are located on Perry Walk. The subject property is
approximately 15,161 sq. ft in size and proposes a house size of 3,206 sq ft. The other six lots range
in size from 4,396 to 7,500 sq. ft. and host homes with an average size of 1,200 sq. ft. The subject
property being a larger lot is capable of accommodating proportionately larger development size.
Furthermore, the proposed house size of 3,206 sq ft is below the 4,016 sq ft maximum gross building
square footage limit established for a lot of this size by the Hillside Guidelines.
The requirement for front and side setback variances is necessitated not by the size of the house but
by the consideration to minimize grading as directed by Hillside Residential Design Guidelines
(Section IV.A3. Hillside Grading and Drainage). Even a 2-bedroom house on this property would
need front and side yard setback variances and exception from the hillside parking standards for two
onsite guest parking spaces. Rebuilding of any of the other houses on Perry Walk would need similar
variances and exceptions.
Design Review Board also received a comment from the Planning Commission liaison that the City
cannot and will not discriminate against large families. The issue of the large size house was
discussed and reviewed by the DRB and the project as designed, was ultimately recommended for
approval.
Appeal Point # 3. The proposed project is detrimental to my property (12 Perry Walk) due to
the looming presence and impact of light. The shadow diagram clearly shows the impact the
building would have on light on my property. The staff finding that this would not impact my
home is inaccurate as it compares the blockage of sunlight from a building within feet of my
property to shading from the trees over 1,000 feet away with space between the branches
allowing filtered light.
Staff Response: According to Section 14.25.050.F.6.g. of the Zoning Ordinance, shading of active
recreational areas in the rear and/or side yards of adjacent properties should generally not exceed
ten percent (10%) of the area or increase existing shading by more than ten percent (10%) between
the hours of noon and three p.m. (3:00 p.m.) on December 21 due to the proposed upper story
construction. Applications which cannot meet this design criterion shall demonstrate that every
feasible effort has been made to reduce the shading impacts of the proposed structure and that a
reasonable upper-story addition which complies with this design criterion is not feasible. The project
plans contain a shadow diagram depicting the shadow cast by the existing house at 37 Perry Walk
(Sheet C4) and a shadow diagram depicting shading by the proposed new structure (Sheet L3).
Diagram on Sheet C4 demonstrates that most of the building at 12 Perry Walk is currently shaded by
the existing house. The proposed house (Sheet L3) would result in generally more shading of the
rear yard of the house at 12 Perry Walk. However, as demonstrated by Exhibit 5, the subject
property, the appellant’s property at 12 Perry Walk and some other properties located on Perry Walk
are already in shade due to the trees located on the subject property and further uphill. Therefore, the
proposed structure would not actually result in shading any active recreational areas on the adjoining
property.
The existing dwelling proposed to be demolished and the adjoining residence at 12 Perry Walk are
located side by side with approximately 5 feet between them. The proposed residence at 37 Perry
Walk would be approximately 13 feet from the residence at 12 Perry Walk, would be set back toward
the rear approximately 32 feet from the front of the 12 Perry Walk structure and stepped back
reducing the bulk impact. The new building side facing the side of the residence at 12 Perry Walk
would also have stepback thereby reducing the bulk impact. Therefore, the proposed building would
not have a looming presence on the property at 12 Perry Walk.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 6
Due to the steep uphill slope of the property and termination of Perry Walk’s paved portion here, the
only way to locate the new residence away from the existing residence at 12 Perry Walk would be to
push it back and to the south requiring excessive grading into the hillside.
These issues were discussed and reviewed by the DRB and the project as designed, was ultimately
recommended for approval.
Appeal Point # 4. The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in
terms of parking requirements. Perry Walk is a substandard street with extremely limited
parking. It is unlike any street I have ever seen- hence its name – Perry “Walk”. To allow a
3,400 sq. ft. (actually 3,206 sq. ft.) home with six bedrooms without meeting the parking
requirement again suggests that the home is too large for the neighborhood and grants this
homeowner a privilege that would not and could not (because of lot size and hillside) be
allowed others in the vicinity of the project.
Staff Response: The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements
where on streets less than twenty-six (26’) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking
spaces are required. However, pursuant to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or
reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or
tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. The shape of the lot and the need for excessive
grading and tree removal make the requirement infeasible in that in order to provide the required two
additional parking spaces, the project would need to be significantly pushed back in to the hillside,
and would result in significant grading and removal of existing trees. Even a 2-bedroom house on this
property would need an exception from the hillside parking requirements. The proposed design
provides two covered and three non-compliant parking spaces which is a significant improvement
over the current one covered parking space provided for the existing one-bedroom residence, and
substantially complies with the R10-H parking requirements. Both the DRB and ZA found that
allowing the 2 guest parking spaces to be counted within the driveway was appropriate given the
additional grading and cutting of the property that would be required to push the structure back
further. The provision of the proposed parking would be a great improvement over the existing
situation of no onsite parking or inadequate parking on all other properties on Perry Walk.
