HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2013-04-03 West End TownhomesCITY OF
Aedq Gt
Community Development Department — Planning Division
Meeting Date: April 3, 2013
(continued from March 19, 2013, no quorum)
Case Numbers: ED12-058/V12-002
Project Planner: Caron Parker (415) 485-3094
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 21 G Street [West End Townhomes] — Environmental and Design Review for construction
of a three-story, 8 -unit for -sale condominium townhome development on flat lot running
between G Street and Ida Street. Two of the townhome units would be located on G Street
and six units would be located on Ida Street; APN: 011-232-10; High Density Multifamily
Residential (HR1) Zone; Stan Camiccia; Applicant; David and Christina Rasonsky, Owners;
West End Village Neighborhood.
PROPERTY FACTS
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation
Zoning Designation
Existing Land -Use
Lot Coverage
Required:
Proposed:
6,000 sf
10,836 sf(existing)
Project Site:
High Density Residential (HDR)
High Density Multi-
Family (HR1)
Single Family Residence,
garage
North:
West End Village WEV
WEV
Commercial
South:
Second/Third Mixed Use
HR1 and 2/3MUW
Residential and Commercial
East:
HDR
HR1, WEV
Residential and Commercial
West:
WEV
WEV
Commercial
Site Development Summary
Lot Size
Lot Coverage
Required:
Proposed:
6,000 sf
10,836 sf(existing)
Allow/Req:
Proposed:
60% (6,501 sf)
52% 5,653 sf
Height
Density or Floor Area
Allowed:
Proposed:
36'
31'10" G St)/34'1 0" Ida St
Allowed:
Proposed:
1,000 sf/dwelling unit (10 units)
8 units(including 1 BMR
Parking
Upper Floor Area
Required:
Proposed:
16 spaces
14 tandem, 2 independent covered
spaces
Allowed:
Proposed:
N/A
N/A
Yard or Landscape Area
Setbacks
Required:
Proposed:
Required:
Proposed:
100 sf usable open space/du (800 sf)
Roof patio (G St. 902 sf, Ida St. 533 sf),
Decks (G St 288 sf) Private Yards at G
St & common area at Ida St 757 sf.
50% of front yard landscaped
37% on G Street/52% on Ida Street;
total site landscaping = 2,883 sf ground
level
Required
Existing — G
St/Ida St
Proposed —G
St/Ida St
Front: 15'
Side(s): 5'
Rear: 5'
8'
4724'
N/A
15' both
475'
N/A/5'
Grading
Tree Removal
Total:
Gravel import = 105 cu.yds
Dirt export =315 cu.yds.
Total(No.ispecies): 4 (Privet, Pear, Walnut, Oak)
Requirement: N/A
Proposed: 31 trees
SUMMARY
Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.040.A.1, Planning Commission level design review is
required for new residential structures with 3 stories or more. The proposed project is being referred to
the Board for design recommendations on the proposed 8 -unit townhome development on G Street
and Ida Street (see Exhibit 1 -Vicinity Map). A total of 16 off-street parking spaces would be provided
(2 side-by-side spaces for the townhomes on G Street and 6 tandem spaces for the townhomes on Ida
Street). The townhomes are a for -sale condominium project and the applicant is intending to submit for
a Tentative Map prior to Planning Commission review. The project was reviewed as a Conceptual
Design at the October 4, 2011 Design Review Board meeting. Based on the Board's comments and
concerns expressed at the public hearing, the proposed project was revised to reduce the number of
units proposed from 9 units to 8 units, add 757 square feet of common recreational space at ground
level, change the proposed parking configuration for the G Street townhomes from tandem to side by
side (tandem parking is still proposed for the 6 units on Ida Street), re -design the front facade on G
Street, and provide more amenities on the roof patio, including seating, planters and a water feature.
Based on the proposed project design, variances will be required on the G Street townhome design for
front entry stair encroachment into the required 15' front setback, building encroachment into the
required 5' side yard setback, and the 50% front yard landscaping (proposing 37%). In addition, the
tandem parking design on Ida Street would require a variance to encroach 1 foot into the required 20'
driveway setback and a variance for a 2 foot encroachment into a portion of the required 5' rear yard
setback. Staff has determined that findings can be made to justify the variance requests, in light of the
site constraints and location/size of the encroachments, and the challenging circumstances to provide
the 16 parking spaces required on-site. Further, the variances will help facilitate a site design more
compatible with the existing neighborhood character. With respect to the parking, the proposed 16
tandem parking is allowed as a concession per State density bonus regulations, but the applicant is
using only 14 tandem spaces on Ida Street and 2 side-by-side parking spaces on G Street.
Based on review of the applicable Chapter 25 design review criteria, staff has identified concerns with
the project, as discussed below. Staff requests that the Board provide a recommendation on the
design concept's ability to comply with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to
consider the following:
Site Plan
Whether the proposed common outdoor recreational area at the north side of the Ida Street
townhomes should be relocated to the south side to increase the building setback distance, helping
to rcducc the impact or the buildings bulk on the adjacent si.igle &i.ily home at 20 Id., SII CCI.
o Whether the proposed side yard setback of 5' should be increased in order to minimize the impact
of a 3 -story structure on adjacent properties.
o Whether the driveway curb cuts should be reduced or re -designed to minimize the loss of on -street
parking.
Architecture
0 Whether the proposed design has incorporated adequate transitions in stepback and side yard/rear
yard setbacks to reduce bulk and minimize impacts to adjacent single-family properties.
0 Whether there are design adjustments that could be implemented that would eliminate some or all
of the requested variances.
Landscaping
0 Whether the proposed tree species and plant palette is appropriate and/or adequate
E
BACKGROUND
The project was reviewed as a Conceptual Design at the October 4, 2011 Design Review Board
meeting (a video of this meeting is available through the City's website). The Board was generally
supportive of the conceptual design, but did express concern regarding the following:
• Bulk of the project seemed large along G Street
• Provide stepbacks for upper levels if the design remains 3 stories
• Reduce the number materials used for the building exterior
® Feasibility of tandem parking design
• Consider a reduction in the number of units to improve site design/landscaping options
• Provide more ground level open space or augment the proposed roof patios
• Consider reducing the number of curb cuts on Ida Street
During the conceptual design review hearing, several neighbors expressed concern about the
feasibility of tandem parking, building height/bulk and the impact of 3 -stories on the light/air for
adjacent single-family homes, and the loss of on -street parking spaces. In response to the DRB
recommendations at the conceptual design review hearing, the project was re -designed and submitted
as a formal application on August 30, 2012 with the following major changes:
➢ The number of units proposed were reduced from 9 units to 8 units
➢ Private ground level patio and first floor decks added to the G Street townhomes
➢ The addition of 757 square feet of ground level common recreational space
➢ Parking for the two G Street townhomes was changed from tandem to side by side (independently
accessible). Tandem parking is still proposed for the six units on Ida Street
➢ The roof patio amenities were identified to include seating, planters, and a water feature. The
proposed BBQ grills were eliminated, as a BBQ grill is proposed for the common recreation area
➢ The number of exterior building materials proposed on the fagade was reduced
The applicant has submitted a narrative of their design response to the DRB recommendations, which
is included in this staff report as Exhibit 2. The prior plans submitted for Concept Design Review on
October 4, 2011 are also included with the Board packet.
