HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2012-02-07 #2CITY OF
Community Development Department — Planning Division
Meeting Date: February 7, 2012
Case Numbers: ED11-078; V11-003
Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal — (415) 485-3397
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 37 Perry Walk — Request(s) for an Environmental and Design Review Permit, Exception and
Variance to demolish an existing 892 -sq. ft. 2 -story single family residence and construct a
new 3,415 -sq. ft. 3 -story single family residence above a basement; with an Exception to
decrease the required minimum natural state from 85% to 83.7%, to reduce the required
number of parking spaces from 4 to 2 and to encroach into 20 -ft. stepback height along 29%
of the side length of building where 25% encroachment is allowed; and a Variance to exceed
the maximum allowed 30 -ft. height by approximately 13/ feet along a 3 -ft. length of building
side, to encroach 20 feet into the required 20 -ft. front yard setback and to encroach 8'/ feet
into the required 10 -ft. east side setback, located on a 15,161±sq. ft. lot with an approximately
58.7% slope; APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner;
James Bradanini, applicant; File Nos.: ED11-078; V11-003; Picnic Valley Neighborhood.
PROPERTY FACTS
Site Characteristics
Lot Size
Natural State
General Plan Design tion
Zoning Designation
Req:
Proposed:
Existing
Land -Use
Height'
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 Development Summary
Lot Size
Natural State
Required:
Proposed:
10,000 sq. ft.
15,161 sq. ft.(existing)
Req:
Proposed:
12,887 sq. ft.; max 85% of lot area
12,690 sq. ft., 83.7% of lot area
Height'
Floor Area
Allowed:
Proposed:
Stepback height: 20'; Total height: 30'
Stepback height: 24%2' along 29% of side
elev. length
Total height: 313/' along 5' of side elev.
Allowed:
Proposed:
4,016 sq.
3,415 sq.
ft.
ft.
Parking
Upper
Floor Area
Required:
Proposed:
4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered
2 covered
Allowed: 4,548
Proposed:
sq. ft.
2,755 sq. ft.
Landscape Area
Setbacks
Required:
Proposed:
No requirement
400+ sq. ft. proposed landscape area
Re uired
Existing
Proposed;!
Front: 20'
Side(s): 10'
Rear: 10'
0'
2%
100'
0'
1'/'-100+'
70'
votes. For nmside parcels, development standards are based upon the parcel size and percent slope, and height is measured from the natural
grade. Non -hillside building height is measured from finished grade pursuant to the UBC method.
2Proposed setbacks are indicated from new exterior walls of buildings or additions.
See body of staff report for detailed discussion of project compliance and/or any issues with non-compliance.
SUMMARY
The subject project is being referred to the Board for review of site and design improvements of a new
single family residence that would replace an existing single family residence on a hillside lot, as
required pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Zoning Code Section 14.25.040.B.1. The project also
requires an Exception to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for exceeding the
Natural State requirement, for encroaching into 20 -ft. stepback height on the interior elevation and for
not complying with additional parking requirements for hillside properties on substandard streets; and a
Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks and to exceed the maximum allowed building height of
30 feet. The Board's recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for
recommendation to the City Council. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is
discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project does not adequately address the
applicable criteria. Staff requests that the Board review this report and provide a recommendation on
compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following:
Site Plan
• Whether an Exception to the required natural state (83.7% natural state proposed, 85% natural
state required) is appropriate;
• Whether an Exception to the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is
warranted and appropriate for the site; and
• Whether a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate.
Architecture
• Whether the project size and design is appropriate for the project site;
• Whether an Exception to the 20 -ft. stepback height for 29% of the length of the interior side of
the building is warranted;
• Whether a Variance to exceed the maximum allowed 30 -ft. building height is warranted; and
• Whether the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding
neighborhood.
Landscaping
• Whether the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project; and
• Whether additional tree replacement with native species should be required.
Grading
• Whether proposed grading is appropriate.
BACKGROUND
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 A: Vicinity Map). Perry Walk is a private access street with a
2
Grading
Tree Removal
Total:
107 cy
Total (No./Species): One 8" oak; unknown number already
removed during previous grading
Cut:
107 cy
Requirement: Minimum 3 15 -gallon oaks
Fill:
107 cy
Proposed: 2 strawberry trees, ground cover and
Off -Haul:
None; balance on site
accent shrubs and ground groundcovers
votes. For nmside parcels, development standards are based upon the parcel size and percent slope, and height is measured from the natural
grade. Non -hillside building height is measured from finished grade pursuant to the UBC method.
2Proposed setbacks are indicated from new exterior walls of buildings or additions.
See body of staff report for detailed discussion of project compliance and/or any issues with non-compliance.