Clearly, future rebuilding of any properties on Perry Walk would need similar exception from the
hillside parking requirements. However, no other properties on Perry Walk have applied for a similar
parking reduction. Until there is project application for any of the other properties, it cannot be known
whether such a parking exception would be approved or not for those properties. Those applications
would be evaluated based on the facts in place for that property and whether the required findings
can be made for such a reduction.
Appeal Point # 5. The finding that the variances will not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which such property
is located is inaccurate. Other homes on Perry Walk have existing since the 1960’s and would
not be allowed to rebuild to the extent of the subject property as they would never be able to
meet City requirements for stepbacks, side and front setbacks or parking requires. Unless
this project is to establish the rules for this neighborhood going forward. If this is to be the
case then there will be a need for significant street and parking changes to Perry Walk as it
exists today.
Staff Response: As stated above, future rebuilding of any properties on Perry Walk would need
similar exceptions and variances. However, no other properties on Perry Walk have applied for a
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 7
similar parking exception or setback variance. For approval of a parking exception or setback
variance the property needs to meet certain criteria of hardship or infeasibility. Whether setback
variances or parking exceptions for future projects on other properties would be approved or not
would depend on an actual project application and demonstration of compliance with the required
criteria, and demonstration that the required findings can be made to grant such a variance or
exception.
Appeal Point # 6. Traffic and safety concerns are a serious issue on Perry Walk. The
increased traffic caused by a six bedroom home is a real concern to all residents of the street.
One needs only to visit Perry Walk in person to understand the validity of this item.
Staff Response: Perry Walk is a substandard street. In addition to the vehicles entering or leaving the
street, Perry Walk is mainly used for parking by most of the existing properties that do not currently
have off-street parking. The subject project would not impact the existing street parking because the
subject property would have two parking spaces in the garage and the ability to park three vehicles in
the driveway.
Appeal Point # 7. The proposed project is incompatible with the neighborhood. The typical
house size in the neighborhood is less than 1,200 sq. ft. The erected story poles confirm that
the proposed building will be massive in size compared to the rest of the neighborhood and
significantly alter the neighborhood feel of small homes, built previously for vacation homes
during the early days of this quaint small San Rafael neighborhood.
Staff Response: The lot sizes of the other six properties on Perry Walk range from 4,396 sq. ft. to
7,500 sq. ft. As stated by the appellant, typical house size on these lots is 1,200 sq. ft. Both staff and
the DRB found that the proposed 3,206 sq. ft. house located on a 15,161 sq. ft. is compatible with the
lot size and the neighborhood. The proposed structure was also found to be adequately stepped up
the hillside to minimize the appearance of mass and bulk as viewed from downhill (Perry Walk). The
property owner has six children. The proposed house would contain six bedrooms which are
generally 100 sq. ft. in area. Although at 3,206 sq. ft. the house may seem to be large, it would be
just enough to serve the needs of the family. The house would have a modest size
living/dining/kitchen area and would not contain any office or media rooms. Further, as stated above,
the City cannot discriminate large families.
Appeal Point # 8. Demolition of the existing house allows for a “blank slate” where anything
can be built. A new home allows for compatibility with the neighborhood and a home that can
be built without requiring variances or requiring privileges that would not be given to other
properties in the vicinity.
Staff Response: The City encourages maintenance of, and improvements to, private properties. This
is a rebuilding project. Over the last few decades the house sizes have evolved to larger sizes due to
the changing family needs, e.g. one bedroom for every child. The proposed house with 6 bedrooms
reflects that change in the family structure. However, the house has a modest size living/dining room,
the children’s bedrooms are approximately 100 sq. ft. each and there is no ‘media’ room or offices
which are generally used to justify a larger size house. The proposed house on this property can be
built without any variances, but it would require enormous grading into the hillside. The granting of
the variances is necessitated by the requirement for minimizing grading. Even a 2-bedroom house on
this property and other properties on Perry Walk would need parking exception and setback
variances in order to minimize grading.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 8
San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency
There are a few and pertinent General Plan policies that are applicable to this project. As part of the DRB
and ZA review and action, it was determined that the project is consistent with these policies.