Site Description & Setting:
The proposed project site is a 10,836 square foot through lot located on the east side of G Street,
between G Street and Ida Street in the West End Village (WEV) Neighborhood (see Exhibit 3- project
site plans). The WEV is a neighborhood comprised of a mix of residential and commercial uses in the
Downtown District. An existing single family house at 21 G Street and a garage structure on Ida Street
are proposed to be demolished as part of the project. On the G Street frontage, the project site is
adjacent to a surface parking lot to the north, and residential homes to the south and across the street.
Businesses in the vicinity include Malabar Indian Store at the corner of 4t" and G Street and Arrivederci
Restaurant on the corner of G Street and Second Street. On the Ida Street frontage, the proposed site
would be on the east side of Ida Street and would abut 4`" Street retail businesses to the north, one
residential use to the south and commercial building on the west side of Ida Street. The setting on the
G Street frontage is more oriented toward residential uses (a total of six houses on both sides of the
street), whereas Ida Street is dominated by commercial uses on the corners and along the west side of
the street. The only residential property on Ida Street is one house at 20 Ida Street, adjacent to the
project site to the south.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use: The project proposes construction of a three-story (two-story over garage level) 8 -unit residential
townhome development (see Exhibit 4- Applicant's Statement of Intent). Two of the townhome units
3
would front on G Street and six of the townhome units would front on Ida Street. Two tandem parking
spaces would be provided for each unit. Proposed building height would be approximately 31 feet on
G Street and approximately 33 feet on Ida Street (from existing grade to top of parapet). A roof patio is
proposed for each townhome unit, with a built-in water feature, planters, and seating. One affordable
Below Market Rate (BMR) unit would be provided in compliance with the affordable housing
requirement. The applicant has indicated that the layout and materials used for the BMR unit will be
identical to the market rate units. The 8 townhome units are designed as follows:
G Street townhomes (2 attached buildings):
• Ground Floor: Central entry stairs leading to a covered porch and a 2 -car garage with storage
area
• First Floor: Living room, dining room, kitchen, office/den and access to a rear deck
• Second Floor: Three bedrooms (two bedrooms, bathroom, and a master bedroom/bath),
laundry.
• Roof patio (491 square feet, with additional 34 square feet of potted plants)
Ida Street townhomes (6 buildings):
• Ground Floor: An entry door leading to upstairs and also to the garage with two tandem
spaces (approximately 10'8" wide by 40' deep)
• First Floor: Living room, dining room, kitchen, half bath, and balconies for 2 units
• Second Floor: Two master bedrooms each with a bath, laundry
• Roof patio: 540 square feet (with additional 50 square feet of potted plants)
Site Plan: The proposed buildings on G Street and Ida Street would be setback 15 feet from the front
property lines. Building setback from the side property line would be 4 feet on G Street and 5 feet on
Ida Street. There would be 10 feet of separation between the rear of the townhome buildings.
Tandem parking is proposed only for the Ida Street townhomes. A roof patio is proposed for each
townhome unit, as well as outdoor common and.yard areas. Trash containers would be stored under
the stairwell in the garage. Landscaping would be planted in the front yard area as well as at the rear
between the two buildings (see additional landscape information below). The property would be
surrounded with a decorative metal fence.
Architecture: The proposed townhomes are designed in a row house style. The exterior building
materials are a mix of hardie shingle and stucco, and include accent elements. (See Plan Sheet
Elevations DR10, DR11 and DR12) The top portion of the building would include a cornice element.
The garage donrz ✓ni116 he Jesigned to look like carriage door-- but- would operate as roil -up doors.
The applicant has provided a narrative of the changes in the project design based on comments
received from the Board during conceptual design review (see Exhibit 4), A Color and Material Board
has been included for presentation at the hearing (referenced in elevation plan sheets), and a color
rendering is included as part of the reduced plan set.
Landscaping: A total of 4 trees are proposed to be removed (see Plan Sheet L-1). However, the
project would retain one Elm tree and one Sycamore tree along the G Street frontage. An additional
31 trees (including Japanese Maples, Dogwoods, Crape Myrtles, and Oaks) would be planted on the
site. Boston Ivy would be planted along the plaster sides of the building to provide screening for
adjacent residences. There are also a variety of shrubs, grasses and vines proposed to be added to
the site, as well as the use of decorative pavers and brick for the driveways and walkways. Total
landscaping proposed on site would be 2,883 square feet, with 312 square feet of landscaping
proposed in the required 20' front yard setback on G Street and 872 square feet of landscaping
proposed in the 20' required front yard setback on Ida Street. In addition, the proposed rooftop
planters would add an additional 380 square feet of landscaping.
4
Lighting: The proposed wall mounted fixtures are shown on elevation plan sheets. Samples are
included in Exhibit 5-1 through 5-3).
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The Zoning designation for the project site is HR1 (High Density Multifamily Residential) and the
General Plan Land Use designation is High Density Residential (15-32 units per acre). The proposed
project is generally consistent with the General Plan policies with regard to its High Density Residential
Land Use Designation, Allowable Height (Policy LU -12), Density (Policy LU -23), Historic Resources
(Policy CD -4), Neighborhood Improvement (Policy H-2), New Development (Policy NH -2), Inclusionary
Housing (Policy H-19), Landscaping (Policy CD -18), Green Building Construction (Policy SU -51), and
Affordable Housing (SU -8a). However, staff is concerned about the project's consistency with the
following General Plan policies:
➢ Housing Policy H-3 (Designs That Fit Into The Neighborhood Context): Design new housing,
remodels and additions to be compatible in form to the surrounding neighborhood. Incorporate
transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect adjacent development
character and privacy.
)> Neighborhoods Policy NH -43 (West End Village Design Considerations): Blend new multi -family
development on second and Third Streets into the character and appearance on the Latham Street
neighborhood. New development should have elements similar to existing structures.
➢ Community Design Element CD -3 (Neighborhoods): Recognize, preserve and enhance the
positive qualities that give neighborhoods their unique identities, while allowing flexibility for
innovative design
➢ Community Design Policy CD -13 (Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines): Recognize,
preserve and enhance the design elements that contribute to the livability of neighborhoods and
their visual appearance.
The fact that the project is a through -lot presents a challenge in project design. Staff has evaluated the
project based on two very distinct street frontages and neighborhood character. The Ida Street
frontage is dominated by two-story commercial structures, with one single family home and detached
garage on the east side of Ida Street. The G Street frontage is dominated by single family homes (one
story and multi -story), with larger commercial structures anchoring the corners of the block. The
proposed re -design for the G Street frontage would reflect some of the architectural elements of the
single-family homes along G Street by utilizing a gable roof form and entry stair design. The design will
help to reduce the impact of the taller structure on the adjacent property at 15 G Street. The Ida Street
frontage is designed as a row house, which is taller than the adjacent existing single-family house to
the south of the project site at 20 Ida Street. However, the proposed new townhomes meet the
required 5 foot setback on the south side, and the townhome is adjacent to the detached garage and
not the main residence at 20 Ida Street. The proposed Ida Street frontage would add interest to a
streetscape currently dominated by the blank wall of the commercial building across the street.