SUMMARY
The subject project is being referred to the Board for review of site and design improvements of a new
single family residence that would replace an existing single family residence on a hillside lot, as
required pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Zoning Code Section 14.25.040.B.1. The project also
requires an Exception to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) for exceeding the
Natural State requirement, for encroaching into 20 -ft. stepback height on the interior elevation and for
not complying with additional parking requirements for hillside properties on substandard streets; and a
Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks and to exceed the maximum allowed building height of
30 feet. The Board's recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for
recommendation to the City Council. Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is
discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project does not adequately address the
applicable criteria. Staff requests that the Board review this report and provide a recommendation on
compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following:
Site Plan
• Whether an Exception to the required natural state (83.7% natural state proposed, 85% natural
state required) is appropriate;
• Whether an Exception to the requirement of two additional uncovered parking spaces is
warranted and appropriate for the site; and
• Whether a Variance to reduce front and side yard setbacks is appropriate.
Architecture
• Whether the project size and design is appropriate for the project site;
• Whether an Exception to the 20 -ft. stepback height for 29% of the length of the interior side of
the building is warranted;
• Whether a Variance to exceed the maximum allowed 30 -ft. building height is warranted; and
• Whether the building materials and colors are compatible with the site and surrounding
neighborhood.
Landscaping
• Whether the proposed landscaping palette is appropriate for the project; and
• Whether additional tree replacement with native species should be required.
Grading
• Whether proposed grading is appropriate.
BACKGROUND
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 A: Vicinity Map). Perry Walk is a private access street with a
2
non -delineated 15 -ft. right-of-way. 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.
The property is an up-sloping lot with a 58.7% 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 a third of the garage front wall is located on the front property line. Approximately seven
6"-20" oak trees and three 10"-22" bay trees are located in the rear and side of the property. The
roadway pavement terminates at the subject site.
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 had the following comments:
• Instead of expansion of the existing residence, consider rebuilding it;
• Reduce the size of the proposed residence; and
• Push the building back and comply with parking requirements.
With the current system for video recording the public hearings/meetings, no written minutes are
available for this DRB meeting. However, the entire proceedings of the meeting can be viewed at
www.citvofsanrafael.ora/meetinas.
History:
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 residence with Planning staff.
Due to the steep slope of the property, the excavated area seems to be de -stabilizing the up-slope
properties. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use: The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 892 sq. ft. single family dwelling and build a
3,415 sq. ft. new single family residence. The proposed residence would consist of a four -level; up to
31% -ft. high structure with a 26 -ft. wide driveway and a two -car (484 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor
level; six bedrooms; and 4'% bathrooms.
Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 1 1/z -ft. and
approximately 100 -ft. side setbacks and approximately 70 -ft. rear setback. 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 two non-compliant parking spaces 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.
An existing flight of steps located on property line between the subject property and the adjacent
property to the north is used to access both properties. This structure is proposed to be rebuilt in the
same general location.
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: One strawberry tree, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the
southwest corner of the structure. One strawberry tree and accent shrubs and ground covers would be
planted in the northeast corner of the structure.
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 external lighting is proposed at this time.
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
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) under the General Plan 2020. A single
family residence is a permitted use under the LDR designation. The General Plan 2020 contains a
number of design related policies. These policies are implemented through various provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance and Hillside Design Guidelines, which are established to ensure proper hillside
design of homes on lots with an average slope greater than 25%. Compliance with the Zoning
standards and Hillside Design Guidelines would assure development that is consistent with the
property's hillside designation and related policies. Pertinent design criteria are identified and
discussed below.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 4 — Base District
As indicated in the Site Development Summary table, the proposed residence complies with the
development standards for lot coverage and parking under the R10 zoning district. However, it does
not comply with the development standards regarding height and front and side yard setbacks. A
4
Variance would be required for the proposed building height and 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;
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 or Planning Commission may approve an application for a Variance if the
above findings can be made. Staff believes these findings could be made for approval of a Variance
from the front and side setback requirements in that:
• It would minimize grading;
• 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 in improvement over this condition in that it
would have a 22 feet long and 26 feet wide driveway;
• The existing single family residence has a 2'/ -ft setback on the east side. 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.
However, staff has a concern for supporting findings for a Variance from the 30 -ft. height requirement
since there are feasible alternatives to the project design to resolve the height issue by reducing the
building size.
Chapter 12 - Hillside Development Overlay District
The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Gross Building Square
Footage and Ridgeline Development.
The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Stepbacks and Natural State as indicated in
the Site Development Summary table. The building has a 56 -ft. interior side length of building wall and
is allowed to encroach into the stepback height along 25% of the building length. The project stepback
building height exceeds the maximum allowed 20 -ft height limit by 4% ft. along 29% of the building
length. The existing development on the property already exceeds the 85% Natural State limit.