The design of the proposed single family residence as recommended by the DRB, is in accordance with
the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 because the project has been designed consistent with the
following General Plan Policies: Land Use Policies LU-12 (Building Heights) and LU-23 (Land Use Map
and Categories), Housing Policies H-2 (Neighborhood Improvements) and H-8 (Housing Discrimination),
Neighborhood Element Policies NH-2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) and NH-3
(Housing Mix), CD-3 (Neighborhoods), and CD-15 (Participation in Project Review) because:
a. The project meets and does not exceed the maximum height requirement specified in Exhibit 7 of
the General Plan (LU12);
b. The project is consistent with its General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential
(LDR) (LU-23). The project will not change the existing residential density and will stay in
compliance with the maximum allowable Gross Density of 2-6.5 units per acre (LU-23);
c. The reconstruction of the existing dwelling would enhance the appearance of the neighborhood
(H-2);
d. The proposed 3,206 sq. ft. house size is consistent with the requirement of the large family with
six children (H-8);
e. The project enhances the neighborhood image and respects existing landforms and natural
features (NH-2);
f. The proposed design contributes to a broad range of house size opportunities in the
neighborhood (NH-3);
g. The proposed three-story design is different than the single or two story designs of the
neighboring houses but remains consistent Policy CD-3 which allows flexibility for innovative
design. Further, the proposed larger house as compared to the neighboring residences is in
keeping with the larger size (15,161 sq. ft.) of the subject property as compared to the
neighboring lot sizes ranging from 4,396 sq. ft. to 7,500 sq. ft.; and
h. The project is consistent with Policy CD-15 in that public hearing notices were sent to the
neighbors and other interested persons prior to the three Design Review Board meetings and the
Zoning Administrator hearing for the project.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 4 – Residential Districts
The proposed project design is consistent with the specific purposes of the Residential (R) districts
pursuant to Section 14.04.010 of the Zoning Ordinance in that the project provides a sensitive hillside
design that minimizes grading, and bulk and mass by stepping the four level home into the hillside the
stepbacks provided to respect privacy and provide open space between the adjacent smaller residential
properties. The proposed residence complies with the development standards for lot coverage, maximum
building height and parking under the R10 zoning district. It also complies with the stepback and natural
state criteria for Hillside Overlay (-H) District. However, it does not comply with the development
standards regarding front and side yard setbacks, which require 20 feet front and 10 feet side yard
setbacks. A Variance would be required for the proposed setbacks. According to SRMC14.23.070.
Findings, approval of a Variance from these development standards would require the following findings
to be made:
A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title
deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification;
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 9
B. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such property is
situated;
C. That granting the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the zoning district in which the subject
property is located; and
D. That granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare.
The Zoning Administrator approved the Variance based on the above findings as follows:
• The site has a steep uphill slope and the lot is wider than deep with limited frontage on the
paved portion of Perry Walk. Due to these special circumstances pertaining to topography
and lot configuration, strict compliance with the required setbacks would require an excessive
amount of grading into the hillside. The other two residences on the same side of Perry Walk
have substandard setbacks while the adjoining property has zero front yard setback.
• Given the topography of the site, the placement of the structure with a 0 ft front yard setback
would minimize grading, while it would still provide the required covered off street parking.
• The garage of the existing single family residence is located on the front property line and has
no driveway. The proposed project would be an improvement over this condition in that it
would have a 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway.
• As stated above, other two properties located on the same side of Perry Walk have been
developed with setbacks which range from zero front yard setback for the adjoining property
to substandard setbacks for the two properties. Out of a total of six residences located on
Perry Walk, only two residences (7 and 17 Perry Walk) comply with the required setbacks.
Therefore, granting of the front and side yard setback variance for the subject property would
not amount to special privileges not already enjoyed by most of the other properties on Perry
Walk.
• A proposed higher than 4-ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north
property line does not comply with the required 10-ft. side setback. The proposed retaining
wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation
where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of
steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required
10-ft. side setback would require the proposed residence to be pushed to the west which in
turn would require relocating some of the existing improvements in the right of way.
• A single family residence is a permitted use in R10 zoning district. Granting of the variance
does not authorize a change in the use.
Chapter 12 – Hillside Overlay District
Given that the site has a slope greater than 25%, the property is subject to the Hillside Overlay District
overlay standards in addition to the base R10 Zoning standards, As designed, the project is consistent
with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building
Square Footage and Ridgeline Development.