With respect to historic resources, the property at 21 G Street is not listed on the City's 1986
Historical/Architectural Survey. However, the building is over 50 years old (built in 1910) and as such,
staff determined that a historic assessment would be required prior to demolition. The project has
submitted a historic resource evaluation by Archeological Resources Technology (dated December 7,
2012). The report determined that the existing residence at 21 G Street did not qualify as a historic
resource. However, the project area is considered to be moderately sensitive for prehistoric and
historic archaeological deposits, and the report recommended monitoring during construction to
determine the presence/absence of cultural resources.
5
Staff requests that the Board comment on the following:
• Whether the project design has incorporated adequate transitions in height and setbacks to be
more compatible with the existing home on Ida Street.
• Whether the proposed tree species and plant palette is appropriate and/or adequate.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 14.04 - Base District Regulations
The proposed 8 -unit townhome development is subject to development standards pursuant to Section
14.04.040 - the HR1 (High Density Multifamily Residential) Zoning District. The base density for the site
is 10 residential units; with 10% affordability required pursuant to the City Affordable Housing
requirements of Chapter 14.16. This level of affordability allows the project to request a five -percent
density increase, or one unit over the base allowance for 10 units, and granting of one zoning
concession. The State density bonus law allows the project to propose tandem parking, pursuant to
Section 14.16.030.H.1. This allowance would constitute the one zoning concession for the project,
The project is in substantial compliance with the HR1 zoning regulations, including minimum required
yard areas (as summarized in Property Facts chart on Page 1 of this staff report). However, the
proposed project is not in compliance with several development standards as described below and
would require variance approvals:
Driveway Setback (Ida Street): Pursuant to Table 14.04.040, the development standards for the
driveway setback have not been met. The Zoning Ordinance requires that "where there is a
driveway perpendicular to the street, any garage built after January 1, 1991 shall be setback twenty
feet (20'). The project is proposing a 19 foot setback for Ida Street. The proposed project would
group driveways along Ida Street, eliminating the need for six distinct curb cuts, However, due to
the tandem parking design, a variance to the 20' required driveway setback is requested.
Variance Analysis: The L-shaped lot does not have sufficient depth required to meet all of the
zoning setback and dimension standards with tandem parking. The variance is deemed justified
based on the fact that the project cannot comply with all zoning setback standards, achieve its
allowable and reasonable density and provide tandem parking as permitted under state law.
However, while the variance is requested for all 6 units fronting Ida Street, it is conceivable that the
building section for the southerly three units could be pushed back to provide the additional 1 -foot
setback dimension. This would reduce the yard area separation provided between the two G Street
units. The HR1 Distrirt requires a minimum 8 -foot separation between structures.
2. Rear Yard Setback (Ida Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 14.04.040, the required rear yard
setback for the project site is 5 feet. The Ida Street townhomes are designed with a cantilevered
window projection for the two floor levels above the garage. For two of the units, this cantilevered
section extends 2 feet into the required 5 foot rear yard setback. This design is not considered an
allowable encroachment as an "architectural feature" because the feature extends from floor to
ceiling and for all two stories. As such, a variance would be required for the portion of the Ida
Street buildings encroaching into the required rear yard. Due to the irregular "L" shape of the
parcel, only two the six Ida Street townhomes (northeastern portion) are impacted by the rear yard
setback requirement, as there is no rear property line between the G Street townhomes and the
portion of the Ida Street townhomes directly behind them (refer to Plan Sheet DR1 for property line
boundary). The units encroaching into the rear yard abut a parking lot fronting on G Street serving
commercial development in the WEV district. This parcel is also has an HR1 zoning designation.
Variance Analysis: If the variance is not approved, the projecting portions of these two units would
need to be removed. As a result, the units would be reduced in size and the articulation of building
walls or this rear elevation would be eliminated. Staff rcquests Board comments on its support of
n
this design solution, and recommendations on alternative design or building solutions to maintain
this design feature if the variance cannot be supported.
3. Landscaping (Ida Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, there is a 50%
landscaping requirement (420 square feet) for the required front setback area on G Street. The
proposed landscaping along the G Street frontage is only 312 square feet, 108 square feet less
than required. Much of the frontage along the G Street townhomes would be utilized to create the
paved driveway access to provide side-by-side parking. As such, the area available for
landscaping is reduced and a variance is required. The variance is required to provide side by side
parking for these units, which is more in keeping with the residential character of G Street, and
replaces the previous tandem parking design.
Variance Analysis: The variance is considered to be justified given that this portion of the lot is
narrow, at 56 -feet width, whereas 60 -feet is required for a compliant HR1 lot width. The project
would provide permeable pavers in order to soften the impact of paving and respond to the intent of
the landscape requirement.
4. Front Yard Setback (G Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, the required
front setback for the project site is 15 feet. Stairways are allowed to encroach up to 6 feet into any
required front yard. The proposed front access stairway encroaches 11'8" into the front setback
(i.e., 68" further than allowed). The previous project design did not include stairs, but the G Street
townhomes were re -designed with stairs in order to bring the fagade more in line with existing
single-family architectural styling on G Street. As such, a front setback variance is required for the
new staircase encroachment.
Variance Analysis: If the variance were not supported, the entry alcove and units would need to be
modified accordingly to meet the standards.
5. Side Yard Setback (G Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, a 5' side yard
setback is required in the HR1 zone. The proposed project is designed with a 4 foot side yard
setback for the G Street frontage, in order to accommodate code compliant 20' wide 2 -car garage
width. Similar to the variance request in Item # 3 above, the setback is justifiable based on the
narrow lot width at this portion of the irregularly L-shaped site.
Staff is generally supportive of the requested variances. The applicant has provided staff with
justification for the variance findings (see Exhibit 6). Staff has reviewed the re -designed project and
determined that many of the Board's recommendations have been included in the project re -design,
but that some of the revised design elements trigger the need for a variance. On balance, the
requested variances are deemed to be minor in nature and are being requested to help create a site
design with workable parking design, provide building articulation and achieve a reasonable density
and livable floor areas within the units. Staff requests that the Board consider the requested variances
as they would relate to the proposed design and comment on the following:
® Whether alternative design or building solutions would be recommended to maintain the proposed
design features if the variances cannot be supported.
_Chapter 18 — Parking Standards
Section 14.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires two covered off-street parking spaces for each
residential unit, except no covered parking is required in units located in downtown, and guest parking
is also not required. The proposed tandem spaces are prohibited per Zoning Ordinance Section
14.168.120. However, the proposed project is required to provide 10% of the project as affordable
housing, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.030.B. By providing 1 affordable unit, the
project qualifies for a State density bonus and is allowed 1 zoning concession. The applicant has
elected to choose tandem parking as the qualifying concession. The original conceptual design
VA
proposed tandem parking for both G Street and Ida Street. However, based on input from the Board,
tandem parking for the G Street units was replaced with side-by-side parking.
In terms of parking impacts, there is an existing 14' curb cut on G Street, which would increase to 27'6"
to accommodate two curb cuts (13'9" each). There is an existing 54' curb cut on Ida Street which
would increase to 677" to accommodate 4 new curb cuts (see Plan Sheets CT, P1 and P2). The
project has been designed to minimize new curb cuts. Driveway access along Ida Street has been
consolidated (2 curb cuts serving as access to 4 units), with 2 new curb cuts added. Driveway access
along G Street utilizes the existing curb cut and would add one additional curb cut. The applicant has
indicated that the G Street frontage would lose 1 on -street parking space and Ida Street would lose 2
on -street parking spaces.