An Exception to the Natural State requirement and Stepback height limit is required for the project as
proposed. According to SRMC 14.12.040 Exceptions to Property Development Standards, approval of
an Exception to these two standards would require the following findings:
A. The project design alternative meets the stated objectives of the hillside design guidelines to
preserve the inherent characteristics of hillside sites, display sensitivity to the natural hillside
setting and compatibility with nearby hillside neighborhoods, and maintain a strong relationship
to the natural setting; and
B. Alternative design solutions which minimize grading, retain more of the project site in its natural
state, minimize visual impacts, protect significant trees, or protect natural resources result in a
demonstrably superior project with greater sensitivity to the natural setting and compatibility with
and sensitivity to nearby structures.
The above findings can be made by the City Council, upon the recommendation of the Design Review
Board and the Planning Commission, when the applicant has demonstrated that alternative design
concepts carry out the objectives of this chapter. Staff believes the above findings can be made for an
Exception to the Natural State requirements since the existing Natural State already exceeds the 85%
allowable limit due to unauthorized grading, and the proposed project would rather improve the stability
of the sloping site. However, staff has a concern about supporting the findings for an Exception to the
required Stepback because the project can comply with the Stepback height limit by reducing the
building bulk and by pushing the proposed development further on to the site.
Chapter 25 Environmental and Design Review Permits
The project is subject to the provisions of Chapter 25 (Section 14.25.030) that requires:
• Shadow diagram if deemed necessary to evaluate potential shading of adjacent properties;
• Story poles reflecting the proposed height of the structure(s) if needed to evaluate project
impacts.
A shadow diagram was not required for this project. The existing residence proposed to be demolished
already casts a shadow on the adjoining single family residence to the east. The proposed structure
would be pushed back thereby resulting in minimizing the shadowing of the adjoining residence and
resulting in shadowing the steeply upsloping rear yard of the adjoining property which is not an active
recreational area.
On January 24, 2012, story poles were erected to reflect the geometrics of the project. Staff allowed
the applicant to omit the ridge line story poles since the property has a steep slope and the roof ridge
would not be visible from Perry Walk.
The project is consistent with design criteria of Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance in that the project
design, including its materials and colors, is consistent with the mixed design character of the area of
single family structures with varying heights, materials and colors. However, the project is not
consistent with design criteria for building scale in that the building is bulky. The property would be
improved with landscaping.
Staff is requesting the Board's direction on the applicable guidelines, as follows:
• Whether the requested Variances from the requirements of front and side setbacks, and
the 30 -ft. height limit are warranted; and
• Whether the requested Exceptions to the Natural State and Stepback requirements are
warranted;
• Whether the project design and its size are appropriate for the site; and
• Whether proposed design would cast a shadow to impact the property of the adjoining
neighbor to the east.
San Rafael Design Guidelines:
As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design
Guidelines criteria regarding building design, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and
lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria
regarding building scale, building height and front landscaping.
Hillside Design Guidelines:
The proposed project provides a gross building square footage of 3,415 sq. ft. (2,931 sq. ft. living
space and 484 sq. ft. garage), a maximum building height of 313/ feet, 83.7% natural state, and 2
covered parking spaces. The Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached
(Exhibit 4). Staff requests that the Board comment on the bulleted items in some of the following
sections:
Section III - Building Stepback
Downslope Wall Height: According to Hillside Design Guidelines (HDG), a maximum allowed height of
the downslope wall shall be 20 feet as measured from the lowest finish grade adjacent to the wall or
directly beneath its outermost projection. The proposed project complies with this requirement.
Front and Side Stepback: According to HDG, on walls facing front property lines, the Stepback Zone
includes all areas within 15 feet of the Maximum Building Envelope limit facing the front property line.
Along side property lines, the Stepback Zone includes all areas within 15 feet of the building envelope
limit. Within the Stepback Zone a 20 -ft. height limit shall be observed, measured form existing grade.
The project complies with the 20 -ft. stepback height limit facing the front property line. In order to allow
for design flexibility, the HDG allow an encroachment into the Stepback Zone along 25% of the interior
building side length. The building has a 56 -ft. interior side length. The building stepback height exceeds
the 20 -ft stepback height by up to 4'/2 feet along 29% of the building length and therefore, does not
comply with this requirement. Approval of the project as proposed would require approval of an
Exception. As stated in the previous section, Exception findings cannot be made for the proposed
stepback height since the building can be pushed back on the property and the project bulk can be
reducing by reducing its size.
Staff is requesting the Board's direction in terms of the following:
0 Whether an Exception to the proposed stepback height is warranted.
Section A2 - Preservation of Significant Trees
One 8" oak tree is proposed to be removed with the current project. Removal of this tree is
necessitated by previous excavation of the site. Three strawberry trees are proposed to be planted.
Therefore, the project is consistent with this Section. However, replanting with native species is
recommended. Staff notes that an unknown number of trees may have been removed by previous
illegal grading of the site.
Section A3 - Hillside Grading and Drainage
The project proposes a balanced cut and fill of 107 cy. As proposed, the project requires approximately
2 to 3 -ft. tall retaining walls in the rear yard to support the previously graded site. An approximately 5 -
ft. tall retaining wall is proposed in the proposed kitchen/dining room area of the dwelling.