The project does not comply with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements for streets less than
twenty-six (26’) wide, where two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required in addition to the two
covered parking spaces. Pursuant to Section 12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by
the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal
makes the requirement infeasible. A waiver has been requested, reviewed and recommended for
approval by the DRB and approved by the ZA as follows:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 10
• The shape of the lot and the need for excessive grading or tree removal make the requirement
infeasible in that in order to provide the required two additional parking spaces, the project would
need to be significantly pushed back in to the hillside, and would result in significant grading and
removal of existing trees.
• The proposed design provides two covered parking spaces and three non-compliant parking
spaces which is a significant improvement over the current one covered parking space provided
for the existing one-bedroom residence, and substantially complies with the R10-H parking
requirements.
Chapter 25 – Environmental and Design Review Permit
The project is consistent with Chapter 25 – Design Review Criteria in that the proposed structure would
be stepped back avoiding any visual impact, the project would provide quality materials and colors and
would not result in additional shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property.
San Rafael Design Guidelines:
As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design
Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows,
driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential
Design Guidelines criteria that states ‘vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street’.
However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been
approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. The
Public Works Department has reviewed this and given the limited amount of traffic and the fact that this
site is at the end of the Perry Walk, visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not
back out into the street.
San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines:
Given that the site has an average slope greater than 25%, any development on the site is subject to the
Hillside Design Guidelines. The Hillside Design Guidelines, include both the development standards that
have been incorporated into Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as design guidelines that are
used to review project that are contained in the Hillside Guidelines manual.
As discussed above, the project is consistent with all hillside standards contained in Chapter 12, except
for the required guest parking, for which an Exception has been requested and granted (See discussion
above in Zoning Ordinance analysis).
The entire Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 6). A
complete analysis of the project’s consistency with the Hillside Guidelines is also provided as Exhibit 8.
In summary, the project is consistent with the criteria for preservation of significant trees, hillside grading
and drainage, driveway and parking design, reduction of building bulk, hillside architectural character,
planting design and site lighting.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The project was reviewed by the DRB on three occasions, once as a Conceptual Review and twice as a
formal application. On June 21, 2011, the Design Review Board reviewed a Conceptual Design for the
expansion of the existing residence to 3,825 sq. ft. The Board provided the following comments
(Planning Commission liaison: Charlie Pick):
• Consider rebuilding the entire structure rather that an expansion to the existing residence.
• Reduce the proposed 3,825 sq. ft. size of the residence; and
• Push the building back and comply with parking requirements.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 11
On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the formal application for an Environmental
and Design Review Permit which proposed the demolition of the existing residence and the construction
of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. With a 5-0 vote (Planning Commission liaison, Charlie
Pick), the Board continued the matter with the following recommendations:
• Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials;
• Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk;
• Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact;
• Provide good vehicular circulation; and
• Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway.
On May 8, 2012, the Design Review Board favorably reviewed project plans that were revised to address
the February 7th comments, including the reduction of project size to 3,206 sq. ft. At the conclusion of this
meeting, with a 3-1 vote (Alternate Serge Fedorov, dissenting) (Planning Commission liaison, Marybeth
Lang) the Board recommended approval of the project design to the Zoning Administrator.
There are no written minutes from this meeting, however the actual DRB proceedings can be viewed on-
line at www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings and selecting the meeting date, and clicking on video.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA
Guidelines, which exempts construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. If the
Planning Commission determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies
may be required.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE
Notices of all meetings and hearings for the project were conducted in accordance with noticing
requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of the Planning Commission
Public Hearing was mailed to appellants, all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of
the subject site and the Picnic Valley Neighborhood Association, and all other interested parties, 15
calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Public notice was also posted on
the subject site 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing.
Staff has not received any phone calls or written correspondence regarding this project. The appellant’s
concerns are discussed in the Appeal Issues and Analysis section above. Staff has received two letters
regarding this project. Issues raised are generally the same as in the appeal letter. Additionally, one of
the letters is accompanied by an analysis showing that the proposed design does not comply with
stepback requirements. All letters received for this project from the conceptual design review stage to
date are attached in Exhibit 9.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 12
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the project (staff
recommendation).
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the approval with certain modifications, changes or additional
conditions of approval.
3. Continue the appeal hearing to allow the applicant/appellant to address any of the
Commission’s comments or concerns
4. Approve the appeal and deny the project and direct staff to return with a revised
Resolution with findings for denial.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity/Location Map
2. Draft Resolution
3. Appeal Letter dated June 13, 2012:
4. Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes, including findings and conditions , June 7, 21012
5. Bird’s eye view picture showing shading in the neighborhood
6. Hillside Residential Design Guidelines Compliance Checklist
7. Vehicle Turnaround Templates
8. Hillside Residential Design Guidelines Analysis Table
9. Public Correspondence