Overall, staff can support the requested variances due to site constraints on the shape of the lot, the
applicant's attempts to re -design the project to be more compatible with the prevailing single-family
design and to provide articulation in the building architecture. Staff requests that the Board's comment
on the following:
• Whether the proposed project should be redesigned with no rear yard encroachment;
• Whether the project should be re -designed to reduce/combine curb cuts and retain on -street
parking opportunities.
• Whether the Board can support the proposed design of the building, given the need to 5 variances
to the property development standards.
Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit
The project should be evaluated for conformance with the review criteria identified in Chapter 25 of the
Zoning Ordinance. This chapter states that the new structures should be harmoniously integrated in
relation to both the specific site design and the architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and
materials, scale and building design. Specific architectural design considerations include, but are not
limited to the following:
➢ Creation of interest in the building elevation- particularly the G Street elevation
➢ Encouragement of natural materials and earth tone/wood tone color
➢ The project size/scale should be analyzed as to the appropriateness to the existing
neighborhood scale
➢ Variation in building placement and height
➢ Equal attention to design of all facades
➢ Shadowing on recreational spaces on adjacent properties
➢ Landscape design
San Rafael Design Guidelines:
The San Rafael Design Guidelines are discretionary and intended to assist projects in achieving high
quality design. Staff has determined the following Design Guidelines need to be discussed as part of
the proposed project design:
➢ Building Design: Where there is an existing pattern, particular attention should be given to
maintaining consistent streetscape.
➢ Scale: Where necessary to replicate existing patterns or character of development, design
techniques should be used to break up the volume of larger buildings into smaller units.
Transitional elements, such as stepped facades, roof decks and architectural details that help
merge larger buildings into an existing neighborhood should be used.
➢ Building Height. Adjacent buildings should be considered and transitional elements included to
minimize apparent height differences.
➢ Roof Shapes: Where possible, relate new roof form to those found in the area.
L-1
➢ Building Entrances: Usable front porches, verandas or an overhead trellis can be used to
define the primary entrance and to further define street the fagade.
➢ Parking: Driveway curb cuts and widths should be minimized.
The project is generally consistent with many of the design criteria of Section 14.25.050 of the Zoning
Ordinance in that: 1) the proposed development on G Street has been designed with entry stairs and a
gable roof to be more compatible with the architecture of the existing single family homes on G Street;
2) the project design on Ida Street is compatible with the taller commercial buildings along Ida Street;
3) the proposed materials and colors are compatible with the variety of existing home colors in the
vicinity; 4) the architecture for the development is a mixture of several materials to add interest to all
building elevations; 5) the front and rear fagade of the Ida Street townhomes would be articulated to
provide depth; and 6) though 4 trees would be removed, landscaping would be added to the site,
including 4 street trees on Ida Street and 1 new street tree on G Street (and additional trees throughout
the project perimeter), as well as preserving two existing trees (an Elm and Sycamore tree) on G
Street.
Staff requests the Boards comments on the following:
• Whether the three-story design should provide a "step back" on the upper stories to increase light
to the adjacent single family homes:
• Whether the upper floors of the townhomes should be "stepped" away from the property lines in
order to reduce bulk and increase light to adjacent smaller residences.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
A notice of public hearing was mailed to all residents and property owners within 300' of the project site
on March 1, 2013. Staff has received several comment letters, including comments from the adjacent
property owners (15 G Street and 20 Ida Street), expressing similar concerns about: 1) size of the
townhome buildings; 2) lack of building articulation and stepbacks to minimize impacts on 15 G Street
and 20 G Street; 3) the loss of parking spaces on Ida Street; 4) concern that the new residents would
not actually use the proposed tandem parking, but choose to park one vehicle on the street instead;
and 5) possible drainage problems leading to flooding. Staff also received a letter form the West End
Neighborhood Association, expressing concern about the rear yard encroachment on Ida Street and
lack of street parking. Copies of all correspondence received is attached in Exhibit 7. Staff has replied
to all comments, indicating that the project site is zoned HR1 and such zoning encourages high density
residential development. Also, staff has informed those concerned that the project went through a
conceptual design review and the current revised plan is the first step in the tormal review process.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project has been re -designed from the conceptual design presented in October 2011.
The changes attempt to address both the Board recommendations and neighborhood concerns about
tandem parking, architectural compatibility, usable common open space, roof patio design and building
materials and articulation. Staff could support many elements of the proposed project design, and
determined that findings can be made to support the variance request for the stairway encroachment
into the 15 front setback (G Street), building encroachment into the side setback (G Street), 50%
landscaping requirement (G Street), cantilevered encroachment into the required rear yard (Ida Street),
and 20' driveway setback (Ida Street). Staff does request the Board provide comments and
recommendations on the points listed in the summary section on Page 1 of the staff report, and
indicate whether there is Board support for the required variance necessary for some of the design
solutions.
A
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Applicant's Design Process Narrative
3. Reduced Project Site Plan
4. Applicant's "Statement of Intent" Narrative
5. Lighting Examples
6. Applicant's Variance Justifications
7. Comment letters
Full-sized plans, 11"x 17" plans/color rendering, and prior conceptual design review plans provided to
the DRB members only.
cc: Stan Camiccia, applicant, P.O. Box 2668, San Anselmo, CA 94979
David and Christina Rasonsky, owners, 54 Sequoia Road, Fairfax, CA 94930
Peter Lagarias, West End Village NA, 1629 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901
10
Street Project V Ma,*,.,
SCALE 1 :1,090
50 0 50 100 150
FEET
EXHIBIT i
1
CAM ICCIA CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN 0 BUILD 0 C�RC~EN
DESIGN PROCESS 8/28/12
By detailing our design process, we hope to demonstrate that we have done
our due diligence and research regarding the proposed design solution. After
reviewing the feed back from the Conceptual Design Review meeting, we completely
redesigned the two units on 'G'Street. The previous submittal included tandem
parking for'G' St. and a flat parapet roof height of 34'-11". The residents on 'G'
Street expressed concern over the lack of parking on 'G' Street, due to the businesses
on Fourth Street, They requested parking for the 'G' Street residences to be two side
by side parking spaces for each unit on 'G' Street. Another request in the meeting
was to incorporate a gabled roof that matched surrounding residences and to
reduce the mass of the building.
The redesign of these two units has accommodated a side by side two car
garage, per unit. The design of the building has a charming cottage exterior
featuring a gabled roof design. The building size has been reduced and vertical and
horizontal articulation has been provided to give more definition and reduce the
height and mass. The previous parapet height was 34'-11" and current average roof
height is 31'-4" with gable roofs at 32'-9". For each unit on 'G' Street, a 144 sq. ft, of
deck was provided on the main level for private outdoor use.
As requested, on Ida Street we have incorporated vertical and horizontal step
backs to provide articulation of the building's surface. Front balconies were also
added to give definition to the various units.
On Ida Street and'G' Street, it was the recommendation from the board to
reduce the amount of finishes that were proposed in the previous design. Adopting
the influence from the historic building at 11 'G' Street, we chose a straight edge
shingle finish to blend in with the neighborhood. This is consistent with all the
residences on this side of the street. At the level of the garage, a textured stucco
finish was chosen to allow a backdrop for Boston Ivy and Creeping Fig cover,
providing an esthetically pleasing accent to the base of the building.