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.
Staff believes this project would rehabilitate the site by building on the exposed, excavated site. Staff
requests the Board's input regarding the proposed drainage pattern.
Section A5 - Street Layout Driveway and Parking Design
Perry Walk is a narrow street with a 15 -ft. right of way. A power pole located within the right-of-way and
in front of the garage presents a challenge for access to the proposed two additional parking spaces.
7
Staff believes the 15 -ft. right of way would not allow appropriate access for emergency vehicles. The
project application was referred to Public Works and Building/Fire for comments. The Public Works
recommended a turn around at the end of Perry Walk. Given that the Perry Walk has a right of way of
only 15 feet, a turnaround would need to be located on private property. The applicants discussed this
issue with the Public Works which then agreed to drop the requirement for a turn around provided the
plans include onsite vehicle turnaround template (Exhibit 2). Exhibit 2.1 shows the movement of a
vehicle into the garage and the backing out of a vehicle parked in the driveway into the small hammer
head in the Perry Walk. Exhibit 2.2 represents the backing out of a vehicle from the garage on to the
driveway from where it would enter Perry Walk. Exhibit 2.3 represents the backing out of a vehicle from
the driveway into the small hammer head in the Perry Walk.
Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through a 26 -ft. wide
driveway with an effective minimum depth of 22 feet. Parking on streets less than twenty-six feet (26')
requires a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces. The project would provide two
covered parking spaces in the garage and two uncovered parking spaces in the driveway. The two
uncovered parking spaces located in the driveway would block access to the garage and therefore,
would not satisfy the requirement for additional parking. The project would require an Exception from
the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. Staff believes findings for an Exception
from this requirement cannot be made since it is possible to redesign the project by pushing the
development further back onto the site.
Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to "back out" into substandard roadway
widths are prohibited. Perry Walk has a substandard (less than 26 feet) road width. The project parking
in the garage is designed to back out into the 26 -ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the
street.
Strict enforcement of the guideline to require two additional parking spaces would require additional
excavation to push the project back on to the property. And typically, reduced setbacks to garages
have been allowed to reduce grading, where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages.
Visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. Public Works
has reviewed the Exhibit 2 and did not express any concern.
Staff is requesting the Board's direction as follows:
• Whether an Exception to the required two additional parking spaces is warranted.
Section A6 - Reduction of Building Bulk
The proposed design with the building receding back as it follows the upsloping property results in
minimizing its mass and impact above the road level. The building has some articulation and massing.
Although the site has been graded/excavated extensively in the past, the proposed project would
require only minimal grading of 107 cy cut and fill.
However, the proposed residence would consist of six bedrooms with 4'/ bathrooms is bulky. It does
not comply with the maximum allowed 20 -ft. stepback height and the maximum allowed 30 -ft. building
height. Staff believes the project can comply with the required height standards by reducing the
building size.
Staff is requesting the Board's direction as follows:
• Whether the project size and design is appropriate
Section A7 - Hillside Architectural Character
Building materials and colors are required to blend with the setting and coordinate with the
predominant colors and values of the surrounding landscape. Staff believes the project colors and
materials are appropriate. The white windows proposed for the proposed project are compatible with
the white windows on the northerly adjoining home. The proposed building colors would have only a
M
minimal impact on other neighborhood homes due to their location at a higher elevation and away from
the proposed development.
Staff is requesting the Board's direction as follows:
• Whether the building design, materials and colors result in a project that is well
designed and compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood.
Section A8 — Planting Design for Hillside Residential Development
Planting design is required to reflect the hillside character of the San Rafael landscape; plant selection
should recognize the importance of water conservation, fire resistance and erosion control and should
be used to effectively buffer existing residential neighborhoods from the impacts of new hillside
development projects.
The project as proposed would retain the existing trees except the one 8" oak tree that would need to
be removed for safety reasons. Due to the existing topography, grading and location of the proposed
development, the proposed landscaping is limited to approximately 400 sq. ft. area. The plant selection
is not completely consistent with the Plant Selection Guide contained in Appendix B of the HRDG.
However, the selected plant materials are native, drought tolerant, deer resistant, shade tolerant, low
maintenance, provide erosion control, and are compatible with existing plant materials. The landscape
plan would need to be consistent with the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) landscape plan
requirements.
Staff is requesting the Board's direction as follows:
• Whether the planting design and plant selection is appropriate and tree replacement is
adequate.
Section A9 - Site Lightinq
The Hillside Design Guidelines require that lighting which is visible to include full shield cut-off and not
be visible from adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. The provided plans do not include
external lighting details. However, staff believes a single family residence can easily comply with the
requirements for external lighting (e.g. shielded/low level).
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REVIEW
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 had the following comments:
• Instead of expansion of the existing residence, consider rebuilding it;
• Reduce the size of the proposed residence; and
• Push the building back and comply with parking requirements.