In the follow up for the Conceptual Design Review meeting it was suggested
to include a recreational area in addition to the private yard space we are providing.
In order to comply with section 15.12.060 of the Municipal Code, we eliminated one
of the units, leaving eight units instead of the original nine. The additional space
from the deletion of this unit will be used for a common recreational area with
amenities, such as a picnic table, barbeque and an inviting landscaped area.
P.O, Box 2668 • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 0 FAX (415) 479-0599
Exhibit 2
Ns
®'
N
�
"m a�a _ dao
m9$ y
- r» V, € _ D
gg
Ei� y�
r� N�Ng
PNWNC LANDSCAPE " o ARCHITECTURAL ;a
aMt � usl D,al r 2S mS
zaga
pq
2N S s a I R m'
Rq
®_
PROPOSED WEST END slump:y
�;ea•?til:. STAN RUPIPER
SITE PLAN & TOWNHOUSES—CONSULTANT/, y•i4sF%' ., ENGINEE
DAVID b TINA RA90N9KT I' �+
S TITLE SHEET 21'G•bf`TREET / 4,' 928 FOODSTUE COURT
A SAN RAFAEL� CA I • '`/'i^^]=r"!� TAHOYA, Exhibit 3
CA 96142
' �•'� 539 525-4560
D A.P.N. Ar A2.TRA0 .sF� `+n - _.. -
CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN r, BUILD 9 GREEN
STATEMENT OF INTENT 3/13/13
The proposed project is located between'G' Street and Ida Street. It is an eight unit
residential townhouse development in the West End district. The area is a mixture of
commercial and residential. This is an- infill project in the downtown district. This is a 'For
Sale' project, that is providing affordable housing (1 unit) to a low-income household. The
proposed townhouses are zoned for HR -1 High Density Residential zoning classification.
The townhomes on'G' St. and Ida St. are under the height limit requirement for this zoning
and are comparable in height to several in the neighborhood. There are several of equal
height and a few in the vicinity significantly taller. The units on Ida Street face the rear of
the building recently used as Home Depot Expo.
In section 14.16.030.B.2 the affordable housing requirement for 2-10 units is for 10% of
the units to be affordable. This is intended to be a'For Sale' project that is providing one unit that
is for sale to a low-income household. Therefore, we are providing 12.S% of our units as
affordable housing. Because of this we are requesting a state density bonus as well as an
additional concession or incentive as per section 14.16.030.H.1. The project is eligible for a
23.75% density bonus. We would like to use the state parking rate in section 14.16.030.H.3.a.i as
our concession for the state density bonus. The maximum state parking standard, inclusive of
handicapped and guest parking, is 2 onsite parking spaces for 2-3 bedroom dwelling units. In this
section parking may be provided through tandem parking, which we would use on Ida Street.
Because of the site constraints of an 'L' shaped lot, and the garage depth requirement of 40' for
tandem on Ida Street, the only option for the front parking setback is 19'-0". The parking space
dimension for the downtown district is 8'-6"x18'-0". Therefore, a 19'-0" parking setback would be
the reasonable solution. We are applying for a variance for this minor encroachment (1'-0") into
the parking setback. In response to the neighborhood request at the Conceptual Design Review
Board meeting, we complied and are providing side by side garage parking on'G' Street. This
requires a 1'-0" minor encroachment into each side yard setback, which we are requesting a
variance for. This is the only reason we are requesting a variance for'G' Street.
Careful consideration was put into the design solution and it was modeled after the
historical properties in the immediate vicinity. The historic building at 11V Street (Arrivederci
Restaurant) inspired the exterior surfaces and trim for the new design. While making the
buildings cost effective, the design solution reflects the old San Rafael charm.
The townhomes on Ida Street, due to the limited size of the property, have two 10 by 20
tandem parking spaces under each unit. The existing driveway approach on Ida Street is 54 feet
in length. The proposed townhouses combined driveway approach on Ida Street is 67'3" in
length. While we are enlarging the driveway approach, we believe this is reasonable due to the
number of units provided. The driveways on Ida have been consolidated to minimize curb cuts.
There is a loading zone on the opposite side of the street, however, it does not take up the entire
side and there is currently sufficient parking on this street.
As much landscaping as possible was implemented into the design. The combined
required landscaping for the project is very close to the required fifty percent, (only a 76 square
P.O. Box 2668 • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 • FAx (415) 479-0699
Exhibit 4
C
GAM ICCIA CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN - Bu 1 LD + GREEN
foot difference) due to the fact that we are landscaping the entire parking setback. Additional
trees and vegetation to the sidewalk planters have, also, been added.
The design elements and finishes selected for the townhouses are in keeping with the
historic charm and feel of'Old San Rafael'. We have tried to further soften the structures with
trees and landscaping. We are providing a visual green privacy screening between the project
and neighbors properties. A private outdoor patio has been provided for each unit on the
individual roof tops, surrounded by a parapet wall. In addition, the two units on 'G' Street have a
144 sq. foot deck provided off of the kitchen area. This infill project will bring needed housing to
the City of San Rafael and will enhance the look and value of property in the west end district.
P.O. Box 2668 • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 • FAX (415) 479-0699
EXHIBIT 4
OL1002ORB,1 - Light Wall Lantern,Oil Rubbed Bronze
_F'R i S
EST 1455
:n+nv.feiss.com infu ulveiss com
- UJI, 1t'::" r ._.. _ .
- AA -A&F.
L U -rt
G sT2t
t..
j.�uv.969.3347
Product#:
OL10020RB
Finish:
Oil Rubbed Bronze
Dimensions:
..
Lamping:
1 nibu�[.,:.:. �r,�,; ....;a Max.
Listing:
cUL Listed for Wet Locations
Downloads
Instructions (English)
HTML Specification Sheet
PDF Specification Sheet
HI-RES Images: jpg / prig
Details:
Extends: 101/2"
Supphcd with 8" of wire
Backplate: H: 5" W: 4"
�-!06 to lYr_fr List
11i.ni*rt.mrr.
Ensu Pead Uei
rnforil. A -i
Homestead
4
I
i
OL10130RB OL10010RB OL1u02uk1• 01.10030RB
r
01100001;.' OL10040RB OL10070111.t O1100 uh-
1
5
OL1011ORB
Page 1 of 1
Ye C 9VE0
JAN 03 2013
PLANNING
Fichibit 5-1
http://www.feiss.com/15586/Outdoor-Wall-Lighting-OL1002ORB.htm1 1/3/2013
OL1013ORB,2 - Light Ceiling Fixture,Oil Rubbed Bronze
�EisS
EST. 1955
vrt+ti..feiss.co.n info chi feias.com
- i.1;111 t - ,I.li : I ; %..— ,
�A GK U E,c lC
Page 1 of 1
1.800.969.3347
Product #:
OL1013ORB
Finish:
Oil Rubbed Bronze
Dimensions:
Lamping:
.. ._ .. �,.�.; 60w Max.
Listing:
cUL Listed for Wet Locations
Downloads
Instructions (English)
Parts Diagram (English)
HTML Specification Sheet
PDF Specification Sheet
HI RES Images: jpg / prig
Details:
Supplied with 186" of wire
. ,. Wish List
! I. --lip",
Finait l*rndu0
1 lcfnes:,-, ' . ' .
Homestead
A
OL1013ORB OL1001ORB 0110u2 -1:D 011U030R1s
�t
c �r
01-10000, 01 1. i.),ONI UL10Gi DRi OL 1008ORB
116,
7 R F,D
0L1011(W- JAN 0 3 2013
PLANNING
http://www.feiss.com/15607/OL10130RB.html Enhibit 5.2
OL 10040RB,4 - Light Wall Lantern,Oil Rubbed Bronze
1-4, R11 S "
EST. 1955
NvwN,feis.: Com infor�feiss.com 1.800.969.3347
e1zmY
�_\ &ArM
Homestead
11'.d11,m f tl
Product s:
OL1004ORB
Finish:
Oil Rubbed Bronze
Dimensions:
..
Lampmg:
__.. _. _.,.v, u A -Line 60w Max.
Listing:
cUL Listed for Wet Locations
Uownloacs
Instructions (English)
HTML Specification Sheet
PDF Specification Sheet
HI-RES Images: jpg / prig
Details:
Extends: 13 3/4"
Supplied with 8" of wire
Backplate: H: 12" W: 5"
El A$U to Wish List
f ;omplkre
es Eman Pr-tu"t
lnfomsawn
•I
OL1013ORB OL100loRB OL1uU i. OL10031 NIA
IL
OL10uU0;.: OL1004ORB OL1007ORB OLlOubi,:
RECEIVED
7.. JAN 0S Z013
01101loRB
PLAMMMG
Page 1 of 1
http://www.feiss.com/15592/Outdoor-Wall-Lighting-OL1004 Exhibit 5.3
GAM ICCIA CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN - B u I L D * GREEN
03/13/13
VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR'G'STREET LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT
A) This is a unique circumstance applicable to the property due to the site
constraints of the size and shape of the lot. In the front setback, 50% is
required to be landscaped. The square footage of the front setback on 'G'
Street is 840 SF, therefore 50% of the front yard setback is 420 sf. We are
providing 312 SF and are providing this landscaping all the way to the
20'-0" parking setback. Due to the parking requirements on this narrow
side of the lot, we require a variance for 108 SF of landscaping. We have
used every area available to us for landscaping along the 'G' Street front
setback within the constraints of the parking requirements. Other
properties in the vicinity are not meeting their 50% of the front yard
setback landscaping requirement. Therefore, the strict application of the
Zoning Ordinance deprives this property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity.
B) The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zoning district.
The existing structures at 15 'G' Street, 11 'G' Street, 6 'G' Street, and 16 'G'
Street all do not meet their 50% landscaping requirement. The Variance
is necessary to enjoy this basic property right available to these
properties.
C) The Variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly, authorized by the zoning regulations in this zoning district. 21
'G' Street is located in the HR -1 High Density Residential zoning
classification. The proposed project is in compliance with the use
provided in HR -1 zoning classification.
D) The Variance for not meeting the 50% landscaping requirement, 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.
P.O. Box 2668 • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 • FAX (415) 479-0699
Exhibit 6.1
CAMICCIA CONSTRUC'T'ION
DESIGN 0 BUILD , GREEN
12/18/12
VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR G STREET ENTRY STEPS ENCROACHING
INTO FRONT YARD SETBACK
A) This is a unique circumstance applicable to the property due to the size
and shape of the lot. To accommodate the parking requirements, the
parking must be located underneath the residences. The elevation of the
residence requires the stairs to project into the front setback. The
stairway is projecting into the front setback 11'-8" and by code we are
allowed to project 6'-0" into the front setback. Therefore, we need a
variance for the remaining 5'-8" encroaching into the front setback.
Visually the impact of the stairway is minimal due to the fact that they are
not enclosed. The stairs of other properties in the vicinity are encroaching
into their font setbacks. Therefore, the strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance deprives this property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity.
B) The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zoning district.
The existing stairs of the structures at 15 'G' Street, 6 'G' Street, 21 'G'
Street, and 16 'G' Street are all encroaching into the front setback. The
Variance is necessary to enjoy a basic property right available to other
similarly zoned properties in the vicinity.
C) The Variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulations in this zoning district. 21
'G' Street is located in the HR -1 High Density Residential zoning
classification. The proposed project is in compliance with the use
provided in HR -1 zoning classification.
D) The entry stairs projecting into the front yard setback is a minor
encroachment and will not affect the public or neighboring properties
because the stairs do not exceed our property line. This minor
encroachment 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.
P.O. BOX 2668 • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 • FAX (415) 479-0699
Exhibit 6.2
C
CAM ICCIA CONSTRUCTION
I'l ES I GN * B U I L- 1 1 o B REI N
8/30/12
VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR'G'STREET 1 FOOT SIDE YARD
ENCHROACHMENT
A) This is a unique circumstance applicable to the property due to
the constraints of an 'L' shaped lot. The two units on 'G' Street
are located on the narrow side of the 'L' shaped lot. Therefore,
the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprived this
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity.
B) The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. There. are
several properties that are encroaching into their setbacks.
For example: 18 'G' Street, 11 'G' Street, and 15 'G' Street. Also,
the existing residence on 21 'G' Street that will be removed, is
significantly encroaching in its side yard set back. The new
building encroachment is minimal in comparison. A one foot
encroachment into each side yard on 'G' Street is staying in
step with the neighborhood under the HR -1 zoning
classification. The request for a variance on 'G' Street (an
encroachment of 12" into each 5' side yard setback) is in
response to the neighborhood request at the Conceptual
Design Review Board meeting. The request was for the garage
covered parking for'G' Street to be side by side instead of
tandem. This is the only reason for a variance request for'G'
Street.
C) The Variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not
otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations in
this zoning district. 21 'G' Street is located in the HR -1 High
Density Residential zoning classification. The proposed project
is in compliance with the use provided in HR -1 zoning.
D) The Variance for V-0" minor encroachment into the side yard
setbacks (providing a 4'-0" setback in lieu of the 5'-0" side yard
setback) will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or the to
the public health, safety, or general welfare.
RO. BOX 2668 • •SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 * FAX (415) 479-0699
Exhibit 6.3
CAM ICCIA CONSTRUCTION
DL `IGN j BUILD , GREEN
8/21/12
VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR IDA STREET PARKING SETBACK
A) This is a unique circumstance applicable to the property due to the site
constraints of an 'L' shaped lot. This combined with the garage depth
requirement of 40' for tandem parking on Ida Street leaves the sum total
left for the parking setback to be 19'-0". The parking space dimension for
the downtown district is 8'-6"x18'-0". Therefore, the strict application of
the Zoning Ordinance deprives this property of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity.
B) The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zoning district.
A parking setback encroachment has been available to other properties in
the same zoning district and vicinity such as 15 'G' Street, 6 'G' Street, 11
'G' Street, 20 'Ida' Street. The Variance is necessary to enjoy this basic
property right available to these properties.
C) The Variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulations in this zoning district. 21
'G' Street is located in the HR -1 High Density Residential zoning
classification. The proposed project is in compliance with the use
provided in HR -1 zoning classification.
D) The Variance for a V-0" minor encroachment into the parking setback
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.