As directed by the Board, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence in order to
rebuild it. The applicant has also reduced the building size from the 3,825 sq. ft. proposed for the
conceptual stage to 3,415 sq. ft. However, as the discussion in this report indicates, the proposed
3,415 sq. ft, may also be a little too large for the property. Although the building is not pushed further
back on to the property as directed by Board, the redesign provides a driveway appropriately sized to
allow the vehicles to turn around. Additionally, on difficult hillside properties, projects have been
approved to be located on the front property line.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
A courtesy notice for the Design Review Board meeting was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within a radius of 300 feet of the subject property within 15 days prior to the Board's
N
meeting. In addition, the Picnic Valley Homeowners' Association was included in the notice distribution.
A public notice sign was posted in front of the subject property. Staff has received one letter from the
property owner of the adjoining property to the east. The letter expresses concerns about the
proposed project's towering effect on her property and about creating further parking issues in a
neighborhood where parking is already constrained.
CONCLUSION
Staff believes a Variance from the front and side yard setbacks may be justified. Similarly, an
Exception from the requirement of Natural State and two additional uncovered parking spaces may be
justified. However, a Variance from the 30 -ft. maximum building height and an Exception from the 20 -
ft. maximum Stepback height are not warranted since there are ways of complying with these two
standards by reducing the building bulk and by pushing the building further back on to the property.
Staff requests Board's direction on the points specified in the Summary section.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Vehicle turnaround templates
3. Hillside Design Guideline Checklist Form
Full-sized and reduced (11 "x17') plans provided to the DRB members only.
cc: Rafael Ruiz
116 Picnic Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Design -Planning Associates, Inc.
90 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 16
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Picnic Valley HOA
Don Soldavini
531 Bret Harte Rd.
San Rafael, CA 94901
Makoto Takashina
17 Perry Walk
San Rafael, CA 94901
10
V. 1"Ivil I"1 f
63-75 j / •-
�_�
/WOODLAND AVE WOODLAND AVE ~/
2 15
112
Ilk
55
�TgIGIIT
41
3 g
I 107
1110`-�
1
..� I.A LOMA CT 535 . -
�
5321
124 _-- 5 ; jtt r
r` P J 7
123, � i, 528
_ � C2 - �✓ � N .t 527 i 1
1 232 - - - 150, 153
,.
L_ J_
o
_ 175
y / ✓✓✓iii �s�
2.
iJNGALOW AVE
Lai
^iy Lm
o�
m_41
SCALE 1 :2,532
200 0 200 400 600
FEET
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:57 PM j
E--%Lb-nd Prpjdd20041HardsbnoSagRofoel\ wg , kHam',son-Ruiz-qra4(ng-ft - 3.d%v , Parklnqi. 12/19126112:07:01 Pm. stdiii, PbF.pc3,Tbbtdd/ANSI B.*Il
—128
E6
N,
�- N
tv
N
SQ,
- Z
7 J,
0,
%
U)
2. m
0
jr
r 0
-T,
00 -1
9' 05
n
09
3
0 0.
3
41 0
2.0.
-.Z
N.*M kr. v:rcLNEER
o—;w-
S 87 Party Wak
olL.
Sah ft.alaot CA
291
EXHIB-) f
E -.%Land Projects 20041Harris60-SanRafhet%dwglHarj-tgQn-Ruiz-Qrading.-R3.dwg. Pafkiiig2,112/1912611 107:41 Pm..Scoti. O,!5F.pc3,,TabJoidaN-sl Btf 1:1
n
>
M
25
Z
100,0
/
/,
a
-X
r
0
0
:y ID
0 to
CL
7
a
>
3
r-'0
z
0
0 LO 3
<
-.0
a 0
•
Tr
ftfiel R&
'r'O"y- COOK
wak
EXHIBIT 2.2
rH LAO TAROIL Q "15
9
E:1Land Projects 20041Harrison-SanRafaeRdv+g\Hardson-Ruiz-Grading-R3,dwg, Parking3, 12119120112:08:05 PM, Scott, PDF.pc3, Tabloid/ANSI B, 1:1
I30—
. 126_
\ I I20
�r r
r �
r ` \
U y
• r f q.. \
CD
co 0
3
m O
(o
CL 3 3
f_ m °.CL o
•-�
S
3-1�~
m 0 C 0
m U
l V = 0
r ' 0 rp 7
8000
Wx41 nm P -W
a 4: paled f�� COOK w
r i V? 37 Pary Walk ._
SAPR en UU-1 -0 EXHIBIT 2.3 . °l151
COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL
The following checklist summarizes development guidelines and standards. See the appropriate
section for a complete explanation of the item.
A "yes" indicates the project complies with the recommendation, a "no" indicates it does not. N/A is
the abbreviation for "not applicable."
This checklist is intended to measure overall design quality. The manual incorporates standards and
suggested guidelines to insure high quality projects. Standards are indicated with an asterisk and
are mandatory. They are indicated in the text by the term "shall". Exceptions to standards can only
be granted by the City Council (indicated by a *) or the specific hearing body designated in the
Manual (indicated by a •). Guidelines are recommendations and are indicated in the text by the
term "should." Staff and Design Review Board will be guided by compliance with these guidelines
in malting their recommendations on the project design. The project architect or engineer must
justify any variations. Only projects with high quality designs will be approved.
Zoning Standards (Chapter III, Hillside Residential Development Standards)
Y
NA
FNN
Natural State Requirement (25% + % of average slope)
—Required 85% Proposed 83.7%
✓
X Gross Building Square Footage (2500 sq. ft. + 10% of lot size, maximum of 6,500 sq.
ft.) 4,016 max. gross sq. ft. 3,415 proposed gross sq. ft.
x Building Height (313/4 feet measured from natural grade).
✓
x Building stepback (20 foot height limitation on walls within 15 feet of the building
envelope limit, encroachment allowed along 25% of building length). Proposed height
24'/2 feet over 29% of the building length
✓
• Setback Waiver proposed (permitted for a distance of not more than 1/2 of the required
setback with DRB approval and special findings, requires compensating increase in
setback on opposing setback). The project does not comply for a waiver but would
require a Variance.
✓
X Ridgeline prohibition of development within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant
ridgeline.
✓
• Parking requirement of two additional spaces on substandard streets.
✓
* Lot standards of minimum sizes and widths established in Subdivision Ordinance.
IV.A. Design Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside Residential Development Projects
IVAL Preservation of Existing Natural Features:
Y N NA
✓ Maintains mature trees and preserves significant vegetation.
✓ Minimizes grading and alterations of natural land forms with balanced cuts and fills.
✓ Drainage minimizes off-site impacts and preserves natural drainage courses.
Roads and streets located and landscaped to minimize visual impacts.
✓ Access provided to open space areas.
E)./�\AIWT 3.1
IV.A2. Preservation of Significant trees
Y
IN
NA
- - -
✓
✓
✓
Retains significant trees or criteria for removal is met and *replacement criteria of 3:1
✓
✓
with 15 gallon trees is met.
✓
Existing trees are preserved by avoiding grading in the dripline, or change in grade or
✓
compaction. Arborist's recommendations are met.
IVA3. Hillside Grading and Drainage
Y
N
NA
-
✓
✓
Grading is minimized and all grading maintains a natural appearance with slopes of 2:1
✓
✓
to 5:1. Grading within 20 feet of property lines is minimized or similar to existing
adjacent slopes.
✓
Terracing uses incremental steps and visible retaining walls are of a minimum height
✓
and use stone or earth colored materials.
✓
Pads are of a minimum size for structures and open space (pads for tennis courts and
swimming pools are discouraged).
✓
Off-site drainage impacts are minimized and drainage plans avoid erosion and damage
to on-site and adjacent properties. Impervious surfaces are minimized and storm water
from roofs is conveyed to a comprehensive site drainage system. Storm drainage
improvements and drainage devices create a natural appearance.
✓
* Debris Collection and overflow routes are provided where needed and located to
minimize visual impacts.
✓
Erosion control plans and revegetation plan provided.
✓
Geotechnical review has been done and mitigation measures will not substantially
modify the character of the existing landform, expose slopes that cannot be re -vegetated
or remove large areas or existing mature vegetation. Existing geologic hazards have
been corrected.
IVA4. Lot Configuration, Building Setbacks and Location (Complete for Subdivisions)
Y
N
NA
-
✓
Lot configurations provide a variety of shapes based on topography and natural features
and lot lines are places on the top, not the toe, of the slope.
✓
✓
Flag lots with a common drive are encouraged.
Building setbacks are varied or staggered.
✓
Building locations are not located near visually prominent ridgelines and existing view
of residences are respected.
✓
* Front yard setbacks are minimized on downhill lots.
IVAS. Street Layout, Driveway and Parking Design
Y
N
NA
Streets use narrower street widths if it reduces grading, visual impacts are minimized
by terracing any retaining walls, and split roadways are encouraged.
✓
✓
* Street layout follows the natural grade and long stretches of straight road are
avoided. Proper sight distances are maintained.
• Street grades do not exceed 18 % of have received an exception.
EXHIMi," 3.2
Y
N
NA
- -- - --
✓
.7Rooflines
• Driveway grades do not exceed 18% or an exception has been granted. Parking has
✓
been designed so that vehicles will not back out into substandard streets. Driveways
✓
over 18% have grooves and asphalt driveways are not proposed on slopes over 15%.
✓
✓
Parking bays are established or if parallel parking is permitted it is located on one side
✓
only and limited to 8 feet in width.