P.O. Box 2668 • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 • FAx (415) 479-0699
Exhibit 6.4
CAM ICCIA CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN a BuI L D w GREEN
12/21/12
VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR IDA STREET CANTILEVER
ENCROACHING INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK
A) This is a unique circumstance applicable to the property due to the site
constraints of an 'L' shaped lot. During Conceptual Design Review the
board recommended articulation of the front and back facades. Due to the
garage depth requirement, the garage level must remain straight along
the rear of the property and this only allows articulation on the floors
above. This articulation is a 2'-0" cantilever that is only on the second and
third stories. This is a minor 2'-0" encroachment into the rear yard
setback. The variance is only required for the cantilever on Unit 1 and
Unit 3, as the other cantilevered portions along the rear of the building
are not adjacent to the rear property line. Other properties in the vicinity
are encroaching into their set backs. Therefore, the strict application of
the Zoning Ordinance deprives this property of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity.
B) The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zoning district.
The existing structures at 15 'G' Street, 6 'G' Street, 21 'G' Street, and16 'G'
Street are all encroaching into their setbacks. The Variance is necessary
to enjoy this basic property right available to these properties.
C) The Variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulations in this zoning district. 21
'G' Street is located in the HR -1 High Density Residential zoning
classification. The proposed project is in compliance with the use
provided in HR -1 zoning classification.
D) The Variance for a 2'-0" minor encroachment into the rear yard setback,
on the second and third stories only, 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.
P.O. Box 2668 • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 • FAX (415) 479-0699
Exhibit 6.5
LUISrlR
West End Neighborhood Association
September 27, 2012
Caron Parker, Project Planner
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94915
email: caron.parker@cityofsanrafael.org
RE: File No.: ED12-058/V12-02
Parcel #011-232-10, 21 G Street
Dear Caron:
We have the following comments/questions:
1. On January 6, 1958, the County Assessor's Office combined what was then 2
separate parcels, #011-232-05 and 011-232-09, into the current parcel, #011-232-10,
indicating that a portion was to be used for parking for what was then the Hickory Pit
Restaurant. We understand that a portion of this property was more recently used for
employee parking for the Yardbirds home improvement store. Are there any existing
restrictions that require a portion of this property be dedicated to parking? Are there
any provisions to replace the loss of employee parking for the now vacant Yardbirds
buildings as well as the loss of street parking due to the driveway cuts for the proposed
townhomes?
2. The plans show a 5' setback at the rear of the Ida Street townhomes at the garage
level. However, the living area of four of the six townhomes cantilever out an additional
2' leaving only a 3' setback in the rear. We question whether this is complying with the
zoning requirements and whether this will allow adequate privacy and sunlight, especially
in the townhomes that are attached on both sides.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the application to build 8 townhomes at 21 G
Street in San Rafael.
Sincerely,
/signed/
Dave Borton, President
West End Neighborhood Association
Exhibit 7.1
Page 1 of 3
Caron Parker
From: Daisy Carlson [dayzdays@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:06 PM
To: Caron Parker
Subject: FW: Contest Variances of 21 G Street
Hi Caron,
I hope this note finds you well. I have been looking over the plans of 21 G street
and I am very unhappy with several of the proposed variances. I own 15 G next
to the proposed building.
Key points:
The building is simply too big for the property and needs to be brought to scale. This would
resolve all of the following
concerns.
I would like at the minimum the legal set backs as the property is simply too close to mine & too tall
and too big for our street.
My house has several large windows on that side, building so close will severely compromise my
homes light and livability.
A foot matters both vertically and laterally when it comes to light.
These windows provide my home with a significant source of light. The height variance and set back
variance compromise the livability and value of my historic home as well as the neighborhoods.
I think the proposed building is simply too big for the lot, it will remove two or more parking spots
from the street and simply is not in character with the rest of the street. The comparisons they used
are retrofit public works buildings and not relative to our traditional residential streets.
This developer feels compelled to compromise the value and character of the neighborhood for
profit and it truly disrupts the entire neighborhood. It really changes character of the neighborhood
putting in a subdivision, removing historic trees and going so high and wide. Also roof terraces are
not consistent with the neighborhood and pose fire hazards and additional height to the variance.
Their property currently is spilling in to mine and so the property line is not clear and has already
caused major drainage problems to my home which they have not addressed when I asked them to
earlier this year.
I absolutely appose the building of such a large structure next to mine. It lacks legitimacy in its
claims and does not provide adequate parking as it is a known fact that people do not use tandem
situations as they are an inconvenience and the tandem variance compromises height, lateral set
back while still removing two parking spaces from an already inundated street.
Can the owner, who currently lives on a four acre San Anselmo Villa, verify they will indeed live on
G street
3/13/2013 Exhibit 7.2
Page 2 of 3
I question the legitimacy of the intent for building a subdivision on this property. I know it helps the
city but it disregards the other property owners in the neighborhood. It feels like this may be a case of
developers muscling in for profit, using the cities need for funding to destroy a currently pleasant
neighborhood with buildings that are not in keeping with a historic street with some of the oldest homes
in San Rafael.
This compromises the value of my home and m investment in restoring a historic property on many
levels and other nneighbors have shared similar concerns.
The building is too big and needs to be brought to scale!
To re -clarify.
Height not consistent with the street in question.
Too close to my home not sufficient, safe or adequate set back.
Severely compromises the light of both Liz and I reducing our property values dramatically.
Removes existing parking spaces for garage entrances making it harder to park especially
with out resident permits. ( This will strengthen our argument for making our street resident
only with a 2/3 majority. )
Roof terrace increases height, noise and fire hazards.
Pass through is consistent with spaces that draw homeless and drug activities and other crimes.
Water and drainage and soils tests inadequate, may increase flooding on our street - their garages are
below grade.
Not sure how this effects.
Removing historic trees that are consistent with the rest of the street not beneficial to neighborhood.
I also wonder if removing the trees may also damage sewer and water lines and who would be
responsible.
My proposal is that they build a reasonable size two unit home on G and 3 units on Ida that meets
height and set back requirements and open space rules
the property should not compromise the neighborhood to the extent that the current proposal does. I
believe they can maintain respect for
neighboring property values and livability while still providing the city with permit income and building
a lovely property.
Thank you for your consideration in these matters. I will see you on Tuesday. and am happy to go over
this prior by phone.
Sincere Regards,
3/13/2013 EXHIBIT 7.2
Page 1 of 3
Caron Parker
From: Liz Kalloch [liz.kalloch@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:01 PM
To: Caron Parker
Subject: Proposed 21 G Street Project
Dear Caron
Our names are Rob and Liz Fordyce and we are home owners at 20 Ida Street in San Rafael in
the West End Village. We are writing in reference to the project called 21 G Street. While we
very much like the prospect of having residential neighbors on our street (we are the only home
there now) we have some grave concerns about the scope and size of the project that is being
proposed.
After attending the conceptual Design Review meeting on October 4, 2011, we feel that the
concerns raised by both the neighbors and the Design Review Board have not been addressed by
the design that has now been submitted for official review. Some of the key points were:
• Buildings are too massive and the scope and size is too big for the space available.
• Articulation needed in the form of step backs on the side walls to keep the mass and size to
a minimum for the neighboring properties at 20 Ida Street and 15 G Street.
• Wider setbacks (12') at the side property line to accommodate a true walkway, and give
some breathing space to the neighbors at 20 Ida Street and 15 G Street.