IVA6. Reduction of Building Bulk on Hillsides
Y
N
NA
- -- - --
✓
.7Rooflines
The building steps up the slope and/or has been cut into the hillside.
✓
Roof forms and rooflines are broken up and parallel the slope. The slope of the roof
does not exceed the natural contour by 20%.
✓
Overhanging or elevated decks and excessive cantilevers are avoided.
✓
Large expanses of a wall in a single plane are avoided on downhill elevations.
✓
Building materials blend with the setting.
IVA7. Hillside Architectural Character
Y
N
NA
- -- - --
.7Rooflines
are oriented in consideration of views from adjacent areas and properties.
✓
Gabled, hip and shed roof forms with a moderated pitch are encouraged. Changes in
roof form accompanied with offsets in elevations are encouraged. Flat roofs with
membranes or built up roofing materials are discouraged when visible.
✓
Multi -Building Projects have different floor elevations to achieve height variation and
avoid long continuous building masses. Articulated facades and variations in roof
forms are required. Buildings near hillside rims have a staggered arrangement and are
screened with planting.
✓
Building Materials, texture and color meet criteria and color coordinate with the
predominant colors and values of the surrounding landscape. Building walls and
roofs are of recommended materials.
✓
Walls, fences and accessory structures are compatible with adjacent buildings and are
designed to respect views. Front yard fences are of an open design and provide a
landscaped buffer. Walls and materials are of appropriate materials.
• Retaining walls meet height restrictions of 4 feet on upslopes and 3 feet on
downslopes. Terraced retaining walls are separated by a minimum of three feet and
landscaped. Retaining walls holding back grade to accommodate a patio or terrace
conform to the natural contours as much as possible and excessively high retaining
walls are prohibited.
✓
* Decks do not create excessively high distances between the structure and grade.
✓
* Mechanical equipment is screened from view.
IV.A8. Planting Design for Hillside Residential Development
Y
N
NA
- -- - --
✓
Major rock outcroppings and planting patterns of native plants and trees are respected
and retained. Replacement trees are planted with irregularly grouped trees which
retain a similar appearance from a distance.
EXF[I [I > 71® 3
Y
N
NA
✓
✓
New plantings have been selected for their effectiveness of erosion control, fire
resistance and drought tolerance and consider neighbors' views. Native plants are
used.
✓
* Irrigation systems and mulching are provided.
✓
Existing scarred or graded areas with high visibility are revegetated.
✓
Special planting guidelines for 2:1 slopes are followed.
✓
Graded slopes have trees planted along contour lines in undulating groups and trees
are located in swale areas.
✓
Public rights-of-way are landscaped.
T_____
,
Transition zones are planted in high fire hazard areas and building envelopes are
located to minimize risk to structures. Planting materials are fire retardant.
Subdivisions have provided an arborist's report to analyze site fire hazards.
IV.A9. Site Lighting
Y
N
NA
✓
Site lighting which is visible is indirect or incorporates full shield cut-offs. Adjacent
properties are not illuminated and light sources are not seen from adjacent properties
or public rights-of-way.
✓
Overhead lighting in parking areas is mounted at a maximum height of 15 feet and
does not interfere with bedroom windows.
✓
Overhead lighting in pedestrian areas does not exceed 8 feet in height and low-level
lighting is used along walkways.
✓
* Exterior floor lighting is located and shielded so that it does not shine on adjacent
properties. Decorative lighting to highlight a structure is prohibited and not shown.
IV.BL Subdivisions and Planned Development Projects
Y
N
NA
✓
Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, street layout and design,
hillside grading and drainage, and lot configuration, building setback and locations
have been met and building envelopes established on all lots.
Cluster developments meet the following criteria: Flexible front and side setbacks are
provided; large expanses of flat areas, such as parking lots, are avoided; buildings are
sited with units having different floor elevations to achieve height variation; buildings
near hillside rims are sited in a staggered arrangement and screened with planting;
existing vegetation is retained; and flag lots which encourage terracing of buildings and
minimize cuts and fills are allowed.
✓
Long continuous building masses are avoided and groups of building are designed with
visible differences through materials, colors, forms and fagade variation. Facades are
articulated and rooflines avoid extended horizontal lines. Building facades have a
mixture of vertical and horizontal elements, but emphasize verticality. Alignments of
units are staggered horizontally and vertically to create unit identity, privacy at
entryways and in private outdoor spaces and to shape open space. Buildings may be
terraced and building clusters are separated with expanses of open space.
EXHIBIT 3.4
IV.B2 Single Family Residences on Individual Lots
Y
N
NA
✓
✓
Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and
drainage, reduction of building bulk, architectural character, and planting design are
met.
✓
* An exception is necessary to allow tandem parking on lots served by an access
drive if it minimizes the impact of hillside development.
✓
Common driveways are encouraged.
✓
* The driveway grade does not exceed 18% or an exception is required. Drainage
from the driveway is directed in a controlled manner. The finished grade of the
✓
driveway conforms to the finished grade of the lot.