• Tandem parking concerns and the use (or non-use of the front tandem spot) adding
pressure to an already over -parked and congested situation, when the proposed
construction will delete approximately 5-6 street parking spots now available on Ida and G
Streets.
• More green space on the grounds
At the DRB meeting in October 2011, there was much conversation about the charm of G Street,
and several references made by members of the DRB about Ida Street being able to carry a more
dense structure, but we would like the DRB and the Planning Department to consider that since
these are proposed. residences (and not commercials spaces) that the same flavor of design be
carried through to Ida Street.
The larger buildings referenced by the architect as cues for the project design are all out on the
4th Street Corridor, and do not reflect the more residential feel of the historic and residential
nature of our neighborhood. We understand that our home is the only one on Ida Street, and that
we are surrounded by more commercials style buildings, but we feel that that is all the more
reason that the structures that are being proposed be scaled down to reflect a residential feel.
In the re -designs that were submitted, we can see that the G Street units were re -designed,
considerably. We would like the architect and owner to consider re -working the design of the Ida
Street units to better match what they've done with the G Street units. They have the opportunity
here to create a cohesive and strong statement that would tie both streets together architecturally
and add to the overall value and beauty of the neighborhood.
We feel that the overall design of the Ida Street units is too in keeping with the back of the
Yardbirds building - a behemoth that does not need to be used as a cue for design. The overall
look of the front elevation of these units is too akin in looks to a lot of the low income housing
3/13/2013 Exhibit 7.3
Page 2 of 3
that has gone up all over the county. This is a big concern for us in terms of property values.
The setback between our property and the proposed complex is only 5'. At the meeting in October
2011, many of the DRB members mentioned that they felt these set backs were too little and should
be pushed back to the zone requirement of 12' in order to accommodate movement through what will
be walkways, as well as plantings on the sides of the buildings and greenery planted at the proposed
fence line. As they are laid out now, these set backs/walkways will be areas that potentially collect
trash and could be scary to walk on at night. Since this setback borders our property we are very
concerned about how they would be maintained and lit, and right now we have heard nothing about
how the owner plans to maintain and keep the exterior walkways on the property secure.
We feel that the detail on the sides of the building - the part of the building we will be living quite
close to - needs to have step backs added, to break up the height and bring down the weighty feel of
a 33' 4" sheer wall that will be towering above our house, all our living space windows and our back
yard. In the preliminary design meeting most all of the DRB members made strong suggestions
about this, saying the wall was too massive and that step backs were needed on the upper floors.
And then there's the parking. As was discussed at the conceptual meeting this neighborhood already
has considerable parking problems. Every member of the DRB referenced the existing parking
problem in the neighborhood, and one member said at the meeting: "The parking {in that
neighborhood} is a disaster situation". It was also discussed that even though intentions are good
with creating tandem parking spots, the front spot is never used. We had hoped that the owner and
architect would take that discussion under advisement and come up with some viable parking
solutions rather than putting more pressure on an already congested neighborhood. That hasn't been
done, and in fact this project could potentially add greatly to the existing problem.
Overall, we feel that the scope of this project is too big for the size of the lot — as exemplified in the
need for a variance to the set back width between the properties at 21 G Street and 15 G Street — and
also in the need to utilize tandem parking as part of the overall design scheme in order to gain the
total number of parking spots needed to qualify for zoning standards. If the number of overall units
was reduced to better fit on the available lot, the 3 stories could be reduced to 2 stories f and better fit
within the existing neighborhood} and there would be more green space and plenty of space for
parking.
We feel that the project as it is being presented will both compromise the character and disrupt the
visual feel of the neighborhood and could potentially lower the value of our property both
monetarily and in terms of quality of life. We feel that the proposed height of the buildings is out of
scale on both Ida and G Streets, and that the architect and owner are attempting to put too many units
on a small parcel of land.
Our hope is that the project be re -worked to better fit into the neighborhood in the following ways:
• Height and mass of the buildings is brought down to be in better scale with the current homes
on Ida and G Streets
. A design that would be cohesive through the whole lot form G to Ida Street, tying the
neighborhood together
o Parking secured on the property that will not add to the parking burden already felt on these 2
streets
. The number of units proposed be reduced so that the design can include both adequate
parking, a better ratio of green space to building mass. Right now, there is too much being
asked to fit into the space available
3/13/2013 EXHIBIT 7®3
Page 3 of 3
More articulation added to the sides of the buildings that will be quite close to our property
lines in the form of step backs.
Thank you for your time and your consideration on these issues, and thank you for all your help
answering our questions. We look forward to hearing your response
Rob and Liz Fordyce
20 Ida Street
San Rafael. CA 94901
3/13/2013 EXHIBIT 7.3
To Whom it May Concern:
Our names are Josseph and Elise Adams, we Live at 22 G street. We have jointly owned
the property with my wife's parents Michael and Honore Weiner for the last ten years.
We are very concerned and dismayed about many of the 21 G Street project design
proposals.
In Reviewing the most recent set of plans it's clear that most of our concerns and those
vocalized by the Design Review Board at the last meeting have not been addressed by the
new plans.
In short, we feel that the present design oversteps in terms of size, scope, and requires a
number of questionable variances. Here are some of our concerns:
• It incorporates too many units,
• Is taller than any other residential dwelling in the area
• Incorporates a roof top recreation area that impacts height, increases noise for
surrounding residents and poses a number of safety issues
• Does not provide a truly workable parking solution and decreases the number of
existing parking spaces on an already parking starved street.
• Does not incorporate appropriate set backs
• Does not address open space requirements
We are not opposed to a smaller building in keeping with the aesthetic, parking
limitations and height of G street.
Thanks,
Joseph and Elise Adams
22 G street, San Rafael
EXHIBIT 7.4
Page I of 1
Caron Parker
From: Susan [susanzmusic@gmail.comj
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:52 AM
To: Caron Parker
Subject: Regarding project 21 G Street, San Rafael
To Whom it May Concern:
Our names are Michael Jobe and Susan Zelinsky-Jobe. We live at and own 16 G Street. Susan
has lived at this property since 1991, becoming the owner in 1999. We are very concerned and
dismayed about many of the 21 G Street project design proposals.
In Reviewing the most recent set of plans it's clear that most of our concerns and those vocalized
by the Design Review Board at the last meeting have not been addressed by the new plans.
In short, we feel that the present design oversteps in terms of size, scope, and requires a number
of questionable variances. Here are some of our concerns:
. It incorporates too many units,
. Is taller than any other residential dwelling in the area
. Incorporates a roof top recreation area that impacts height, increases noise for surrounding
residents and poses a number of safety issues
. Does not provide a truly workable parking solution and decreases the number of existing
parking spaces on an already parking starved street.
. Does not incorporate appropriate set backs
. Does not address open space requirements
. Has an alley walk through, which we feel will be a draw to the current "riff-raff 'that
smokes pot/shoots up/drinks and leaves alcohol bottles in the parking lot of the Red
Dragon Yoga studio, and in plain sight on G street, at night.
We are not opposed to a smaller building in keeping with the aesthetic, parking limitations and
height of G street.
Thanks,
Michael Jobe and
Susan Zelinsky-Jobe
(415)407-7030
3/14/2013 EXHIBIT 705