IV.B3 Multi -family Residential Development
Y
N
NA
✓
Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and
drainage, reduction of building bulk, architectural character, site lighting and planting
design are met.
✓
Yard setbacks and group common and private open space meet zoning ordinance
requirements. A children's play area is provided on developments with over 25 units.
The site design utilizes opportunities such as outdoor decks, roof gardens, terraces,
bay windows, framing of views, pergolas, view lookouts, and sculptured stairs and
walkways.
✓
Large expanses of flat areas, such as parking lots, are avoided; buildings are sited with
units having different floor elevations to achieve height variation; buildings near
hillside rims are sited in a staggered arrangement and screened with planting; existing
vegetation is retained; and flag lots which encourage terracing of buildings and
minimize cuts and fills are allowed.
✓
Long continuous building masses are avoided and groups of building are designed
with visible differences through materials, colors, forms, and fagade variation.
Building facades do not create a ground level wall of repetitive garage doors. Facades
are articulated and rooflines avoid extended horizontal lines. Building facades have a
mixture of vertical and horizontal elements, but emphasize verticality. Alignments of
units are staggered horizontally and vertically to create unit identity, privacy at
entryways and in private outdoor spaces and to shape open -space. Buildings may be
terraced and building clusters are separated with expanses of open space.
✓
Tuck under parking is encouraged. 10% of the parking lot area is landscaped or trees
planted as required by the zoning ordinance.
IV.C1 Highly Visible Ridgeline Areas
✓ * Development is located within 100 feet of a significant ridgeline.
✓ Designs minimize grading and building pads. Structures and fences do not project
above the ridgeline and views of the natural ridge silhouettes is retained. Roads near
ridges and on slopes are designed to accommodate grade and cut slopes are rounded
off.
EXHIM [l 3.5
IV.C2 Hillside Drainage Swales and Drainage Ravines
Y
N
NA
Geotechnical Review
✓
✓ Drainage Report
✓
* A hydrologic analysis has been prepared and inadequate on and off-site existing
✓ Arborist's Report
hillside storm drainage facilities will be replaced. Appropriate setbacks from
✓
✓
drainages have been established to preserve natural drainage patterns and public
safety. Slope stability hazards in watersheds have been studied and measures
proposed to protect downslope properties (Subdivisions)
General plan setbacks from drainageways, creeks, and wetlands are met. (General
Plan standard, exceptions cannot be granted) Subdivisions and other major projects
have provided a biotic report to establish the appropriate setback.
✓
* Debris basins, rip -rap, and energy dissipation devices are provided when necessary
to reduce erosion when grading is undertaken. Significant natural drainage courses
are protected from grading activity and are integrated into project design. When
crossing is required, a natural crossing and bank protection is provided. Any brow
ditches are naturalized with plant materials and native rocks.
✓
Steam bank stabilization is done through stream rehabilitation and not through
concrete channels or other mechanical means. Stream planting utilizes indigenous
riparian vegetation.
IV.C3 Hillslope Habitat Areas
Y
N
NA
Geotechnical Review
✓ Drainage Report
✓
Cluster housing is encouraged and provisions regarding reduction of building bulls on
✓ Arborist's Report
hillsides, architectural character, and site lighting are followed.
✓
✓
Existing vegetation is incorporated into the project design and used to screen
development from offsite views.
Indicate any special requirements
Y
N NA
✓
Geotechnical Review
✓ Drainage Report
✓ Biological Survey
✓ Arborist's Report
✓ Photo Montage and/or model
✓
Site Staking
Comments on overall project compliance and design quality
Perry Walk right-of-way being only 15 feet and encumbered by improvements, the site is not
adequately accessible by private or emergency vehicles. The project design does not provide
adequately designed onsite parking.
The proposed structure size is too large for the site. However, the project would rehabilitate the
poorly graded site.
Exceptions or waivers and Variances are required for the project which can be approved by the City
Council with recommendation of the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission
EXHIBIT 3.6
The project requires an exception to the Hillside Development Overlay District (SRMC 14.12) to
decrease the required minimum natural state from 85% to 83.7%, to reduce the required number of
parking spaces from 4 to 2 and to encroach into 20 -ft. stepback height along 29% of the side length
of building where 25% encroachment is allowed. A Variance to exceed the maximum allowed 30 -ft.
height by approximately 13/4 feet along a 3 -ft. length of building side, to encroach 20 feet into the
required 20 -ft. front yard setback and to encroach 8'/2 feet into the required 10 -ft. east side setback
are required.
Variance to the front and side yard setback and to exceed the maximum allowed building height can
be reviewed by the Planning Commission upon recommendation of the Design Review Board.
If any of the above listed Exceptions to natural state, building stepback height and parking
requirements is pursued, the project would require the City Council approval upon the
recommendation of the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission.
EXHIB� LIQ 3 o ll